create a website

Economic assessment of ecosystem services with a novel concept of elevation: An application of the discrete choice experiment method. (2025). Zhao, Minjuan ; Khan, Aftab ; Wang, Chao ; Yao, Liuyang.
In: Sustainable Development.
RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:33:y:2025:i:2:p:2469-2485.

Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

Cited: 0

Citations received by this document

Cites: 86

References cited by this document

Cocites: 20

Documents which have cited the same bibliography

Coauthors: 0

Authors who have wrote about the same topic

Citations

Citations received by this document

    This document has not been cited yet.

References

References cited by this document

  1. Adamowicz, V., & Boxall, P. (2001). Future directions of stated choice methods for environment valuation. In Choice experiments: A new approach to environmental valuation (pp. 1–6). Edward Elgar Publishing.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  2. Ágoston, C., Balázs, B., Mónus, F., & Varga, A. (2024). Age differences and profiles in pro‐environmental behavior and eco‐emotions. International Journal of Behavioral Development 01650254231222436, 48, 132–144.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  3. Alajärvi, L., Lehtimäki, A.‐V., Timonen, J., & Martikainen, J. (2022). Willingness to pay for implementation of an environmentally friendly pharmaceutical policy in Finland—A discrete choice experiment study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 6535.

  4. Anderson, K. C., Stern, M. J., & Powell, R. B. (2024). Investigating the influence of preparation and perceived adult support on student attendance to a residential environmental education program. Environmental Education Research, 30(2), 251–264.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  5. Ando, A. W., Cadavid, C. L., Netusil, N. R., & Parthum, B. (2020). Willingness‐to‐volunteer and stability of preferences between cities: Estimating the benefits of stormwater management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 99, 102274.

  6. Badole, S. B., Bird, S., Heintzelman, M. D., & Legault, L. (2024). Willingness to pay for solar adoption: Economic, ideological, motivational, and demographic factors. Energy Economics, 136, 107703.

  7. Barak, B., & Katz, D. (2015). Valuing instream and riparian aspects of stream restoration–a willingness to tax approach. Land Use Policy, 45, 204–212.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  8. Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., & Colombo, S. (2010). Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies. Ecological Economics, 69(5), 1010–1022.

  9. Bateman, I. J., Day, B. H., Jones, A. P., & Jude, S. (2009). Reducing gain–loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. Journal of environmental economics and management, 58(1), 106–118.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  10. Bateman, I., & Großbritannien, D. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Cheltenham.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  11. Behmel, S., Damour, M., Ludwig, R., & Rodriguez, M. J. (2018). Participative approach to elicit water quality monitoring needs from stakeholder groups–An application of integrated watershed management. Journal of environmental management, 218, 540–554.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  12. Blanco, E., Haller, T., & Walker, J. M. (2018). Provision of environmental public goods: Unconditional and conditional donations from outsiders. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 92, 815–831.

  13. Börger, T., & Hattam, C. (2017). Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods. Ecological Economics, 131, 64–74.

  14. Brouwer, R. (2008). The potential role of stated preference methods in the water framework directive to assess disproportionate costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51, 597–614.

  15. Brouwer, R., & Navrud, S. (2015). The use and development of benefit transfer in Europe. Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values: A Guide for Researchers and Practitioners, 71–83.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  16. Brouwer, R., Bliem, M., Getzner, M., Kerekes, S., Milton, S., Palarie, T., Szerényi, Z., Vadineanu, A., & Wagtendonk, A. (2016). Valuation and transferability of the non‐market benefits of river restoration in the Danube river basin using a choice experiment. Ecological Engineering, 87, 20–29.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  17. Chen, W. Y., & Cho, F. H. T. (2019). Environmental information disclosure and societal preferences for urban river restoration: Latent class modelling of a discrete‐choice experiment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 231, 1294–1306.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  18. Danley, B., Sandorf, E. D., & Campbell, D. (2021). Putting your best fish forward: Investigating distance decay and relative preferences for fish conservation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 108, 102475.

