IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-11-04-efd.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Choice Experiments in Enviromental Impact Assessment: The Toro 3 Hydroelectric Project and the Recreo Verde Tourist Center in Costa Rica

Author

Listed:
  • Carías Vega , Dora
  • Alpízar, Francisco

Abstract

Choice experiments, a stated preference valuation method, are proposed as a tool to assign monetary values to environmental externalities during the ex-ante stages of environmental impact assessment. This case study looks at the impacts of the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity’s Toro 3 hydroelectric project and its affects on the Recreo Verde tourism center in San Carlos, Costa Rica. Compared to other valuation methods (e.g., travel cost and contingent valuation), choice experiments can create hypothetical but realistic scenarios for consumers and generate restoration alternatives for the affected good. Although they have limitations that must be taken into account in environmental impact assessments, incorporating economic parameters—especially resource constraints and tradeoffs—can substantially enrich the assessment process.

Suggested Citation

  • Carías Vega , Dora & Alpízar, Francisco, 2011. "Choice Experiments in Enviromental Impact Assessment: The Toro 3 Hydroelectric Project and the Recreo Verde Tourist Center in Costa Rica," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-04-efd, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-11-04-efd
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/EfD-DP-11-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    2. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    3. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Economics Working Papers 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    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. Kennedy Otieno, Pambo, 2013. "Analysis of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Fortified Sugar in Kenya," Research Theses 243455, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    2. Ilja Neustadt, 2011. "Do Religious Beliefs Explain Preferences for Income Redistribution? Experimental Evidence," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 57(4), pages 623-652, December.
    3. Fitsum Dechasa & Feyera Senbeta & Dawit Diriba Guta, 2021. "Economic value of wetlands services in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 29-53, January.
    4. repec:fpr:export:1337 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Neustadt, Ilja & Zweifel, Peter, 2010. "Is the Welfare State Sustainable? Experimental Evidence on Citizens' Preferences for Redistribution," MPRA Paper 22233, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. António Menezes & José Vieira, 2006. "Willingness to Pay for Airline Services Attributes: Microeconometric Evidence from a Stated Preference Discrete Choice Model," EcoMod2006 272100063, EcoMod.
    7. Hee-Jong Yang & Seul-Ye Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "The Environmental Costs of Photovoltaic Power Plants in South Korea: A Choice Experiment Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-13, September.
    8. Neustadt, Ilja & Zweifel, Peter, 2018. "Redistribution in Whose Favor? Preferences with Regard to Nationality and Type of Beneficiaries," MPRA Paper 119465, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. repec:pra:mprapa:91766 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Wang, Ning & Tang, Linhao & Pan, Huizhong, 2017. "Effectiveness of policy incentives on electric vehicle acceptance in China: A discrete choice analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 210-218.
    11. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    12. Nikolina Dukic Samarzija & Andrea Arbula Blecich & Luka Samarzija, 2018. "The Paradigm Of Patient-Centered Care In The Public Health Decision-Making," Economic Thought and Practice, Department of Economics and Business, University of Dubrovnik, vol. 27(2), pages 503-516, december.
    13. Thijs Schoot & Milena Pavlova & Elka Atanasova & Wim Groot, 2017. "Preferences of Bulgarian consumers for quality, access and price attributes of healthcare services—result of a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 47-71, January.
    14. Pfarr Christian & Ulrich Volker, 2011. "Discrete-Choice-Experimente zur Ermittlung der Präferenzen für Umverteilung," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 62(3), pages 232-262, December.
    15. Villano, Renato & Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie) & Kewa, John & Irving, Donald, 2016. "Factors Affecting Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Good Quality Sweetpotato in Papua New Guinea," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 24, April.
    16. Neustadt, Ilja & Zweifel, Peter, 2011. "Income redistribution: how to divide the pie?," MPRA Paper 35427, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. De Menezes, Antonio Gomes & Vieira, J. C., 2008. "Willingness to pay for airline services attributes: evidence from a stated preferences choice game," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 39, pages 1-13.
    18. Garima Taneja & Barun Deb Pal & Pramod K. Joshi & Pramod K. Aggarwal & N. K. Tyagi, 2014. "Farmers’ Preferences for Climate-Smart Agriculture: An Assessment in the Indo-Gangetic Plain," Working Papers id:5806, eSocialSciences.
    19. Rahel Renata Tanujaya & Chul-Yong Lee & JongRoul Woo & Sung-Yoon Huh & Min-Kyu Lee, 2020. "Quantifying Public Preferences for Community-Based Renewable Energy Projects in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, May.
    20. Taneja, Garima & Pal, Barun Deb & Joshi, Pramod Kumar & Aggarwal, Pramod & Tyagi, N.K., 2014. "Farmers’ preferences for climate-smart agriculture an assessment in the Indo-Gangetic plain:," IFPRI discussion papers 1337, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    21. Nikolina Dukić Samaržija, 2019. "Determining the Marginal Willingness to Pay for the Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Croatia: A Best-Worst Scaling Approach," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 41(4), pages 433-447, December.
    22. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    stated-preference; economic valuation; choice experiments; hydropower; tourism; Costa Rica;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-11-04-efd. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.