IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eechap/13208_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Non-use Values of Ecosystems Dependent on the Indus River, Pakistan: A Spatially Explicit, Multi-ecosystem Choice Experiment

In: Choice Experiments in Developing Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Dehlavi
  • Ben Groom
  • Babar Naseem Khan
  • Amna Shahb

Abstract

Choice Experiments in Developing Countries is an invaluable one-stop presentation of the best-practice case studies implementing the choice experiment method in developing countries. It highlights the theoretical and practical issues that should be taken into consideration when applying this method in a developing country context.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Dehlavi & Ben Groom & Babar Naseem Khan & Amna Shahb, 2010. "Non-use Values of Ecosystems Dependent on the Indus River, Pakistan: A Spatially Explicit, Multi-ecosystem Choice Experiment," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    • Handle: RePEc:elg:eechap:13208_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781848440036.00017.xml
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grosjean, Pauline & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "How Sustainable are Sustainable Development Programs? The Case of the Sloping Land Conversion Program in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 268-285, January.
    2. Jalan, Jyotsna & Somanathan, E., 2008. "The importance of being informed: Experimental evidence on demand for environmental quality," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 14-28, August.
    3. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    4. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
    5. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    6. Jyotsna Jalan & E.Somanathan, 2004. "Being informed matters: Experimental evidence on the demand for environmental quality," Discussion Papers 04-08, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    7. David Pearce & Corin Pearce & Charles Palmer (ed.), 2002. "Valuing the Environment in Developing Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1838.
    8. Markandya, A. & Murty, M.N., 2004. "Cost–benefit analysis of cleaning the Ganges: some emerging environment and development issues," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 61-81, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    3. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    4. Ndebele, Tom & Johnston, Robert J. & Newburn, David, 2020. "Transaction Costs and Household Adoption of Stormwater Best Management Practices," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304338, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Ahtiainen, Heini & Tienhaara, Annika & Pouta, Eija & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2017. "Role of information in the valuation of unfamiliar goods – the case of genetic resources in agriculture," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261423, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Uggeldahl, Kennet & Jacobsen, Catrine & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2016. "Choice certainty in Discrete Choice Experiments: Will eye tracking provide useful measures?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 35-48.
    7. Kemper, Nathan & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Popp, Jennie & Bazzani, Claudia, 2016. "The Effects of Honesty Oath and Consequentiality in Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235381, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    9. Anthony PARIS & Pascal GASTINEAU & Pierre-Alexandre MAHIEU & Benoît CHEZE, 2020. "Citizen involvement in the energy transition: Highlighting the role played by the spatial heterogeneity of preferences in the public acceptance of biofuels," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2828, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    10. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Trine Kjær, 2012. "Disentangling WTP per QALY data: different analytical approaches, different answers," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 222-237, March.
    11. Robert Johnston & Joshua Duke, 2008. "Benefit Transfer Equivalence Tests with Non-normal Distributions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(1), pages 1-23, September.
    12. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Bishop, Richard C., 2018. "Warm Glow, Good Feelings, and Contingent Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    15. Duke, Joshua M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Systematic Influences of Policy Implementation and Conservation Agents on Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21234, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Hermann Donfouet & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Eric Malin, 2013. "Using respondents’ uncertainty scores to mitigate hypothetical bias in community-based health insurance studies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 277-285, April.
    17. Sheila M. Olmstead, 2010. "The Economics of Water Quality," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 44-62, Winter.
    18. Phoebe Koundouri & Nikos Papandreou & Kyriaki Remoundou & Yiannis Kountouris, 2013. "A Bird s Eye View of the Greek Water Situation: The Potential for the Implementation of the EU WFD," DEOS Working Papers 1309, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    19. Antonio Estache, 2010. "A survey of impact evaluations of infrastructure projects, programs and policies," Working Papers ECARES 2010_005, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    20. Ebun Akinsete & Stella Apostolaki & Osiel Gonzalez Davila & Amerissa Giannouli & Stavros Gavroglou & Alice Guittard & Phoebe Koundouri & Eleftherios Levantis & Elisavet Mouslech & Vasileios Pergamalis, 2019. "Managing the effects of multiple stressors on aquatic ecosystems under water scarcity," DEOS Working Papers 1906, Athens University of Economics and Business.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:elg:eechap:13208_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Darrel McCalla (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.e-elgar.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.