  19. De Silva, D. G., Head, T., Pownall, R. A., & Schiller, A. R. (2023). Ecological footprint and willingness to pay for green goods: Evidence from The Netherlands. The Energy Journal, 45, 257–285.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  20. Debrah, J. K., Vidal, D. G., & Dinis, M. A. P. (2021). Raising awareness on solid waste management through formal education for sustainability: A developing countries evidence review. Recycling, 6(1), 6.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  21. Del Saz‐Salazar, S., Hernández‐Sancho, F., & Sala‐Garrido, R. (2009). The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the water framework directive: A comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Science of the Total Environment, 407, 4574–4583.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  22. Faccioli, M., Czajkowski, M., Glenk, K., & Martin‐Ortega, J. (2020). Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 174, 106600.

  23. Farley, J., & Costanza, R. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecological Economics, 69, 2060–2068.

  24. Ferrini, S., Schaafsma, M., & Bateman, I. (2014). Revealed and stated preference valuation and transfer: A within‐sample comparison of water quality improvement values. Water Resources Research, 50, 4746–4759.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  25. Frederiks, E. R., Stenner, K., & Hobman, E. V. (2015). The socio‐demographic and psychological predictors of residential energy consumption: A comprehensive review. Energies, 8, 573–609.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  26. Galekop, M., Veldwijk, J., Uyl‐de Groot, C., & Redekop, W. (2024). Preferences and willingness to pay for personalized nutrition interventions: Discrete choice experiments in Europe and the United States. Food Quality and Preference, 113, 105075.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  27. Gati, I., & Kulcsar, V. (2021). Making better career decisions: From challenges to opportunities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, 103545.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  28. Gokhale, C. S., & Park, H. J. (2020). Eco‐evolutionary Spatial Dynamics of Nonlinear Social Dilemmas.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  29. Gomez‐Jaramillo, Y., Berrouet, L., Villegas‐Palacio, C., & Berrio‐Giraldo, L. (2024). Conceptual framework for analyzing the sustainability of socio‐ecological systems with a focus on ecosystem services that support water security. Sustainable Development, 32, 2298–2313.

  30. Grazhdani, D. (2024). Results of two non‐market valuation methods used to estimate recreational fishing in the Lakes Prespa watershed. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism (JEMT), 15, (1 (73)), 52–68.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  31. Greiber, T. (2009). Payments for ecosystem services: Legal and institutional frameworks. IUCN.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  32. Hao, Q., Xu, S., Liao, Y., Qiao, D., Shi, H., & Xu, T. (2023). Determinants of residents’ willingness to pay for water quality improvements in Haikou, China: Application of CVM and ISM approaches. Water, 15(7), 1305.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  33. He, L., Zhang, J., Yu, B., Hu, M., & Zhang, Z. (2024). Assessment of ecosystem health and driving forces in response to landscape pattern dynamics: The Shibing Karst world natural heritage site case study. Heritage Science, 12(1), 182.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  34. Hole, A. R. (2007). Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. The Stata Journal, 7, 388–401.

  35. Hynes, S., Tinch, D., & Hanley, N. (2013). Valuing improvements to coastal waters using choice experiments: An application to revisions of the EU Bathing Waters Directive. Marine Policy, 40, 137–144.

  36. Javeed, B., Huang, D., Shangguan, D., Ahsan Mukhtar, M., Sajjad, W., Banerjee, A., Yang, Q., & Butt, A. Q. (2024). Assessing the effectiveness of national park's policies and laws in promoting biodiversity conservation and ecological development in Pakistan. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, 1333650.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  37. Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Ryan, M., & Scarpa, R. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4, 319–405.

  38. Kaczan, D., Pfaff, A., Rodriguez, L., & Shapiro‐Garza, E. (2017). Increasing the impact of collective incentives in payments for ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 86, 48–67.

