IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/apecpp/v33y2011i4p639-660.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing Farmland Protection: Do Empirical Results and Policy Guidance Depend on the Econometric Fine Print?

Author

Listed:
  • Robert J. Johnston
  • John C. Bergstrom

Abstract

Economists have generated an abundance of willingness to pay estimates to help inform U.S. farmland protection policies. Stated preference approaches are often used for such estimations, with an increasing reliance placed on discrete choice models such as mixed logit, in which results can be sensitive to minor specification changes. This paper evaluates how and to what extent this sensitivity is policy relevant. Drawing from a case study of agricultural conservation easements in Georgia, we characterize the sensitivity of choice experiment welfare estimates to common variations in mixed logit specification. Results suggest that practitioners should provide greater attention to the potential implications of often unnoticed modeling choices in discrete choice welfare estimation. Copyright 2011, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert J. Johnston & John C. Bergstrom, 2011. "Valuing Farmland Protection: Do Empirical Results and Policy Guidance Depend on the Econometric Fine Print?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 639-660.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:33:y:2011:i:4:p:639-660
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aepp/ppr020
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Duke, Joshua M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Johnston, Robert J. & Messer, Kent D., 2014. "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 319-329.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Londoño, Luz M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2012. "Enhancing the reliability of benefit transfer over heterogeneous sites: A meta-analysis of international coral reef values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 80-89.
    4. Wang, Haoluan & Swallow, Brent M., 2017. "Linking Agricultural Land Conservation and Provision of Ecosystem Services: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258537, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Yuan, Yuan & Boyle, Kevin J. & You, Wen & Fuller, Harry M., 2012. "A Nationwide Comparison of Farmland Conservation Easement Valuation," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124836, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:33:y:2011:i:4:p:639-660. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.