when a good is a bad (or a bad is a good)—analysis of data from an ambiguous nonmarket valuation setting
Clicks: 291
ID: 137273
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
291 views
54 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #121 of 935 articles by views in journal of physics: conference series
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 935 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
This paper analyses data from a contingent valuation experiment carried out in a context with large degree of preference heterogeneity and valuation ambiguity. Despite this challenge, by implementing estimation of an unrestricted valuation function on pooled data from two elicitation formats, utilizing all preference information available from the survey, we are able to estimate welfare measures with an acceptable degree of statistical confidence. It turns out that an offshore wind farm, a priori believed to constitute a bad that people would be willing to pay to avoid, instead was a good that people would be willing to forego under compensation. This was true on average but not for all study participants. Two key determinants of preferences were spatial proximity to the proposed wind farm and perceptions of the visual impacts of wind turbines. Individuals who would be near and thought wind turbines are “ugly” had a mean willingness to pay to avoid the wind farm of about $508 per household per year. In contrast, those who would be far away and perceived wind turbines to be “beautiful” had a negative mean willingness to pay to avoid the wind farm of about −$595 per household per year.
| Reference Key |
gudding2018sustainabilitywhen
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Petter Gudding;Gorm Kipperberg;Craig Bond;Kelly Cullen;Eric Steltzer |
| Journal | journal of physics: conference series |
| Year | 2018 |
| DOI |
10.3390/su10010208
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.