Part 2: Case Study Lundhede et al. (2014) apply the choice experiment method in a study of the preferences of Danish people for bird conservation policy, in the context of the pressures brought about by climate change. The figure below gives an example of the choice cards used in their analysis. Stable Decreasing No policy Policy 1 Policy 2 European Danish population population Danish population Danish population in 15 years in 15 years in 15 years Serin and dipper Living in Frequent Denmark in Europe Eider and common snipe Scarce Living in in Denmark Europe Woodchat shrike Can immigrate and partridge Frequent to Denmark in Europe Additional yearly household tax O DKK 500 DKK 750 DKK Please choose only one 0 0 Note: DKK stands for Danish kroner, the currency of Denmark. The following tables give the results of their analysis:6) From the paper, the researchers say: \"The respondent data were collected through the internet. Respondents were drawn from an internet panel consisting of a representative and voluntary sample of the Danish population." Is this probability or non-probability sampling? Give 3 shortcomings that this way of sampling creates (10 points) 7) As most choice experiments, this study was conducted to provide policy-relevant information. Using the results shown, provide 2 policy implications. (5 points) Policy Outcome Variables Preference Coefficient Std. Error P- values WTP (EUR) Std. Error WTP Price, Bp -0.0010 0.00005 0.000 N/A N/A Alternative Specific Constant -0.2691 0.05653 0.000 -34 6.58 Stable in Europe Preserved as Abundant in DK, ANSA 0.7279 .05069 0.000 93 8.69 Groups of Stable in Europe Native Preserved as Scarce in DK PNSS 0.5452 0.05588 0.000 70 7.92 Species Decreasing in Europe, Preserved as Abundant in DK, ANDA 1.1747 0.05306 0.000 150 9.96 Decreasing in Europe, Preserved as Scarce in DK, PNDS 0.7476 0.05488 0.000 16 8.54 Stable in Europe reserved as Abundant in DK -0.0528 .08450 0.532 10.8 Groups of Stable in Europe Preserved as Scarce in DK 0.2473 0.08731 0.005 32 Immigrating 11.35 Species Decreasing in Europe, Preserved as Abundant in DK 0.4680 0.08343 0.000 60 10.21 Decreasing in Europe, Preserved as Scarce in DK 0.8723 0.07772 0.000 111 10.80 Number of observations 5,016 Log Likelihood Value -4,577.90 Chi square 1,865.48 Pseudo R 0.17 The preference coefficients of the -vector are estimated from the logit model. The WTP estimates are obtained as the ratio of the / of the attribute in question relative to the B of price, e.g. WTP of preserving native species, with a stable European development at the level of 'Abundant' is: WTP = ANSA/BP. Note not all decimals shown. Columns 3-5 show preference coefficients, standard errors and p-values for the combinations of species groups and future policy outcome in Denmark (DK) in column 1 and 2. Columns 6-7 shows the related mean Willingness to Pay (WTP) estimates (E/household and year) and standard error of this. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101281.1001 150 150 100 100 Stable WTP WTP 50 50 70 3 2 93 Native Immigrants Native Immigrants European population is 150 150 Declining 100 WTP 96 111 150 50 Native Immigrants Native Immigrants Local policy results in populations that are Scarce Abundant 1) Describe at least 5 interesting results from the tables (extra point, up to 3, for each result beyond that) (10 points) 2) The researchers show three options to choose from. Is it correct? Which principle are they violating? (2 points Would there be any way that you could do this study with a revealed preference method? Explain (5 points ) Look at the choice card: what are the attributes taken into consideration? (8 points) 5) Give at least 3 comments as to how the choice card could have been better (10 points)