Mitesh Kataria

Paying for Mitigation: A Multiple Country Study

A contingent valuation study conducted in China, Sweden, and the United States was used to investigate citizens’ willingness to pay (WTP) for reducing CO2 emissions. We find that a majority of the respondents in all three countries believe that the mean global temperature has increased over the last 100 years and that humans are responsible for the increase. The share of Americans that believes these statements is smaller, and a relatively larger share of Americans also believes that nothing can be done to stop climate change. Sweden has the highest WTP, while China has the lowest. (JEL Q51, Q54)

Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments – A non-market valuation study on the European water framework directive

Using choice experiment data for economic valuation we analyse how disbelief in survey information could affect the retrieved welfare estimates. We distinguish between two types of survey information to the respondents. The first type of information concerns the current environmental status of a water body. This information is provided prior to the valuation questions and the corresponding beliefs in the provided information are also elicited before valuation. The second type of information concerns the proposed improvements in the environmental status of the water body. We find that average welfare measures differ considerably according to whether respondents who disagree with the status quo levels and find proposed scenarios unlikely are included or not.

Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity

The willingness to pay (WTP) for different types of elements and other environmental qualities of the agricultural landscape were investigated by a choice experiment study. To get value measures of a set of attributes as policy relevant as possible, the WTP for 28 levels of 12 attributes was estimated. Two survey versions concerned permanent grassland and two concerned field elements of cultivated land. A sample of 8000 randomly selected Swedish inhabitants was used. The estimated values vary significantly between linear field elements and grassland types, where stone walls and oak-wooded pastures, respectively have the highest marginal WTP. Highly valued environmental qualities are biodiversity, visibility and absence of brushwood. Reference points were included to capture preference heterogeneity. The study cannot reject that respondents may value environmental service levels based on their reference points.

Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want

We investigate whether Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator recommendations regarding improvements in environmental quality differ from citizen preferences. This is done by conducting identical choice experiments on both citizens and administrators at the EPA. The administrators were asked to choose the alternatives they would recommend as a policy, while the citizens were asked to act as private persons. We find that the rankings of attributes differ between the two groups and that the willingness to pay (WTP) obtained from the choices made by the administrators is higher for five out of the seven attributes, and in some cases the difference between the WTPs is substantial. (JEL D61, Q58)

Assessing Management Options for Weed Control with Demanders and Non-Demanders in a Choice Experiment

The yellow floating heart is a water weed causing nuisance problems in Swedish watercourses. An economic analysis where various management options are considered is required. Using a choice experiment, we estimate the benefits of a weed-management program and perform a cost-benefit analysis. In order to be able to distinguish between those who have a demand for a program from those who do not, we introduce a way to distinguish demanders from non-demanders in the choice experiments. Using a simple cost-benefit rule, we find that cutting the weed in certain places in the lake can be justified. (JEL Q25, Q26, Q51)

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Introducing a Non-native Species: The Case of Signal Crayfish in Sweden

A conventional bioeconomic model is used for a cost-benefit analysis of introducing the non-native signal crayfish, which has an eradicating impact on the stock of the native noble crayfish. The values of the noble and signal crayfish populations are measured as present values of their net future revenues. The results indicate that the net benefit of an introduction is positive if the intrinsic growth rate or the carrying capacity of the noble crayfish is below 40% that of the signal crayfish. This means that, only if there are significant biological differences between the two species, economic gains can be realized by allowing introduction of the signal crayfish.

Who Can Be Trusted to Manage the Fish? A Study Comparing Trust between Stakeholders

This paper investigates trust among stakeholders in fisheries management. We asked the general public, environmental bureaucrats, and recreational and commercial fishers whether they believed the other stakeholders have sufficient knowledge to have an opinion regarding fisheries management issues in a choice experiment they themselves had just been exposed to. We found that the general public and recreational fishers tend to trust bureaucrats, while bureaucrats distrust the general public. The commercial fishers deviate from the others with a high level of trust in own knowledge and low trust in all other stakeholders. The implications of low trust among stakeholders in fisheries are discussed. (JEL Q22)