Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications

Contents:

Author Info

  • Cho, Seong-Hoon
  • Yen, Steven T.
  • Bowker, James Michael
  • Newman, David H.

Abstract

This study compares an ordered probit model and a Tobit model with selection to take into account both true zero and protest zero bids while estimating the willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation easements in Macon County, NC. By comparing the two models, the ordered/unordered selection issue of the protest responses is analyzed to demonstrate how the treatment of protest responses can significantly influence WTP models. Both models consistently show that income and knowledge are positive and significant factors, while distance to poorer quality streams and duration of residency are negative and significant factors on WTP.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/45524
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Southern Agricultural Economics Association in its journal Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

Volume (Year): 40 (2008)
Issue (Month): 01 (April)
Pages:

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:45524

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.saea.org/jaae/jaae.htm
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: censored dependent variable; conservation easement; protest bid; sample selection; WTP; Agribusiness; Land Economics/Use; Political Economy; 25; 42; Q56;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Cooper, Joseph C. & Hanemann, W.M. & Signorello, Giovanni, 2002. "One and One-Half Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," MPRA Paper 17190, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Nov 2002.
  2. Elisabetta Strazzera & Riccardo Scarpa & Pinuccia Calia & Guy Garrod & Kenneth Willis, 2003. "Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 133-138.
  3. Jorge Araña & Carmelo León, 2007. "Repeated Dichotomous Choice Formats for Elicitation of Willingness to Pay: Simultaneous Estimation and Anchoring Effect," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 475-497, April.
  4. KyeongAe Choe & Dale Whittington & Donald T. Lauria, 1996. "The Economic Benefits of Surface Water Quality Improvements in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Davao, Philippines," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 519-537.
  5. Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius & Riccardo Scarpa & George Hutchinson, 2003. "The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(4), pages 461-476, August.
  6. Harrison, Glenn W. & Lesley, James C., 1996. "Must Contingent Valuation Surveys Cost So Much?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 79-95, July.
  7. Halstead, John M. & Luloff, A.E. & Stevens, Thomas H., 1992. "Protest Bidders In Contingent Valuation," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), October.
  8. Brouwer, Roy & Slangen, Louis H G, 1998. "Contingent Valuation of the Public Benefits of Agricultural Wildlife Management: The Case of Dutch Peat Meadow Land," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 25(1), pages 53-72.
  9. Clinch, J Peter & Murphy, Anthony, 2001. "Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(470), pages 420-43, April.
  10. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Newman, David H. & Bowker, J.M., 2005. "Measuring rural homeowners' willingness to pay for land conservation easements," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 757-770, August.
  11. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
  12. Trudy Ann Cameron & Michelle D. James, 1986. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-Ended" Contingent Valuation Surveys," UCLA Economics Working Papers 404, UCLA Department of Economics.
  13. Clinch, P. & Murphy, A., 1998. "Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods Appropriate Welfare Measures and Economic Analysis," Papers 98/12, College Dublin, Department of Political Economy-.
  14. Robert J. Johnston & Stephen K. Swallow & Timothy J. Tyrrell & Dana Marie Bauer, 2003. "Rural Amenity Values and Length of Residency," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 1000-1015.
  15. Dixie Reaves & Randall Kramer & Thomas Holmes, 1999. "Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 365-383, October.
  16. P. Calia & E. Strazzera, 1999. "A Sample Selection Model for Protest Non-Response Votes in Contingent Valuation Analyses," Working Paper CRENoS 199905, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
  17. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, . "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Working Papers 9610, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
  18. Anabela Botelho & Ligia Costa Pinto, 2002. "Hypothetical, real, and predicted real willingness to pay in open-ended surveys: experimental results," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(15), pages 993-996.
  19. Kevin J. Boyle, 1989. "Commodity Specification and the Framing of Contingent-Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(1), pages 57-63.
  20. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier.
  21. Anni Huhtala, 2000. "Binary Choice Valuation Studies with Heteregeneous Preferences Regarding the Program Being Valued," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 263-279, July.
  22. Seung-Hoon Yoo & Hee-Jong Yang, 2001. "Application of Sample Selection Model to Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(2), pages 147-163, October.
  23. Keith, John E. & Fawson, Christopher & Johnson, Van, 1996. "Preservation or use A contingent valuation study of wilderness designation in Utah," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 207-214, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  2. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:45524. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.