IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/31496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Insights Into The Siting Problem: An Application Of The Expected Utility Model

Author

Listed:
  • Halstead, John M.
  • Whitcomb, Joanna L.
  • Hamilton, Lawrence C.

Abstract

Despite the generally recognized need for facilities such as power plants, landfills, prisons, and medical laboratories, finding host sites has become extremely difficult. This study uses the expected utility (EU) model to explain individiuals' preferences in the hypothetical case of siting a municipal solid waste composting facility. The three principal factors which EU theory prescribes would affect the decision process- benefits of the proposed facility, losses from the facility, and the (perceived) probability of various scenarios occurring- embodied by the variables in a multinomial logit model explain a substantial amount of the variation in siting decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Halstead, John M. & Whitcomb, Joanna L. & Hamilton, Lawrence C., 1999. "Economic Insights Into The Siting Problem: An Application Of The Expected Utility Model," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 28(01), pages 1-11, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:31496
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.31496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/31496/files/28010065.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.31496?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. Oral Capps & Randall A. Kramer, 1985. "Analysis of Food Stamp Participation Using Qualitative Choice Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(1), pages 49-59.
    2. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June.
    3. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Mark Sagoff, 1994. "Should Preferences Count?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 127-144.
    6. Kunreuther, Howard & Easterling, Douglas, 1990. "Are Risk-Benefit Tradeoffs Possible in Siting Hazardous Facilities?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 252-256, May.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Kovacs, Kent F., 2005. "Amount and Spatial Distribution of Public Open Space to Maximize the Net Benefits from Urban Recreation," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19206, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    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. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    2. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    3. Harin, Alexander, 2006. "Scientific Revolution? A Farewell to EconWPA. MPRA is welcome," MPRA Paper 71, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    5. Christopher Prendergast, 1993. "Rationality, Optimality, and Choice," Rationality and Society, , vol. 5(1), pages 47-57, January.
    6. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2010. "Risk Preferences Are Not Time Preferences: Discounted Expected Utility with a Disproportionate Preference for Certainty," NBER Working Papers 16348, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Gilles Boevi Koumou & Georges Dionne, 2022. "Coherent Diversification Measures in Portfolio Theory: An Axiomatic Foundation," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Finkelshtain, Israel & Feinerman, Eli, 1997. "Framing the Allais paradox as a daily farm decision problem: tests and explanations," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 155-167, January.
    10. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    11. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    12. Benjamin Y. Hayden & Michael L. Platt, 2009. "The mean, the median, and the St. Petersburg paradox," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(4), pages 256-272, June.
    13. Ivan Moscati, 2022. "Behavioral and heuristic models are as-if models too — and that’s ok," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22177, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    14. Eide, Erling, 1998. "Optimal Provision of Public Goods with Rank Dependent Expected Utility," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 53(3-4), pages 296-311.
    15. Rindone, Fabio & Greco, Salvatore & Di Gaetano, Luigi, 2013. "On prospects and games: an equilibrium analysis under prospect theory," MPRA Paper 52131, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2014. "On Self-Interest and Greed," CESifo Working Paper Series 4883, CESifo.
    17. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    18. Bruno Frey, 1985. "State and prospect of public choice: A European view," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 141-161, January.
    19. Bruno Frey, 1990. "From paradoxes to social rules, or: How economics repeats itself," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 27-34, March.
    20. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1996. "Marriage Paradoxes," Rationality and Society, , vol. 8(2), pages 187-206, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Public Economics;

    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:arerjl:31496. 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/nareaea.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.