IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/202661.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are WTP Estimates for Wildfire Risk Reductions Transferrable from Coast to Coast? Results of a Choice Experiment in California and Florida

Author

Listed:
  • Loomis, John
  • Sanchez, Jose
  • Gonzalez-Caban, Armando
  • Holmes, Thomas

Abstract

With increasingly large expenditures of public funds being spent to reduce the severity of wildfires around homes, officials and legislators are often interested in knowing the economic benefits these funds provide. However, agencies often do not have funding or expertise to conduct individual state specific benefit estimates, and often rely upon benefit transfer (BT) estimates. We calculate the BT error for transferring California homeowner benefit estimates to Florida and vice-versa for public and private fire risk reduction programs. We use the same choice experiment survey and the same specification of the mixed logit model in both states. In terms of accuracy of benefit transfer, among homeowners that perceive low to moderate fire risk, transferring willingness to pay (WTP) from CA to FL or FL to CA for the Public Program to reduce wildfire risk yields a large BT error (-33.1% to 51.8%). However, these large BT errors for the Public Program become smaller (-23.3% to +30.4%) when the benefit transfer focuses on those homeowners with high risk perceptions of wildfire in their neighborhood. In contrast, the opposite pattern is found for the Private Program. There are low BT errors when transferring WTP for the Private Program to reduce risk (-4.4% to 4.8%) between CA and FL homeowners that perceive low to moderate fire risk. But for high risk perceiving homeowners WTP for the Private Program to reduce wildfire risk immediately around their home has a much larger BT error (-16.4% to 31.8%). While our range of BT errors are generally less than found in the BT convergent validity literature, our BT errors are still higher than expected given the same methodology is used in both states, and the homeowners in the two states report similar effects of wildfires and perceived risk. It is hypothesized that the considerable differences between homeowner demographics in the two states may be contributing to the BT errors.

Suggested Citation

  • Loomis, John & Sanchez, Jose & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando & Holmes, Thomas, 2015. "Are WTP Estimates for Wildfire Risk Reductions Transferrable from Coast to Coast? Results of a Choice Experiment in California and Florida," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202661, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:202661
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.202661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/202661/files/Loomis%20et%20al%20Is%20WTP%20%20Wildfire%20Risk%20Reductions%20Transferrable%20AAEA_4-21-2015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.202661?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krupnick, Alan & Alberini, Anna & Cropper, Maureen & Simon, Nathalie & O'Brien, Bernie & Goeree, Ron & Heintzelman, Martin, 2002. "Age, Health and the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions: A Contingent Valuation Survey of Ontario Residents," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 161-186, March.
    2. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1987. "An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 89-114, February.
    3. Kaul, Sapna & Boyle, Kevin J. & Kuminoff, Nicolai V. & Parmeter, Christopher F. & Pope, Jaren C., 2013. "What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 90-104.
    4. John B. Loomis & Pierre H. duVair, 1993. "Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results from a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(3), pages 287-298.
    5. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    6. Walker, Susan H. & Rideout, Douglas B. & Loomis, John B. & Reich, Robin, 2007. "Comparing the value of fuel treatment options in northern Colorado's urban and wildland-urban interface areas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 694-703, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan, 2018. "The benefits of avoiding cancer (or dying from cancer): Evidence from a four- country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 249-262.
    3. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    4. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Craig Schram & Wiktor Adamowicz & Diane Dupont, 2018. "Endogeneity of Risk Perceptions in Averting Behavior Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 217-246, February.
    5. Kenshi Itaoka & Alan Krupnick & Makoto Akai & Anna Alberini & Maureen Cropper & Nathalie Simon, 2007. "Age, health, and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation survey of Shizuoka, Japan, residents," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(3), pages 211-237, September.
    6. Sund, Björn, 2009. "Sensitivity to scope in contingent valuation – introducing a flexible community analogy to communicate mortality risk reductions," Working Papers 2009:2, Örebro University, School of Business.
    7. Strand.J., 2001. "Public- and private-good values of statistical lives : results from a combined choice-experiment and contingent-valuation survey," Memorandum 31/2001, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    8. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Dupont, Diane & Krupnick, Alan & Zhang, Jing, 2011. "Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: An analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-226, March.
    9. Hammitt, James K. & Haninger, Kevin, 2017. "Valuing nonfatal health risk as a function of illness severity and duration: Benefit transfer using QALYs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 17-38.
    10. Burtraw, Dallas & Bharvirkar, Ranjit & McGuinness, Meghan, 2001. "Uncertainty and the Cost-Effectiveness of Regional NOx Emissions Reductions from Electricity Generation," Discussion Papers 10846, Resources for the Future.
    11. Hammitt, James & Haninger, Kevin, 2011. "Valuing Morbidity Risk: Willingness to Pay per Quality-Adjusted Life Year," LERNA Working Papers 11.09.343, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    12. Kip Viscusi, W. & Aldy, Joseph E., 2007. "Labor market estimates of the senior discount for the value of statistical life," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 377-392, May.
    13. Kenshi Itaoka & Alan Krupnick & Makoto Akai & Anna Alberini & Maureen Cropper & Nathalie Simon, 2007. "Age, health, and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation survey of Shizuoka, Japan, residents," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(3), pages 211-237, September.
    14. Richard T. Carson & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 2006. "Public Preferences Toward Environmental Risks: The Case of Trihalomethanes," Chapters, in: Anna Alberini & James R. Kahn (ed.), Handbook on Contingent Valuation, chapter 19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Kawata, Yukichika & Watanabe, Masahide, 2012. "Valuing the mortality risk of wildlife reintroduction: Heterogeneous risk preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 79-86.
    16. Bosworth, Ryan & Cameron, Trudy Ann & DeShazo, J.R., 2009. "Demand for environmental policies to improve health: Evaluating community-level policy scenarios," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 293-308, May.
    17. Krupnick, Alan & Alberini, Anna & Simon, Nathalie & Itaoka, Kenshi & Akai, Makoto & Cropper, Maureen, 2005. "Age, Health, and the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions: A Contingent Valuation Survey in Japan," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-34, Resources for the Future.
    18. Joseph E. Aldy & W. Kip Viscusi, 2004. "Age Variations in Workers' Value of Statistical Life," NBER Working Papers 10199, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Gerking, Shelby & Dickie, Mark & Veronesi, Marcella, 2014. "Valuation of human health: An integrated model of willingness to pay for mortality and morbidity risk reductions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 20-45.
    20. Masahide Watanabe & Toshio Fujimi, 2015. "Evaluating Change in Objective Ambiguous Mortality Probability: Valuing Reduction in Ambiguity Size and Risk Level," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(1), pages 1-15, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea15:202661. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: AgEcon Search (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.