One issue faced by those using social cost–benefit analysis to make decisions on forestation is how to account for environmental externalities. This paper compares two different valuation techniques, contingent valuation and choice modelling. Both approaches were applied to an afforestation programme in the northeast of Spain, and were found to yield similar estimates of welfare change when the utility function was fully specified. However, when elements of the utility function were omitted, significant differences were detected in the welfare estimates derived from the two techniques. Choice modelling is the method recommended for use in policy evaluation contexts, such as cost–benefit analysis applications, because of the additional valuation information it provides.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mogas et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: