IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uwauwp/249272.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Scope and scale in valuing coastal management in the remote Kimberley region of Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Spencer-Cotton, Alaya
  • Burton, Michael
  • Kragt, Marit Ellen

Abstract

The Kimberley region in northern Western Australia is well known for its impressive coastal landscapes, unique marine ecosystems, its Aboriginal heritage and culture, and its rich minerals and metals deposits. To inform future management of Kimberley coastal waters, a discrete choice experiment was undertaken to estimate the values that Western Australians attach to different management outcomes in the Kimberley. These management outcomes (marine reserves, aboriginal values, recreational facilities and development) were made spatially explicit to show respondent in what regions of the Kimberley outcomes would occur. A split sample design was used to estimate values for the Kimberley region as a whole, and for two separate smaller sub-regions. This choice experiment design allows us to test for scope sensitivity, which has not been explored much in the choice experiment literature. This study is one of the few discrete choice experiments that explores scope effects for environmental non-market valuation. Willingness to pay results show similar estimates between the two smaller sub-regions. Willingness to pay for the attributes increased when management occurs at the larger geographical scope. However, it was less sensitive to changes in attribute scale. We contribute to the literature on exploring scope effects for environmental non-market valuation using discrete choice experiments in the remote Kimberley region of Western Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • Spencer-Cotton, Alaya & Burton, Michael & Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2016. "Scope and scale in valuing coastal management in the remote Kimberley region of Australia," Working Papers 249272, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uwauwp:249272
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.249272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/249272/files/SARE%20WP1612_%20Spencer-Cotton_%20Burton_%20Kragt_%20Kimb%20CE%20Scope.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.249272?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. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Testing for geographic scope and scale effects with choice modelling: Application to the Great Barrier Reef," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1069, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    2. Richard T. Carson & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 1993. "The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(5), pages 1263-1267.
    3. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
    4. Heberlein, Thomas A. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Schaeffer, Nora Cate, 2005. "Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-22, July.
    5. Jeff Bennett (ed.), 2011. "The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13490.
    6. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2010. "Testing for geographic scope and scale effects with choice modelling: Application to the Great Barrier Reef," Research Reports 95048, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    7. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. van Bueren, Martin & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-32.
    9. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    10. Kasia Mazur & Jeff Bennett, 2009. "Scale and scope effects on communities’ values for environmental improvements in the Namoi catchment: A choice modelling approach," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 0942, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    12. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    13. William Desvousges & Kristy Mathews & Kenneth Train, 2015. "An Adding-up Test on Contingent Valuations of River and Lake Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(3), pages 556-571.
    14. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    15. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    16. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 149-168, June.
    17. Voyer, Michelle & Gladstone, William & Goodall, Heather, 2012. "Methods of social assessment in Marine Protected Area planning: Is public participation enough?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 432-439.
    18. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    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. Alaya Spencer‐Cotton & Marit E. Kragt & Michael Burton, 2018. "Spatial and Scope Effects: Valuations of Coastal Management Practices," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 833-851, September.
    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. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Mazur, Kasia, 2013. "Calibration of values in benefit transfer to account for variations in geographic scale and scope: Comparing two choice modelling experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152176, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    5. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    6. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2021. "On Adding-Up as a Validity Criterion for Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(3), pages 587-601, November.
    7. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    8. Julia Martin‐Ortega & M. Azahara Mesa‐Jurado & Julio Berbel, 2015. "Revisiting the Impact of Order Effects on Sensitivity to Scope: A Contingent Valuation of a Common‐Pool Resource," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 705-726, September.
    9. Schläpfer, Felix & Getzner, Michael, 2020. "Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John & Brouwer, Roy, 2009. "Public values for improved water security for domestic and environmental use," Research Reports 94818, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    11. Bishop, Richard C., 2018. "Warm Glow, Good Feelings, and Contingent Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    12. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    13. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    14. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf, 2018. "How are Scope and Adding up Relevant for Benefits Transfer?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 483-502, March.
    15. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How to ‘Sell’ an Environmental Good: Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects," Working Papers 2008-03, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    16. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2014. "America's Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 17-37.
    17. Tomas Badura & Silvia Ferrini & Michael Burton & Amy Binner & Ian J. Bateman, 2020. "Using Individualised Choice Maps to Capture the Spatial Dimensions of Value Within Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 297-322, February.
    18. Joffre Swait & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2020. "Antecedent Volition and Spatial Effects: Can Multiple Goal Pursuit Mitigate Distance Decay?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 243-270, February.
    19. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    20. Stephen C. Newbold & Patrick J. Walsh & D. Matthew Massey & Julie Hewitt, 2018. "Using structural restrictions to achieve theoretical consistency in benefit transfers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 529-553, March.

    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:uwauwp:249272. 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/aruwaau.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.