Information Use and Its Effects on the Valuation of Agricultural Genetic Resources

References

1. ↵
   1. Aanesen Margarethe,
   2. Armstrong Claire,
   3. Czajkowski Mikołaj,
   4. Falk-Petersen Jannike,
   5. Hanley Nick,
   6. Navrud Ståle

   . 2015. “Willingness to Pay for Unfamiliar Public Goods: Preserving Cold-Water Coral in Norway.” Ecological Economics 112: 53–67.

   OpenUrl
2. ↵
   1. Ahtiainen Heini,
   2. Pouta Eija,
   3. Artell Janne

   . 2015. “Modelling Asymmetric Preferences for Water Quality in Choice Experiments with Individual-Specific Status Quo Alternatives.” Water Resources and Economics 12: 1–13.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Bergstrom John C.,
   2. Stoll John R.,
   3. Randall Alan

   . 1990. “The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72 (3): 614–21.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
4. ↵
   1. Berrens Robert P.,
   2. Bohara Alok K.,
   3. Jenkins-Smith Hank C.,
   4. Silva Carol L.,
   5. Weimer David L.

   . 2004. “Information and Effort in Contingent Valuation Surveys: Application to Global Climate Change Using National Internet Samples.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47 (2): 331–63.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
5. ↵
   1. Bieberstein Andrea,
   2. Roosen Jutta,
   3. Marette Stéphan,
   4. Blanchemanche Sandrine,
   5. Vandermoere Fredréric

   . 2013. “Consumer Choices for Nano-food and Nano-packaging in France and Germany.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 40 (1): 73–94.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
6. ↵
   1. Blomquist Glenn C.,
   2. Whitehead John C.

   . 1998. “Resource Quality Information and Validity of Willingness to Pay in Contingent Valuation.” Resource and Energy Economics 20 (2): 179–96.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
7. ↵
   1. Cameron Trudy Ann,
   2. Englin Jeffrey

   . 1997. “Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33 (3): 296–313.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
8. ↵
   1. Chalak Ali,
   2. Abiad Mohamad

   . 2012. “How Effective Is Information Provision in Shaping Food Safety Related Purchasing Decisions? Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Lebanon.” Food Quality and Preference 26 (1): 81–92.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
9. ↵
   1. Christie Mike,
   2. Gibbons James

   . 2011. “The Effect of Individual ‘Ability to Choose’ (Scale Heterogeneity) on the Valuation of Environmental Goods.” Ecological Economics 70 (12): 2250–57.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Curtin Polly,
    2. Papworth Sarah

    . 2018. “Increased Information and Marketing to Specific Individuals Could Shift Conservation Support to Less Popular Species.” Marine Policy 88: 101–7.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Czajkowski Mikołaj,
    2. Budziński Wiktor

    . 2019. “Simulation Error in Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Discrete Choice Models.” Journal of Choice Modelling 31: 73–85.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Czajkowski Mikołaj,
    2. Giergiczny Marek,
    3. Zawojska Ewa

    . 2015. “Does the Number of Discrete Choice Alternatives Matter for Respondents’ Stated Preferences? The Case of Tap Water Quality Improvements.” Working Paper 35/2015 (183). Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Poland.
13. ↵
    1. Czajkowski Mikołaj,
    2. Hanley Nick,
    3. LaRiviere Jacob

    . 2014. “The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 97 (1): 333–51.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Czajkowski Mikołaj,
    2. Hanley Nick,
    3. LaRiviere Jacob

    . 2016. “Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model.” Environmental and Resource Economics 63 (3): 523–44.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Emberger-Klein Agnes,
    2. Menrad Klaus

    . 2018. “The Effect of Information Provision on Supermarket Consumers’ Use of and Preference for Carbon Labels in Germany.” Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 253–63.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2007. The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: FAO. Available at https://www.fao.org/3/a1260e/a1260e00.htm.
17. ↵
    1. Fiebig Denzil G.,
    2. Keane Michael P.,
    3. Louviere Jordan,
    4. Wasi Nada

    . 2010. “The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity.” Marketing Science 29 (3): 393–421.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
18. ↵
    1. Greene William H.

    2007. Econometric Analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19. ↵
    1. Hanley Nick,
    2. Czajkowski Mikołaj

    . 2019. “The Role of Stated Preference Valuation Methods in Understanding Choices and Informing Policy.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 13 (2): 248–66.

    OpenUrl
20. ↵
    1. Hanley Nick,
    2. Wright Robert E.,
    3. Alvarez-Farizo Begona

    . 2006. “Estimating the Economic Value of Improvements in River Ecology Using Choice Experiments: An Application to the Water Framework Directive.” Journal of Environmental Management 78 (2): 183–93.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. ↵
    1. Hensher David A.,
    2. Greene William H.

    . 2003. “The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice.” Transportation 30 (2): 133–76.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
22. ↵
    1. Hensher David A.,
    2. Rose John M.,
    3. Greene William H.

    . 2015. Applied Choice Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23. ↵
    1. Hensher David A.,
    2. Rose John M.,
    3. Li Zheng

    . 2012. “Does the Choice Model Method and/or the Data Matter?” Transportation 39 (2): 351–85.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Hess Stephane,
    2. Rose John M.

    . 2012. “Can Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity Be Separated in Random Coefficients Models?” Transportation 39 (6): 1225–39.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
25. ↵
    1. Hess Stephane,
    2. Train Kenneth

    . 2017. “Correlation and Scale in Mixed Logit Models.” Journal of Choice Modelling 23: 1–8.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Hoehn John P.,
    2. Randall Alan

    . 1987. “A Satisfactory Benefit Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14 (3): 226–47.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
27. ↵
    1. Hu Wuyang,
    2. Adamowicz Wiktor L.,
    3. Veeman Michele M.

    . 2009. “Consumers’ Preferences for GM Food and Voluntary Information Access: A Simultaneous Choice Analysis.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57 (2): 241–67.

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. Jobstvogt Niels,
    2. Hanley Nick,
    3. Hynes Stephen,
    4. Kenter Jasper,
    5. Witte Ursula

    . 2014. “Twenty Thousand Sterling under the Sea: Estimating the Value of Protecting Deep-Sea Biodiversity.” Ecological Economics 97: 10–19.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Johnston Robert J.,
    2. Boyle Kevin J.,
    3. Adamowicz Wiktor,
    4. Bennett Jeff,
    5. Brouwer Roy,
    6. Cameron Trudy Ann,
    7. Michael Hanemann W.,
    8. et al

    . 2017. “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economics 4 (2): 319–405.

    OpenUrl
30. ↵
    1. Louviere Jordan J.

    2006. “What You Don’t Know Might Hurt You: Some Unresolved Issues in the Design and Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments.” Environmental and Resource Economics 34 (1): 173–88.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
31. ↵
    1. Louviere Jordan J.,
    2. Street Deborah,
    3. Carson Richard,
    4. Ainslie Andrew,
    5. Marley Tony

    . 2002. “Dissecting the Random Component of Utility.” Marketing Letters 13 (3): 177–93.

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    1. McFadden Daniel

    . 1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by Zarembka Paul, 105–42. New York: Academic Press.
33. ↵
    1. McFadden David,
    2. Train Kenneth

    . 2000. “Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 15 (5): 447–70.

    OpenUrl
34. ↵
    1. Munro Alistair,
    2. Hanley Nick D.

    . 2002. “Information, Uncertainty, and Contingent Valuation.” In Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries, edited by Bateman Ian J., and Willis Kenneth G., 258–79. New York: Oxford University Press.
35. ↵
    1. Pallante Giacomo,
    2. Drucker Adam G.,
    3. Sthapit Sajal

    . 2016. “Assessing the Potential for Niche Market Development to Contribute to Farmers’ Livelihoods and Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Insights from the Finger Millet Case Study in Nepal.” Ecological Economics 130: 92–105.

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Pehu T.,
    2. Kiviharju E.,
    3. Rusanen M.,
    4. Kantanen J.,
    5. Heinimaa P.

    . 2018. Finnish National Genetic Resources Programme for Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery. Helsinki: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Available at https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/162190.
37. ↵
    1. Pouta Eija,
    2. Tienhaara Annika,
    3. Ahtiainen Heini

    . 2014. “Citizens’ Preferences for the Conservation of Agricultural Genetic Resources.” Frontiers in Genetics 5: 440.

    OpenUrl
38. ↵
    1. Revelt David,
    2. Train Kenneth

    . 1998. “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households’ Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level.” Review of Economics and Statistics 80 (4): 647–57.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
39. ↵
    1. Rose John M.,
    2. Bliemer Michiel C. J.

    . 2009. “Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs.” Transport Reviews 29 (5): 587–617.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
40. ↵
    1. Ruokamo Enni,
    2. Czajkowski Mikołaj,
    3. Hanley Nick,
    4. Juutinen Artti,
    5. Svento Rauli

    . 2016. “Linking Perceived Choice Complexity with Scale Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice Experiments: Home Heating in Finland.” Working Paper 30/2016 (221). Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, Poland.
41. ↵
    1. Sandorf Erlend Dancke,
    2. Campbell Danny,
    3. Hanley Nick

    . 2017. “Disentangling the Influence of Knowledge on Attribute Non-attendance.” Journal of Choice Modelling 24: 36–50.

    OpenUrl
42. 1. Tienhaara Annika,
    2. Ahtiainen Heini,
    3. Pouta Eija

    . 2015. “Consumer and Citizen Roles and Motives in the Valuation of Agricultural Genetic Resources in Finland.” Ecological Economics 114: 1–10.

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. Tisdell Clem,
    2. Wilson Clevo

    . 2006. “Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments and Policy.” Contemporary Economic Policy 24 (1): 144–59.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
44. ↵
    1. Train Kenneth,
    2. Weeks Melvyn

    . 2005. “Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to-Pay Space.” In Applications of Simulations Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. The Economics of Non-market Goods and Resources, edited by Scarpa Riccardo, and Alberini Anna, 1–16. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
45. ↵
    1. van Til J. A.,
    2. Stiggelbout A. M.,
    3. Ijzerman M. J.

    . 2009. “The Effect of Information on Preferences Stated in a Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis.” Patient Education and Counseling 74 (2): 264–71.

    OpenUrlPubMed
46. ↵
    1. Vista Arvin B.,
    2. Rosenberger Randall S.,
    3. Collins Alan R.

    . 2009. “If You Provide It, Will They Read It? Response Time Effects in a Choice Experiment.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 57 (3): 365–77.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
47. ↵
    1. Zander Kerstin K.,
    2. Signorello Giovanni,
    3. Salvo Maria De,
    4. Gandini Gustavo,
    5. Drucker Adam G.

    . 2013. “Assessing the Total Economic Value of Threatened Livestock Breeds in Italy: Implications for Conservation Policy.” Ecological Economics 93: 219–29.

    OpenUrl