IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/31496.html

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. Gethin Griffith & Val Morrison & J. Williams & Rhiannon Edwards, 2009. "Can we assume that research participants are utility maximisers?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(2), pages 187-196, May.
    5. Rose, Steven K. & Clark, Jeremy & Poe, Gregory L. & Rondeau, Daniel & Schulze, William D., 2002. "The private provision of public goods: tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 131-155, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Wang, Charles X. & Webster, Scott & Suresh, Nallan C., 2009. "Would a risk-averse newsvendor order less at a higher selling price?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(2), pages 544-553, July.
    8. Christopher Prendergast, 1993. "Rationality, Optimality, and Choice," Rationality and Society, , vol. 5(1), pages 47-57, January.
    9. Carina Cavalcanti & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2017. "A glance into the willingness to reduce overfishing: Field evidence from a fishnet exchange program," Monash Economics Working Papers 09-17, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Rassoul Yazdipour & William P. Neace, 2013. "Operationalizing a Behavioral Finance Risk Model: A Theoretical and Empirical Framework," Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, Pepperdine University, Graziadio School of Business and Management, vol. 16(2), pages 1-32, Spring.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Frey, Bruno S. & Gallus, Jana, 2014. "Aggregate effects of behavioral anomalies: A new research area," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 8, pages 1-15.
    18. Shackley, Phil & Donaldson, Cam, 2002. "Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care?: New evidence from using a 'marginal' approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 971-991, November.
    19. 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.
    20. Kirchler, Erich & Holzl, Erik, 2006. "Twenty-five years of the Journal of Economic Psychology (1981-2005): A report on the development of an interdisciplinary field of research," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 793-804, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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.