Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Benefit Transfer: Insights from Choice Experiments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values

Part of the book series: The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources ((ENGO,volume 14))

Abstract

In this chapter we explore six key reasons for the close alignment of choice modeling (CM) experiments with benefit transfer applications. Of these six, some relate to the richness of value estimate output that is generated in CM applications, whereas others involve the insights into choice behavior and the nature of preferences that are gained through the use of the technique. These outcomes improve the accuracy of the benefit transfer process and also provide more verification and confidence in the results. An additional focus of the chapter is to explore the tension between improving the accuracy and insights from CM on the one hand against, on the other, the need to make benefit transfer practical and operational. Although there is an extensive literature on the development and operation of the CM technique, it is not practical to cover this in a single chapter; instead the focus here is on the aspects of CMs that offer the most insight into benefit transfer processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz, W., Bunch, D., Cameron, T. A., Dellaert, B. G. C., Hanneman, M., Keane, M., et al. (2008). Behavioral frontiers in choice modelling. Marketing Letters, 19, 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alemu, M. H., Mørkbak, M. R., Olsen, S. B., & Jensen, C. L. (2013). Attending to the reasons for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments. Environmental & Resource Economics, 54, 333–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Learner, E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601–4614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I. J., Burgess, D., Hutchinson, W. G., & Matthews, D. I. (2008). Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55, 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, W., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002). Environmental valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., & Blamey, R. (Eds.). (2001). Choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, J.C., & Taylor, L.O. (2006). Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice. Ecological Economics, 60, 351–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, R. K., Bennett, J. W., Louviere, J. J., Morrison, M. D., & Rolfe, J. (2000). A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies. Ecological Economics, 32, 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, R., Gordon, J., & Chapman, R. (1999). Choice modeling: Assessing the environmental values of water supply options. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 43, 337–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall, P., & Adamowicz, W. (2002). Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: A latent class approach. Environmental & Resource Economics, 23, 421–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall, P., Adamowicz, W. L., & Moon, A. (2009). Complexity in choice experiments: Choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53, 503–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, K. J., & Özdemir, S. (2009). Convergent validity of attribute-based, choice questions in stated-preference studies. Environmental & Resource Economics, 42, 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braga, J., & Starmer, C. (2005). Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environmental & Resource Economics, 32, 55–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, R. (2000). Environmental value transfer: State of the art and future prospects. Ecological Economics, 32, 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, R., Dekker, T., Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. (2010). Choice certainty and consistency in repeated choice experiments. Environmental & Resource Economics, 46, 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, R., & Spaninks, F. A. (1999). The validity of environmental benefits transfer: Further empirical testing. Environmental & Resource Economics, 14, 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D., Hensher, D. A., & Scarpa, R. (2011). Non-atttendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: A latent class specification. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54, 1061–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D., Hensher, D. A., & Scarpa, R. (2012). Cost thresholds, cut-offs and sensitivities in stated choice analysis: Identification and implications. Resource and Energy Economics, 34, 396–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., & Lampi, E. (2010). Dealing with ignored attributes in choice experiments on valuation of Sweden’s environmental quality objectives. Environmental & Resource Economics, 47, 65–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Lampi, E., Löfgren, A., & Sterner, T. (2011). Is fairness blind?—The effect of framing on preferences for effort-sharing rules. Ecological Economics, 70, 1529–1535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, F., & Martinsson, P. (2008). How much is too much? An investigation of the effect of the number of choice sets, context dependence and the choice of bid vectors in choice experiments. Environmental & Resource Economics, 40, 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., Louviere, J., Anderson, D., Arabie, P., Bunch, D., Hensher, D., et al. (1994). Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters, 5, 351–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caussade, S., Ortuzar, J., Rizzi, L., & Hensher, D. (2005). Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transportation Research Part B, 39, 621–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R., & Hyde, T. (2006). Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 58, 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, S., Hanley, N., & Calatrava-Requena, J. (2005). Designing policy for reducing the off-farm effects of soil erosion using choice experiments. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56, 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Concu, G. (2007). Investigating distance effects on environmental values: A choice modelling approach. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 51, 175–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czajkowski, M., & Hanley, N. (2009). Using labels to investigate scope effects in stated preference methods. Environmental & Resource Economics, 44, 521–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, B., Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Dupont, D., Louviere, J. J., Morimoto, S., et al. (2012). Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63, 73–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, B., & Prades, P. J.-L. (2010). Ordering anomalies in choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59, 271–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeShazo, J. R., & Fermo, G. (2002). Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: The effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R. (1997). Context and task effect on choice deferral. Marketing Letters, 8, 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., & Simpson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 146–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggert, H., & Olsson, B. (2009). Valuing multi-attribute marine water quality. Marine Policy, 33, 201–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenk, K., & Colombo, S. (2011). How sure can you be? A framework for considering delivery uncertainty in benefit assessments based on stated preference methods. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62, 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., Adamowicz, W., & Wright, R. E. (2005). Price vector effects in choice experiments: An empirical test. Resource and Energy Economics, 27, 227–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., Czajkowski, M., Hanley-Nickolls, R., & Redpath, S. (2010). Economic values of species management options in human–wildlife conflicts: Hen harriers in Scotland. Ecological Economics, 70, 107–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D. A. (2006). Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionalities of stated choice designs: An initial assessment. Environmental & Resource Economics, 34, 7–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D. A. (2008). Joint estimation of process and outcome in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 42, 297–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn, J. P. (1991). Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy: Theory and methods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn, J. P., & Randall, A. (1989). Too many proposals pass the benefit cost test. American Economic Review, 79, 544–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, T. P., & Adamowicz, W. L. (2003). Attribute-based methods. In P. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A primer on nonmarket valuation (pp. 171–219). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, J. B., Boisen, J. H., Thorsen, B. J., & Strange, N. (2008). What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity. Environmental & Resource Economics, 39, 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, Y., Swallow, S. K., & McGonagle, M. (2005). Context-sensitive benefit transfer using stated choice models: Specification and convergent validity for policy analysis. Environmental & Resource Economics, 31, 477–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. J. (2007). Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer. Environmental & Resource Economics, 38, 331–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. J., & Duke, J. M. (2007). Willingness to pay and policy process attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89, 1098–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. J., & Duke, J. M. (2008). Benefit transfer equivalence tests with non-normal distributions. Environmental & Resource Economics, 41, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. J., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2010). Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24, 479–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R. J., Schultz, E. T., Segerson, K., Besedin, E. Y., & Ramachandran, M. (2012). Enhancing the content validity of stated preference valuation: The structure and function of ecological indicators. Land Economics, 88, 102–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R.J., & Thomassin, P.J. (2010). Willingness to pay for water quality improvements in the United States and Canada: Considering possibilities for international meta-analysis and benefit transfer. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 39, 114–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, G.N., & Sharp, B.M.H. (2006). Transferring mitigation values for small streams. In J. Rolfe & J. Bennett (Eds.), Choice Modelling and the Transfer of Environmental Values. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosenius, A. (2010). Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The case of eutrophication of the Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics, 69, 528–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kragt, M. E. (2012). The effects of changing cost vectors on choices and scale heterogeneity. Environmental & Resource Economics, 54, 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristofersson, D., & Navrud, S. (2005). Validity tests of benefit transfer: Are we performing the wrong tests? Environmental & Resource Economics, 30, 279–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladenburg, J., & Olsen, S. B. (2008). Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56, 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leong, W., & Hensher, D. A. (2012). Embedding decision heuristics in discrete choice models: A review. Transport Reviews, 32, 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lew, D. K., & Wallmo, K. (2011). External tests of scope and embedding in stated preference choice experiments: An application for endangered species valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics, 48, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liekens, I., Schaafsma, M., De Nocker, L., Broekx, S., Staes, J., Aertsens, J., & Brouwer, R. (2013). Developing a value function for nature development and land use policy in Flanders, Belgium. Land Use Policy, 30, 549–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, J. (2003). Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 41–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. B., & White, D. S. (1996). Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 18, 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., & Hensher, D. (1982). Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling. Transportation Research Record, 890, 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice of allocation experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L., & Schroeder, T. C. (2004). Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86, 467–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, D., Hanley, N., & Buckland, S. (1996). A contingent valuation study of uncertain environmental gains. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 43, 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNair, B., Bennett, J., & Hensher, D. (2011). A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions. Resource and Energy Economics, 33, 554–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mørkbak, M., Christensen, T., & Gyrd-Hansen, D. (2010). Choke price bias in choice experiments. Environmental & Resource Economics, 45, 537–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M., & Bennett, J. (2000). Choice modelling, non-use values and benefit transfer. Economic Analysis & Policy, 30, 13–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M., & Bennett, J. (2004). Valuing NSW rivers using benefit transfer. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 48, 591–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M., Bennett, J., Blamey, R., & Louviere, J. (2002). Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84, 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M., & Bergland, O. (2006). Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer. Ecological Economics, 60, 420–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse-Jones, S., Bateman, I., Kontoleon, A., Ferrini, S., Burgess, N., & Turner, K. (2012). Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects. Ecological Economics, 78, 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navrud, S., & Ready, R. (Eds.). (2007). Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. C., Boyer, T. A., & Lusk, J. L. (2008). Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty. Ecological Economics, 66, 584–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, J., & Bennett, J. (Eds.). (2006). Choice modelling and the transfer of environmental values. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, J., & Bennett, J. (2009). The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments. Ecological Economics, 68, 1140–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, J., Bennett, J., & Louviere, J. (2000). Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecological Economics, 35, 289–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, J., Bennett, J., & Louviere, J. (2002). Stated values and reminders of substitute goods: Testing for framing effects with choice modelling. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 46, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, J., & Wang, X. (2011). Dealing with scale and scope issues in stated preference experiments. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The international handbook on non-market environmental valuation (pp. 254–272). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. (2008). Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 52, 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. (2012a). Testing benefit transfer of reef protection values between local case studies: The Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Ecological Economics, 81, 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. (2012b). Distance decay functions for iconic assets: Assessing national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Environmental & Resource Economics, 53, 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. (2013). Including management policy options in discrete choice experiments: A case study of the Great Barrier Reef. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 197–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, J., Windle, J., Bennett, J., & Mazur K. (2013). Calibration of values in benefit transfer to account for variations in geographic scale and scope: comparing two choice modelling experiments. Paper presented at the 57th Annual conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Sydney, February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberger, R.S., & Stanley, T.D. (2006). Measurement, generalization and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecological Economics, 60, 372–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rulleau, B., & Dachary-Bernard, J. (2012). Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 41, 198–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa, R., Gilbride, T., Campbell, D., & Hensher, D. A. (2009). Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36, 151–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., & Hensher, D. A. (2010). Monitoring choice task attribute attendance in nonmarket valuation of multiple park management services: Does it matter? Land Economics, 86, 817–839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., & Train, K. (2008). Utility in willingness to pay space: A tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90, 994–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, G., & Bennett, J. (2012). Response strategies and learning in discrete choice experiments. Environmental & Resource Economics, 52, 435–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V.K., & Pattanayak, S.K. (2002). Is meta-analysis a Noah’s Ark for non-market valuation? Environmental and Resource Economics, 22, 271–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K., Pattanayak, S. K., & van Houtven, G. (2006). Structural benefit transfer: An example using VSL estimates. Ecological Economics, 60, 361–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K., van Houtven, G., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2002). Benefit transfer via preference calibration: ‘Prudential algebra’ for policy. Land Economics, 78, 132–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J., & Adamowicz, W. (2001). The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: A latent class model of decision strategy switching. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tait, P., Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., & Bicknell, K. (2012). Nonmarket valuation of water quality: Addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model. Ecological Economics, 75, 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tisdell, C., Wilson, C., & Swarna Nantha, H. (2006). Public choice of species for the ‘Ark’: Phylogenetic similarity and preferred wildlife species for survival. Journal for Nature Conservation, 14, 97–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Bueren, M., & Bennett, J. (2004). Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 48, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Haefen, R. H., Massey, D. M., & Adamowicz, W. L. (2005). Serial nonparticipation in repeated discrete choice models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87, 1061–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, P. C. L., Gregory, K. W., Lindley, P. J., & Richards, G. (1997). Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: A case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. Biological Conservation, 82, 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wielgus, J., Gerber, L. R., Sala, E., & Bennett, J. (2009). Including risk in stated-preference economic valuations: Experiments on choices for marine recreation. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 3401–3409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Law, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia

    John Rolfe & Jill Windle

  2. Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Jeffrey Bennett

Authors
  1. John Rolfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jill Windle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Rolfe .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA

    Robert J. Johnston

  2. School of Business and Law, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia

    John Rolfe

  3. Dept. of Forest Ecosystems & Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

    Randall S. Rosenberger

  4. Department of Environmental Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Roy Brouwer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rolfe, J., Windle, J., Bennett, J. (2015). Benefit Transfer: Insights from Choice Experiments. In: Johnston, R., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R., Brouwer, R. (eds) Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9930-0_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation