The Reliability of Delphi Surveys and Benefit Transfer to Predict Outcomes of Contingent Valuation Estimates

References

1. 1. Amiran, E. Y., &
   2. Hagen, D. A.

   (2010). The scope trials: Variation in sensitivity to scope and WTP with directionally bounded utility functions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59(3), 293–301.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
2. 1. Andersen, L. E.,
   2. Granger, C. W.,
   3. Reis, E. J.,
   4. Weinhold, D., &
   5. Wunder, S.

   (2002). The dynamics of deforestation and economic growth in the Brazilian Amazon. Cambridge University Press.
3. 1. Artell, J.,
   2. Ahtiainen, H., &
   3. Pouta, E.

   (2019). Distance decay and regional statistics in international benefit transfer. Ecological Economics, 164, 106383.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Bakhtiari, F.,
   2. Jacobsen, J. B.,
   3. Thorsen, B. J.,
   4. Lundhede, T. H.,
   5. Strange, N., &
   6. Boman, M.

   (2018). Disentangling distance and country effects on the value of conservation across national borders. Ecological Economics, 147, 11–20.

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Bateman, I. J.,
   2. Brouwer, R.,
   3. Ferrini, S.,
   4. Schaafsma, M.,
   5. Barton, D. N.,
   6. Dubgaard, A.,
   7. Hasler, B.,
   8. Hime, S.,
   9. Liekens, I., &
   10. Navrud, S.

   (2011). Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environmental and Resource Economics, 50(3), 365–387.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
6. 1. Bishop, R. C., &
   2. Boyle, K. J.

   (2019). Reliability and validity in nonmarket valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 72(2), 559–582.

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Bliem, M.,
   2. Getzner, M., &
   3. Rodiga-Laßnig, P.

   (2012). Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. Journal of environmental management, 103, 65–73.

   OpenUrlPubMed
8. 1. Boyle, K. J.,
   2. Kuminoff, N. V.,
   3. Parmeter, C. F., &
   4. Pope, J. C.

   (2010). The benefit-transfer challenges. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ., 2(1), 161–182.

   OpenUrl
9. 1. Brouwer, R.

   (2006). Do stated preference methods stand the test of time? A test of the stability of contingent values and models for health risks when facing an extreme event. Ecological Economics, 60(2), 399–406.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. 1. Brouwer, R.,
    2. Pinto, R.,
    3. Dugstad, A., &
    4. Navrud, S.

    (2022). The economic value of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis of the Brazilian literature. PloS one, 17(5), e0268425.

    OpenUrl
11. 1. Brouwer, R., &
    2. Spaninks, F. A.

    (1999). The validity of environmental benefits transfer: further empirical testing. Environmental and Resource Economics, 14(1), 95–117.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
12. 1. Bullock, E. L.,
    2. Woodcock, C. E.,
    3. Souza Jr, C., &
    4. Olofsson, P.

    (2020). Satellite-based estimates reveal widespread forest degradation in the Amazon. Global Change Biology, 26(5), 2956–2969.

    OpenUrl
13. 1. Cameron, A. C., &
    2. Trivedi, P. K.

    (2005). Microeconometrics: methods and applications. Cambridge university press.
14. 1. Carson, R. T.,
    2. Conaway, M. B., &
    3. Navrud, S.

    (2013). Preliminary valuation of a cultural heritage site of global significance: a Delphi contingent valuation study. In Handbook on the economics of cultural heritage. Edward Elgar Publishing.
15. 1. Carson, R. T., &
    2. Groves, T.

    (2011). Incentive and information properties of preference questions: commentary and extensions. In The international handbook on non-market environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
16. 1. Carson, R. T.,
    2. Hanemann, W. M.,
    3. Kopp, R. J.,
    4. Krosnick, J. A.,
    5. Mitchell, R. C.,
    6. Presser, S.,
    7. Rudd, P. A.,
    8. Smith, V. K.,
    9. Conaway, M., &
    10. Martin, K.

    (1997). Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation. Land economics, 151–163.
17. 1. Czajkowski, M.,
    2. Ahtiainen, H.,
    3. Artell, J., &
    4. Meyerhoff, J.

    (2017). Choosing a functional form for an international benefit transfer: evidence from a nine-country valuation experiment. Ecological Economics, 134, 104–113.

    OpenUrl
18. 1. Dalkey, N., &
    2. Helmer, O.

    (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management science, 9(3), 458–467.

    OpenUrl
19. 1. de Oliveira, G.,
    2. Chen, J. M.,
    3. Mataveli, G. A.,
    4. Chaves, M. E.,
    5. Seixas, H. T.,
    6. Cardozo, F. d. S.,
    7. Shimabukuro, Y. E.,
    8. He, L.,
    9. Stark, S. C., &
    10. dos Santos, C. A.

    (2020). Rapid recent deforestation incursion in a vulnerable indigenous land in the Brazilian Amazon and fire-driven emissions of fine particulate aerosol pollutants. Forests, 11(8), 829.

    OpenUrl
20. 1. Downing, M., &
    2. Ozuna Jr, T.

    (1996). Testing the reliability of the benefit function transfer approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(3), 316–322.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
21. 1. Dugstad, A.,
    2. Grimsrud, K. M.,
    3. Kipperberg, G.,
    4. Lindhjem, H., &
    5. Navrud, S.

    (2021). Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 80(1), 21–57.

    OpenUrl
22. 1. Foley, J. A.,
    2. Asner, G. P.,
    3. Costa, M. H.,
    4. Coe, M. T.,
    5. DeFries, R.,
    6. Gibbs, H. K.,
    7. Howard, E. A.,
    8. Olson, S.,
    9. Patz, J., &
    10. Ramankutty, N.

    (2007). Amazonia revealed: forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(1), 25–32.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
23. 1. Hanley, N.,
    2. MacMillan, D.,
    3. Wright, R. E.,
    4. Bullock, C.,
    5. Simpson, I.,
    6. Parsisson, D., &
    7. Crabtree, B.

    (1998). Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of agricultural economics, 49(1), 1–15.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
24. 1. Horton, B.,
    2. Colarullo, G.,
    3. Bateman, I. J., &
    4. Peres, C. A.

    (2003). Evaluating non-user willingness to pay for a large-scale conservation programme in Amazonia: a UK/Italian contingent valuation study. Environmental conservation, 30(2), 139–146.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
25. 1. Hsu, C.-C., &
    2. Sandford, B. A.

    (2007). The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 12(1), 10.

    OpenUrl
26. 1. Hynes, S.,
    2. Campbell, D., &
    3. Howley, P.

    (2011). A choice experiment versus a contingent valuation approach to agri-environmental policy valuation (Working paper no. 0173).
27. 1. Hynes, S.,
    2. Norton, D., &
    3. Hanley, N.

    (2013). Adjusting for cultural differences in international benefit transfer. Environmental and Resource Economics, 56(4), 499–519.

    OpenUrl
28. 1. Johnston, R. J.,
    2. Boyle, K. J.,
    3. Adamowicz, W.,
    4. Bennett, J.,
    5. Brouwer, R.,
    6. Cameron, T. A.,
    7. Hanemann, W. M.,
    8. Hanley, N.,
    9. Ryan, M., &
    10. Scarpa, R.

    (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2), 319–405.

    OpenUrl
29. 1. Johnston, R. J.,
    2. Boyle, K. J.,
    3. Loureiro, M. L.,
    4. Navrud, S., &
    5. Rolfe, J.

    (2021). Guidance to enhance the validity and credibility of environmental benefit transfers. Environmental and Resource Economics, 79(3), 575–624.

    OpenUrl
30. 1. Johnston, R. J., &
    2. 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(1), 114–131.

    OpenUrl
31. 1. Jusys, T.

    (2016). Fundamental causes and spatial heterogeneity of deforestation in Legal Amazon. Applied Geography, 75, 188–199.

    OpenUrl
32. 1. Kehl, T. N.,
    2. Todt, V.,
    3. Veronez, M. R., &
    4. Cazella, S. C.

    (2015). Real time deforestation detection using ANN and Satellite images: The Amazon Rainforest study case. Springer.
33. 1. Kling, C. L., &
    2. Phaneuf, D. J.

    (2018). How are scope and adding up relevant for benefits transfer? Environmental and Resource Economics, 69(3), 483–502.

    OpenUrl
34. Kommuneprofilen. (2018a). Befolkning fordelt på kvinner og menn. Antall og andel. 2000–2018. Landet i alt. (In Norwegian: Population distributed by females and males. Quantity and shares. 2000-2018. National Statistics, for Norway overall). http://www.kommuneprofilen.no/profil/
35. Kommuneprofilen. (2018b). Gjennomsnittlig inntekt, formue, gjeld og skatt per innbygger*. Landet i alt. (In Norwegian: Average income, wealth, debt and tax per inhabitant, National Statistics, for Norway overall). http://www.kommuneprofilen.no/Profil/Inntekt/DinRegion/innt_hovedposter_region.aspx
36. Kommuneprofilen. (2018c). Gjennomsnittlig alder. 2000-2018. Landet i alt. (In Norwegian: Average age 2008-2018. National Statistics, for Norway overall) http://www.kommuneprofilen.no/Profil/Befolkning/DinRegion/bef_alder_region.aspx
37. 1. Kramer, R. A., &
    2. Mercer, D. E.

    (1997). Valuing a global environmental good: US residents’ willingness to pay to protect tropical rain forests. Land economics, 196–210.
38. 1. KristÒFersson, D., &
    2. Navrud, S.

    (2007). Can use and non-use values be transferred across countries? In Environmental value transfer: issues and methods (pp. 207–225). Springer.
39. 1. León, C. J.,
    2. Vázquez-Polo, F. J., &
    3. González, R. L.

    (2003). Elicitation of expert opinion in benefit transfer of environmental goods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 26(2), 199–210.

    OpenUrl
40. 1. Lew, D. K., &
    2. Wallmo, K.

    (2017). Temporal stability of stated preferences for endangered species protection from choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 131, 87–97.

    OpenUrl
41. 1. Lindhjem, H., &
    2. Navrud, S.

    (2008). How reliable are meta-analyses for international benefit transfers? Ecological Economics, 66(2-3), 425–435.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
42. 1. Lindhjem, H., &
    2. Navrud, S.

    (2009). Asking for individual or household willingness to pay for environmental goods? Environmental and Resource Economics, 43(1), 11–29.

    OpenUrl
43. 1. Navrud, S., &
    2. Bergland, O.

    (2004). Value transfer and environmental policy. The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics, 2005, 189–217.

    OpenUrl
44. 1. Navrud, S., &
    2. Ready, R.

    (2007). Review of methods for value transfer. In Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods (pp. 1–10). Springer.
45. 1. Navrud, S., &
    2. Strand, J.

    (2018). Valuing global ecosystem services: What do European experts say? Applying the Delphi method to contingent valuation of the Amazon rainforest. Environmental and Resource Economics, 70(1), 249–269.

    OpenUrl
46. 1. Pascual, U.,
    2. Muradian, R.,
    3. Brander, L.,
    4. Gómez-Baggethun, E.,
    5. Martín-López, B.,
    6. Verma, M.,
    7. Armsworth, P.,
    8. Christie, M.,
    9. Cornelissen, H., &
    10. Eppink, F.

    (2010). The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations, 183–256.
47. 1. Ready, R., &
    2. Navrud, S.

    (2006). International benefit transfer: Methods and validity tests. Ecological Economics, 60(2), 429–434.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
48. 1. Ready, R.,
    2. Navrud, S.,
    3. Day, B.,
    4. Dubourg, R.,
    5. Machado, F.,
    6. Mourato, S.,
    7. Spanninks, F., &
    8. Rodriquez, M. X. V.

    (2004). Benefit transfer in Europe: how reliable are transfers between countries? Environmental and Resource Economics, 29(1), 67–82.

    OpenUrl
49. 1. Richardson, L., &
    2. Loomis, J.

    (2009). The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1535–1548.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
50. 1. Rosenberger, R. S.

    (2015). Benefit transfer validity and reliability. In Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values (pp. 307–326). Springer.
51. 1. Rosenberger, R. S., &
    2. Loomis, J. B.

    (2017). Benefit transfer. In A primer on nonmarket valuation (pp. 307–326). Springer.
52. 1. Ryan, M., &
    2. Watson, V.

    (2009). Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health economics, 18(4), 389–401.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
53. 1. Sackman, H.

    (1974). Delphi assessment: Expert opinion, forecasting, and group process. The Rand Corporation.
54. 1. Siikamaki, J. V.,
    2. Krupnick, A. J.,
    3. Strand, J., &
    4. Vincent, J.

    (2019). International willingness to pay for the protection of the Amazon rainforest (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 8775).
55. 1. Skourtos, M.,
    2. Kontogianni, A., &
    3. Harrison, P.

    (2010). Reviewing the dynamics of economic values and preferences for ecosystem goods and services. Biodiversity and conservation, 19(10), 2855–2872.

    OpenUrl
56. SSB. (2017a). Befolkningens utdanningsnivå. (In Norwegian: Norwegians’ Education level). https://www.ssb.no/utdanning/statistikker/utniv
57. SSB. (2017b). Familier og husholdninger. (In Norwegian: Families and households) https://www.ssb.no/familie/
58. SSB. (2017c). Folkemengd, etter land, kjønn og alder. Nordiske land. 1. januar 2017. Tal og prosent (SÅ 63). (In Norwegian: Population by country, gender and age. The Nordic countries. January 1st 2017). https://www.ssb.no/314742/folkemengd-etter-land-kjonn-og-alder.nordiske-land.1.januar-2017.tal-og-prosent-sa-63(1)
59. SSB. (2017d). Inntekts- og formuesstatistikk for husholdninger. (In Norwegian: Income and Wealth statistics) https://www.ssb.no/inntekt-og-forbruk/statistikker/ifhus
60. 1. Strand, J.,
    2. Carson, R. T.,
    3. Navrud, S.,
    4. Ortiz-Bobea, A., &
    5. Vincent, J.

    (2014). A" Delphi exercise" as a tool in Amazon rainforest valuation (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 7143).
61. 1. Strand, J.,
    2. Carson, R. T.,
    3. Navrud, S.,
    4. Ortiz-Bobea, A., &
    5. Vincent, J. R.

    (2017). Using the Delphi method to value protection of the Amazon rainforest. Ecological Economics, 131, 475–484.

    OpenUrl
62. 1. Strand, J.,
    2. Soares-Filho, B.,
    3. Costa, M. H.,
    4. Oliveira, U.,
    5. Ribeiro, S. C.,
    6. Pires, G. F.,
    7. Oliveira, A.,
    8. Rajao, R.,
    9. May, P., &
    10. van der Hoff, R.

    (2018). Spatially explicit valuation of the Brazilian Amazon forest’s ecosystem services. Nature Sustainability, 1(11), 657–664.

    OpenUrl
63. 1. Uhl, C.

    (1987). Factors controlling succession following slash-and-burn agriculture in Amazonia. The Journal of Ecology, 377–407.
64. 1. Veisten, K.,
    2. Hoen, H. F.,
    3. Navrud, S., &
    4. Strand, J.

    (2004). Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of environmental management, 73(4), 317–331.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
65. 1. Whitehead, J. C.

    (2016). Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 128, 17–22.

    OpenUrl