Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments

This paper presents a choice experiment analyzing the consumers' preferences towards a policy for replacing conventional electricity with electricity generated from forest biomass. The results show that consumers specially prefer the effects related to the lower risk of forest fires and to the decrease in pressure on non-renewable resources. The article also presents a methodological test in relation to the payment timeframe and its effect on marginal willingness to pay and consistency of responses using choice experiments. The most frequent and realistic payments are associated with lower presence of inconsistent responses. Finally, we cannot reject the null hypothesis of no effects of payment timeframe on marginal willingness to pay.

[1]  R. Luce,et al.  Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement , 1964 .

[2]  Carmelo Javier León González,et al.  Consistencia en la elección de políticas ambientales con efectos en la salud , 2004 .

[3]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments , 2008 .

[4]  David F. Layton,et al.  Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change , 2000, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[5]  D. Brookshire,et al.  Valuing Increments and Decrements in Natural Resource Service Flows , 1980 .

[6]  Alberto Longo,et al.  The Internalization of Externalities in the Production of Electricity: Willingness to Pay for the Attributes of a Policy for Renewable Energy , 2006 .

[7]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .

[8]  Jeffrey Englin,et al.  Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods , 1997 .

[9]  Marisa J. Mazzotta,et al.  Decision Making When Choices Are Complex: A Test of Heiner's Hypothesis , 1995 .

[10]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Are preferences stable? The case of health care , 2002 .

[11]  J. Bennett,et al.  Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies , 2000 .

[12]  F. Johnson,et al.  Who pays attention in stated-choice surveys? , 2009, Health economics.

[13]  Peter Martinsson,et al.  Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment , 2001 .

[14]  F. Johnson,et al.  Sources and Effects of Utility-Theoretic Inconsistency in Stated-Preference Surveys , 2001 .

[15]  J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[16]  Allison M. Borchers,et al.  Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source? A contingent choice experiment , 2007 .

[17]  L. Thurstone.  A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[18]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[19]  I. Bateman.  Economic valuation with stated preference techniques : a manual : department for transport , 2002 .

[20]  A. Bergmann,et al.  Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments , 2008 .

[21]  Susana Mourato,et al.  Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments , 2002 .

[22]  K. Sælensminde,et al.  The Impact of Choice Inconsistencies in Stated Choice Studies , 2002 .

[23]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment , 2005, Land Economics.

[24]  J. Bennett,et al.  The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation , 2001 .

[25]  Albino Prada,et al.  Green electricity externalities: Forest biomass in an Atlantic European Region , 2009 .

[26]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[27]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: Implications of discontinuous preferences , 2002 .

[28]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities , 1986 .

[29]  M. Soliño,et al.  Designing a forest-energy policy to reduce forest fires in Galicia (Spain): A contingent valuation application , 2010 .

[30]  J. Hougaard,et al.  Testing Preference Axioms in Discrete Choice experiments: A Reappraisal , 2006 .

[31]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences , 2001 .

[32]  A. Gómez-Lobo,et al.  Choice complexity in a Stated Choice Experiment: valuing environmental resources in Chile , 2003 .

[33]  R. Young,et al.  Option Value: Empirical Evidence from a Case Study of Recreation and Water Quality , 1981 .

[34]  Thomas Sundqvist,et al.  Power generation choice in the presence of environmental externalities , 2002 .

[35]  Joffre Swait,et al.  The Effect of Choice Environment and Task Demands on Consumer Behavior: Discriminating Between Contribution and Confusion , 1996 .

[36]  M. Soliño,et al.  The influence of home-site factors on residents' willingness to pay: An application for power generation from scrubland in Galicia, Spain , 2009 .

[37]  Angela Bate,et al.  Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care , 2001 .

[38]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[39]  F. Carlsson.  Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics? , 2010 .

[40]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Landscape externalities from onshore wind power , 2010 .

[41]  K. Train,et al.  Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[42]  Jeremy Firestone,et al.  Valuing the Visual Disamenity of Offshore Wind Power Projects at Varying Distances from the Shore: An Application on the Delaware Shoreline , 2011, Land Economics.

[43]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? , 2006, Health economics.

[44]  Albino Prada,et al.  Social demand for electricity from forest biomass in Spain: Does payment periodicity affect the willingness to pay? , 2009 .

[45]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies , 2009 .

[46]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain , 2002 .

[47]  K. Lancaster.  A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[48]  A. Bergmann,et al.  Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments , 2006 .

[49]  David S. Brookshire,et al.  An experiment on the economic value of visibility , 1980 .

[50]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  'Irrational' stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. , 2005, Health economics.

[51]  A. Scott,et al.  Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care , 2002 .

[52]  T. Tyrrell,et al.  Estimating the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements in the Upper Narragansett Bay , 1992, Marine Resource Economics.

[53]  Jacob Ladenburg,et al.  Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in denmark , 2007 .

[54]  Trine Kjær,et al.  A review of the discrete choice experiment - with emphasis on its application in health care , 2005 .

[55]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1985 .

[56]  K. Train.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .

[57]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[58]  Robert A. Young,et al.  Recreational Demands for Maintaining Instream Flows: A Contingent Valuation Approach , 1981 .