Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Estimating the supply of on-farm biodiversity conservation services by north Australian pastoralists: design of a choice experiment

Contents:

Author Info

  • Greiner, Romy
  • Ballweg, Julie
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    This paper reports on the experimental design process and considerations of a discretecontinuous choice experiment conducted in collaboration with landholders in northern Australia. The purpose of the research is to inform the design of effective and efficient payments-for-ecosystem services schemes to safeguard north Australia’s biodiversity values by promoting the contractual provision of biodiversity conservation services by landholders, in particular pastoralists and graziers. The paper focusses in particular on the discrete choice experimental (DCE) aspects. The DCE is employed to estimate landholders’ preference heterogeneity for supplying ecosystem services, specifically their willingness to accept remuneration for the on-farm conservation of biodiversity, based on potential program attributes. The design of the choice experiment draws on best practice standards (Hoyos 2010), a recognition of the benefits of embedding design in a consultative process (Klojgaard et al. 2012) and recent advances in accounting for response certainty (Brouwer et al. 2010; Hensher et al. 2012). DCE design decisions relating to attribute selection, attribute levels, alternatives and choice tasks are explained based on literature, focus group discussions, expert interviews and an iterative process of efficient DCE design. Additional design aspects include (i) a set of supplementary questions after each choice set to measure respondents’ choice certainty and elicit decision heuristics; (ii) embedding of the experiment in a socio-economic-psychological questionnaire, and (iii) logistical design.

    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/152153
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia with number 152153.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: Feb 2013
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:aare13:152153

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200
    Phone: 0409 032 338
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.aares.info/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Choice experimental design; efficient design; iterative process; response certainty; willingness to accept; farmers; on-farm biodiversity conservation; Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy; Farm Management; Institutional and Behavioral Economics;

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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. Garrod, Guy & Ruto, Eric & Willis, Ken & Powe, Neil, 2012. "Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 104-111.
    2. Anonymous, 2001. "Constraints on Private Conservation of Biodiversity," Commission Research Papers 31904, Productivity Commission.
    3. Productivity Commission, 2001. "Constraints on Private Conservation of Biodiversity," Others 0107002, EconWPA.
    4. Barkmann, J. & Glenk, K. & Keil, A. & Leemhuis, C. & Dietrich, N. & Gerold, G. & Marggraf, R., 2008. "Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: The case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 48-62, March.
    5. Hanemann, W Michael, 1984. "Discrete-Continuous Models of Consumer Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 541-61, May.
    6. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    7. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    8. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    9. Jia Yu & Ken Belcher, 2011. "An Economic Analysis of Landowners’ Willingness to Adopt Wetland and Riparian Conservation Management," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 59, pages 207-222, 06.
    10. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    11. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    12. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    13. Michael Burton, 2010. "Inducing Strategic Bias: and its implications for Choice Modelling design," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1061, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    14. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    15. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    16. Truong, Truong P. & Hensher, David A., 2012. "Linking discrete choice to continuous demand within the framework of a computable general equilibrium model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1177-1201.
    17. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    18. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1140-1148, February.
    19. Jill Windle & John Rolfe, 2005. "Diversification choices in agriculture: a Choice Modelling case study of sugarcane growers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 63-74, 03.
    20. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    21. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-79, January.
    22. Roy Brouwer & Thijs Dekker & John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 93-109, May.
    23. Sheila Olmstead & W. Michael Hanemann & Robert N. Stavins, 2007. "Water Demand Under Alternative Price Structures," NBER Working Papers 13573, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    24. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    25. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    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:aare13:152153. 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.