IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jagaec/v40y2008i01p267-285_02.html

Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications

Author

Listed:
  • Cho, Seong-Hoon
  • Yen, Steven T.
  • Bowker, J.M.
  • Newman, David H.

Abstract

This study compares an ordered probit model and a Tobit model with selection to take into account both true zero and protest zero bids while estimating the willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation easements in Macon County, NC. By comparing the two models, the ordered/unordered selection issue of the protest responses is analyzed to demonstrate how the treatment of protest responses can significantly influence WTP models. Both models consistently show that income and knowledge are positive and significant factors, while distance to poorer quality streams and duration of residency are negative and significant factors on WTP.

Suggested Citation

  • Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yen, Steven T. & Bowker, J.M. & Newman, David H., 2008. "Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 267-285, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:40:y:2008:i:01:p:267-285_02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1074070800028108/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sun, Changyou & Kline, Jeffry D. & Li, Xiaofei, 2025. "Conservation easement adoption among forest landowners in the United States," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. Senakpon, Kokoye, "undated". "Farmers’ Willingness To Pay For Soil Testing Service In Northern Haiti," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252804, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Levison S. Chiwaula & Gowokani Chijere Chirwa & Lucy S. Binauli & James Banda & Joseph Nagoli, 2018. "Gender differences in willingness to pay for capital-intensive agricultural technologies: the case of fish solar tent dryers in Malawi," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. AHMED, Musa H. & MELESSE, Kumilachew A. & TEREFE, Aemro T., . "Valuing Soil Conservation Practices Using Contingent Valuation Technique: Evidence From The Central Rift Valley Of Ethiopia," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 18(2), pages 1-11.
    6. Balmford, Ben & Bateman, Ian J. & Bolt, Katherine & Day, Brett & Ferrini, Silvia, 2019. "The value of statistical life for adults and children: Comparisons of the contingent valuation and chained approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 68-84.
    7. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    8. Victor Champonnois & Olivier Chanel & Costin Protopopescu, 2022. "Quantile Regression Analysis of Censored Data with Selection An Application to Willingness-to-Pay Data," Working Papers hal-03739861, HAL.
    9. McLeod, Elizabeth & Jensen, Kimberly & Griffith, Andrew & Lewis, Karen, 2017. "Tennessee Beef Producers' Willingness to Participate in a Tennessee Branded Beef Program," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252649, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. López-Mosquera, Natalia & Sánchez, Mercedes, 2011. "The influence of personal values in the economic-use valuation of peri-urban green spaces: An application of the means-end chain theory," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 875-889.
    11. Hsieh, Ching-Hua & Lin, Hsing-Wei & Liu, Wan-Yu, 2023. "Assessing the ecosystem services provided by conventional and organic farmlands: A better outcome for organic farmlands?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    12. Nilgen, Marco & Rode, Julian & Vorlaufer, Tobias & Vollan, Björn, 2024. "Measuring non-use values to proxy conservation preferences and policy impacts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Workie, Lamesgin Tebeje, 2017. "Households’ Willingness To Pay For Soil Conservation Practices On Cultivated Land In South Achefer District, Amhara National Regional State Of Ethiopia: A Contingent Valuation Approach," Research Theses 276459, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    14. Liu, Zhongyuan & Dorfman, Jeffrey H. & Bergstrom, John C. & Chen, Huiguang, "undated". "Income, Belonging and Economic Value of Environmental Amenities: Evidence from Migrant Workers in China," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274008, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Gautam, Tej K. & Paudel, Krishna P. & Guidry, Kurt M., 2017. "Willingness To Pay For Irrigation Water In Louisiana," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252821, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Anna Bartczak & Ulf Liebe, 2012. "Protester or non-protester: a binary state? On the use (and non-use) of latent class models to analyse protesting in economic valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(3), pages 438-454, July.
    17. Koo, A Mi & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Household willingness to pay for a smart water metering and monitoring system: The case of South Korea," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).

    More about this item

    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:cup:jagaec:v:40:y:2008:i:01:p:267-285_02. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/aae .

    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.