  39. Kang, N., Wang, E., Yu, Y., & Duan, Z. (2021). Valuing recreational services of the national forest parks using a tourist satisfaction method. Forests, 12, 1688.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  40. Kataria, M., Bateman, I., Christensen, T., Dubgaard, A., Hasler, B., Hime, S., Ladenburg, J., Levin, G., Martinsen, L., & Nissen, C. (2012). Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments–a non‐market valuation study on the European water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management, 94, 25–33.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  41. Khan, I., Zhao, M., Khan, S. U., Yao, L., Ullah, A., & Xu, T. (2018). Spatial heterogeneity of preferences for improvements in river basin ecosystem services and its validity for benefit transfer. Ecological Indicators, 93, 627–637.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  42. Khan, S. U., Guo, X., Hu, J., Khan, A. A., Talpur, M. A., Liu, G., & Zhao, M. (2022). Who cares and how much? Narrative for advances in aquatic ecosystem services through non‐market valuation with spatial dimensions using a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 337, 130603.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  43. Khan, S. U., Khan, I., Zhao, M., Chien, H., Lu, Q., Ali, M. A. S., Khan, A. A., & Fahad, S. (2019). Spatial heterogeneity of ecosystem services: A distance decay approach to quantify willingness to pay for improvements in Heihe River Basin ecosystems. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 25247–25261.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  44. Khan, S., Yao, L., Khan, Z. A., Ali, U., & Zhao, M. (2023). Exploring stakeholder preferences and spatial heterogeneity in policy scenario analysis for vulnerable ecosystems: A choice experiment approach. Ecological Indicators, 153, 110438.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  45. Kosenius, A. K., & Markku, O. (2015). Ecosystem benefits from coastal habitats—A three‐country choice experiment. Marine Policy, 58, 15–27.

  46. Kunwar, S. B., Bohara, A. K., & Thacher, J. (2020). Public preference for river restoration in the Danda Basin, Nepal: A choice experiment study. Ecological Economics, 175, 106690.

  47. Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2008). Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. PharmacoEconomics, 26, 661–677.

  48. Lehto, C., Hedblom, M., Filyushkina, A., & Ranius, T. (2024). Seeing through their eyes: Revealing recreationists’ landscape preferences through viewshed analysis and machine learning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 248, 105097.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  49. Lewis, D. J., Kling, D. M., Dundas, S. J., & Lew, D. K. (2022). Estimating the value of threatened species abundance dynamics. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 113, 102639.

  50. Li, Y., Yao, Z., & Guo, Z. (2023). Willingness to pay and preferences for rural tourism attributes among urban residents: A discrete choice experiment in China. Economic Analysis and Policy, 77, 460–471.

  51. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge university press.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  52. Lu, X., Lu, Z., Mao, J., Sun, Z., Cui, Z., Huang, Y., & Cao, K. (2023). Place attachment as an indicator of public participation in low‐carbon community development: A case study of Beijing, China. Ecological Indicators, 154, 110658.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  53. McFadden, D., Zarembka, P., 1974. Frontiers in econometrics. 105–142. Academic Press.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  54. McPherson, E. G. (1992). Accounting for benefits and costs of urban greenspace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 22, 41–51.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  55. Metcalfe, P. J., Baker, W., Andrews, K., Atkinson, G., Bateman, I. J., Butler, S., Carson, R. T., East, J., Gueron, Y., & Sheldon, R. (2012). An assessment of the nonmarket benefits of the water framework directive for households in England and Wales. Water Resources Research, 48, 1–18.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  56. Mohan, C., Robinson, J., Vodwal, L., & Kumari, N. (2024). Sustainable development goals for addressing environmental challenges. In Green chemistry approaches to environmental sustainability (pp. 357–374). Elsevier.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  57. Moody‐Marshall, R. (2023). An investigation of environmental awareness and practice among a sample of undergraduate students in Belize. Environmental Education Research, 29(7), 911–928.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  58. Muhibbullah, M., Afroz, R., & Duasa, J. (2023). Assessing public preferences for solar development: A case study of Selangor state Malaysia. International Research Journal of Economics and Management Studies IRJEMS, 2, 533–547.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  59. Mundaca, G. (2024). Economic valuation of environmental and health impacts from mining: The case of Peru. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26, 2415–2441.

  60. Obeng, E. A., & Aguilar, F. X. (2018). Value orientation and payment for ecosystem services: Perceived detrimental consequences lead to willingness‐to‐pay for ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management, 206, 458–471.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  61. Pakalniete, K., Aigars, J., Czajkowski, M., Strake, S., Zawojska, E., & Hanley, N. (2017). Understanding the distribution of economic benefits from improving coastal and marine ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment, 584, 29–40.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  62. Parrella, J. A., Leggette, H. R., Lu, P., Wingenbach, G., Baker, M., & Murano, E. (2024). What's the beef with gene editing? An investigation of factors influencing US consumers' acceptance of beef from gene‐edited cattle. Future Foods, 10, 100454.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  63. Paudel, U., Adhikari, S. R., & Pant, K. P. (2023). Willingness to pay for environmental quality improvement programs and its determinants: Empirical analysis in Western Nepal. Sustainability, 15, 2176.

  64. Paudyal, K., Baral, H., & Keenan, R. J. (2018). Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal. Forest policy and economics, 90, 67–81.

  65. Pearce, D., & Moran, D. (1996). The economic value of biodiversity. Environmental Values, 5, 89–90.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  66. Pogliani, L., Ronchi, S., Arcidiacono, A., di Martino, V., & Mazza, F. (2023). Regeneration in an ecological perspective. Urban and territorial equalisation for the provision of ecosystem services in the Metropolitan City of Milan. Land Use Policy, 129, 106606.

  67. Sadhukhan, S., Banerjee, U. K., & Maitra, B. (2018). Preference heterogeneity towards the importance of transfer facility attributes at metro stations in Kolkata. Travel Behaviour and Society, 12, 72–83.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  68. Schirpke, U., Meisch, C., Marsoner, T., & Tappeiner, U. (2018). Revealing spatial and temporal patterns of outdoor recreation in the European Alps and their surroundings. Ecosystem services, 31, 336–350.

  69. Shahzad, T., Shah, S. T. H., Rais, S. I., Mansoor, A., & Zaman, K. (2022). People's attitude towards willingness‐to‐pay for environmental protection in Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 1–20.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  70. Sheremet, O., Ruokamo, E., Juutinen, A., Svento, R., & Hanley, N. (2018). Incentivising participation and spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem service schemes: Forest disease control programs in Finland. Ecological Economics, 152, 260–272.

  71. Shi, F., Weaver, D., Zhao, Y., Huang, M. F., Tang, C., & Liu, Y. (2019). Toward an ecological civilization: Mass comprehensive ecotourism indications among domestic visitors to a Chinese wetland protected area. Tourism Management, 70, 59–68.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  72. Shi, L., Maruthaveeran, S., Yusof, M. J. M., & Dai, C. (2024). Exploring factors influencing recreational experiences of urban river corridors based on social media data. Applied Sciences, 14(10), 4086.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  73. Termansen, M., McClean, C. J., & Jensen, F. S. (2013). Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services. Ecological economics, 92, 48–57.

  74. Toruńczyk‐Ruiz, S., & Martinović, B. (2020). The bright and dark sides of length of residence in the neighbourhood: Consequences for local participation and openness to newcomers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 67, 101383.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  75. Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge university press.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  76. Unterberger, C., & Olschewski, R. (2021). Determining the insurance value of ecosystems: A discrete choice study on natural hazard protection by forests. Ecological Economics, 180, 106866.

  77. Ureta, J. C., Motallebi, M., Vassalos, M., Seagle, S., & Baldwin, R. (2022). Estimating residents' WTP for ecosystem services improvement in a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program: A choice experiment approach. Ecological Economics, 201, 107561.

  78. Vallejo‐Torres, L. (2023). The broader opportunity costs in the broader cost‐effectiveness analysis framework. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 21, 373–384.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  79. van den Bergh, J. C. (2008). Environmental regulation of households: An empirical review of economic and psychological factors. Ecological Economics, 66, 559–574.

  80. van Dijk, J., Dekker, S. C., Kools, S. A., & van Wezel, A. P. (2023). European‐wide spatial analysis of sewage treatment plants and the possible benefits to nature of advanced treatment to reduce pharmaceutical emissions. Water Research, 241, 120157.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  81. Viswanathan, V. C., & Schirmer, M. (2015). Water quality deterioration as a driver for river restoration: A review of case studies from Asia, Europe and North America. Environmental Earth Sciences, 74, 3145–3158.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  82. Xie, B.‐C., & Zhao, W. (2018). Willingness to pay for green electricity in Tianjin, China: Based on the contingent valuation method. Energy Policy, 114, 98–107.

  83. Yang, T., Li, Z., Bai, Y., Liu, X., & Ye, T. (2023). Residents' preferences for rural housing disaster insurance attributes in central and Western Tibet. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 14, 1–15.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  84. Zaman‐ul‐Haq, M., He, M., Kanwal, A., Amir, S., Akhtar, N., Saqib, Z., Jamil, A., Alarifi, S. S., Mubbin, M., & Bokhari, S. A. (2024). Remote sensing‐based assessments of socioeconomic factors for urban ecological resilience in the semi‐arid region. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 96, 12–22.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  85. Zeiringer, B., Seliger, C., Greimel, F., & Schmutz, S. (2018). Aquatic ecology series. In S, Schmutz & J. Sendzimir (Eds.), Riverine ecosystem management (Vol. 8, pp. 67–89). Springer.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
  86. Zhou, L., de Vries, W. T., Guo, G., Gao, F., & Fang, C. (2024). The effectiveness of voluntary collective action in China's rural land development. Habitat International, 150, 103121.
    Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now

Cocites

Documents in RePEc which have cited the same bibliography

  1. Economic assessment of ecosystem services with a novel concept of elevation: An application of the discrete choice experiment method. (2025). Zhao, Minjuan ; Khan, Aftab ; Wang, Chao ; Yao, Liuyang.
    In: Sustainable Development.
    RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:33:y:2025:i:2:p:2469-2485.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  2. Does the payment vehicle matter for valuing improved electricity reliability? A discrete choice experiment in Ethiopia. (2025). Jeuland, Marc ; Meles, Tensay Hadush ; Pattanayak, Subhrendu K ; Sebsibie, Samuel ; Hassen, Sied ; Klug, Thomas ; Beyene, Abebe D ; Mekonnen, Alemu.
    In: Utilities Policy.
    RePEc:eee:juipol:v:93:y:2025:i:c:s0957178725000086.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  3. Exploring preferences for household energy technology adoption from a spatiotemporal perspective: Evidence from demographics, the economy, and the environment. (2025). Li, Dong ; Gui, Xuechen ; Guo, Chuanmin ; Liu, Wei ; Chen, Xinyu.
    In: Energy.
    RePEc:eee:energy:v:319:y:2025:i:c:s0360544225005997.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  4. Impoverished villagers’ solar PV adoption in rural China: A perspective of agent intervention, economic benefit perception and sense of community. (2025). Shuai, Jing ; Li, Jiaxin ; Wang, Chaofan ; Peng, Jiachao.
    In: Energy.
    RePEc:eee:energy:v:315:y:2025:i:c:s0360544224040283.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  5. Who adopts and deploys advanced home energy technologies?. (2025). Jacobsen, Grant D.
    In: Energy Economics.
    RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:145:y:2025:i:c:s0140988325001574.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  6. Why Local Governments Set Climate Targets: Effects of City Size and Political Costs. (2024). Eisenack, Klaus.
    In: Environmental & Resource Economics.
    RePEc:kap:enreec:v:87:y:2024:i:11:d:10.1007_s10640-024-00919-1.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  7. Intentions to Create Green Start-Ups for Collection of Unwanted Drugs: An Empirical Study. (2024). Mouloudj, Kamel ; Evans, Marian A ; Asanza, Dachel Martinez ; Njoku, Anuli ; Bouarar, Ahmed Chemseddine.
    In: Sustainability.
    RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2797-:d:1365209.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  8. Who values urban community gardens and how much?. (2024). Long, Dede ; Li, Liqing.
    In: Food Policy.
    RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:126:y:2024:i:c:s0306919224000605.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  9. Modeling Predictors of Medication Waste Reduction Intention in Algeria: Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior. (2023). Mouloudj, Kamel ; Evans, Marian A ; Asanza, Dachel Martinez ; Njoku, Anuli ; Bouarar, Ahmed Chemseddine.
    In: IJERPH.
    RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:16:p:6584-:d:1218352.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  10. Why local governments set climate targets: Effects of city size and political costs. (2023). Eisenack, Klaus.
    In: Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers.
    RePEc:bdp:dpaper:0029.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  11. The Effects of Eligibility and Voluntary Participation on the Distribution of Benefits in Environmental Programs: An Application to Green Stormwater Infrastructure. (2022). Brent, Daniel ; Cook, Joseph H ; Lassiter, Allison.
    In: Land Economics.
    RePEc:uwp:landec:v:98:y:2022:i:4:p:579-598.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  12. Using a Choice Experiment to Understand Preferences for Disaster Risk Reduction with Uncertainty: A Case Study in Japan. (2022). Shoji, Yasushi ; Tsuge, Takahiro ; Kuriyama, Koichi ; Onuma, Ayumi.
    In: Sustainability.
    RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4753-:d:794834.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  13. The economic value of the Glass Beach: Contingent valuation and life satisfaction approaches. (2022). Nagapetyan, Artur ; Otrachshenko, Vladimir ; Tyurina, Elena.
    In: Ecological Economics.
    RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:198:y:2022:i:c:s0921800922001288.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  14. Are U.S. consumers willing to pay a premium for bee-friendly beef?. (2022). Chishimba-Musonda, Elizabeth Mubanga ; Larochelle, Catherine.
    In: 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA.
    RePEc:ags:aaea22:322492.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  15. Household Preference for Impure Public Goods - an Application of Community Gardens. (2022). Long, Dede ; Li, Liqing.
    In: 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA.
    RePEc:ags:aaea22:322142.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  16. Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments. (2021). Navrud, Stale ; Grimsrud, Kristine ; Lindhjem, Henrik ; Kipperberg, Gorm ; Dugstad, Anders.
    In: Environmental & Resource Economics.
    RePEc:kap:enreec:v:80:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10640-021-00577-7.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  17. Reducing the finance gap for nature-based solutions with time contributions. (2021). , Pieter ; Koetse, Mark J ; Brander, Luke M ; Hagedoorn, Liselotte C.
    In: Ecosystem Services.
    RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:52:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621001297.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  18. Contingent valuation estimates for environmental goods: Validity and reliability. (2021). Perni, Angel ; MARTINEZ-PAZ, J. ; Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús ; Barreiro-Hurle, Jesus.
    In: Ecological Economics.
    RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:189:y:2021:i:c:s0921800921002020.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  19. Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments. (2020). Navrud, Stale ; Kipperberg, Gorm ; Grimsrud, Kristine ; Lindhjem, Henrik ; Dugstad, Anders.
    In: Discussion Papers.
    RePEc:ssb:dispap:942.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

  20. The Role of Cost, Scale, and Property Attributes in Landowner Choice of Stormwater Management Option.. (2020). Cutter, Bowman ; Pusch, Alexander.
    In: Economics Department, Working Paper Series.
    RePEc:clm:pomwps:1015.

    Full description at Econpapers || Download paper

Coauthors

Authors registered in RePEc who have wrote about the same topic

Report date: 2025-10-01 08:16:00 || Missing content? Let us know

CitEc is a RePEc service, providing citation data for Economics since 2001. Last updated August, 3 2024. Contact: Jose Manuel Barrueco.