IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v101y2021ics0264837720310681.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of perceived economic contributions on individual preferences for environmentally friendly residential landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Xumin
  • Khachatryan, Hayk

Abstract

Areas devoted to maintained residential landscapes are a common trend in new community planning, increasing the potential for unintended environmental consequences. State, local governments, and water management organizations are interested in policies that promote low-input residential landscapes and relevant landscaping practices by individual households to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Converting traditional, turfgrass dominated residential lawns into low-input landscapes (i.e., design with lawn / plant bed combination) is one approach for water conservation. Additional considerations of perceived economic benefits of residential landscapes, such as the home value-added benefits (VAB), may affect the adoption decision. However, the relationship between individuals’ perceived VAB of low-input landscapes and preferences needs further investigation. The present study used a discrete choice experiment (CE) framework to investigate the effects of individuals’ perceived VAB on willingness to pay for environmentally friendly landscapes. The results revealed that simple economic benefits information alone does not affect homeowners’ landscape preferences. The perceived VAB significantly affect individuals’ adoption intentions, so that improving households’ perception of VAB can help encourage pro-environmental behavior. Contributions to the residential landscape preferences literature and practical implications for industry stakeholders are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Xumin & Khachatryan, Hayk, 2021. "Effects of perceived economic contributions on individual preferences for environmentally friendly residential landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:101:y:2021:i:c:s0264837720310681
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837720310681
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105125?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hayk Khachatryan & Dong Hee Suh & Guzhen Zhou & Michael Dukes, 2017. "Sustainable Urban Landscaping: Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Turfgrass Fertilizers," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 65(3), pages 385-407, September.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    3. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    4. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    5. Xiang Bi & Lisa House & Zhifeng Gao, 2016. "Impacts of Nutrition Information on Choices of Fresh Seafood Among Parents," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(3), pages 355-372.
    6. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    7. 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.
    8. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    9. Nickerson, Cynthia & Ebel, Robert & Borchers, Allison & Carriazo, Fernando, 2011. "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2007," Economic Information Bulletin 291937, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Xuan Wei & Hayk Khachatryan & Alan Hodges & Charlie Hall & Marco Palma & Ariana Torres & Robin Brumfield, 2023. "Exploring market choices in the US ornamental horticulture industry," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(1), pages 65-109, January.

    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Faccilongo, Nicola & Roselli, Luigi, 2019. "Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    3. Ruggiero Sardaro & Nicola Faccilongo & Francesco Contò & Piermichele La Sala, 2021. "Adaption Actions to Cope with Climate Change: Evidence from Farmers’ Preferences on an Agrobiodiversity Conservation Programme in the Mediterranean Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, May.
    4. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    5. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    6. Olsthoorn, Mark & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Durand, Antoine & Faure, Corinne, 2023. "Beyond energy efficiency: Do consumers care about life-cycle properties of household appliances?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    7. Sandra Notaro & Maria De Salvo & Roberta Raffaelli, 2022. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Alpine Pastures: A Discrete Choice Experiment Accounting for Attribute Non-Attendance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    9. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    10. Wensing, Joana & Caputo, Vincenzina & Carraresi, Laura & Bröring, Stefanie, 2020. "The effects of green nudges on consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    11. Luo, Rachel & Fan, Yichun & Yang, Xin & Zhao, Jinhua & Zheng, Siqi, 2021. "The impact of social externality information on fostering sustainable travel mode choice: A behavioral experiment in Zhengzhou, China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 127-145.
    12. Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte, 2021. "Would you prefer to rent rather than own your new heating system? Insights from a discrete choice experiment among owner-occupiers in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    13. John C. Whitehead & Daniel K. Lew, 2020. "Estimating recreation benefits through joint estimation of revealed and stated preference discrete choice data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2009-2029, April.
    14. Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2020. "Public perspective on the environmental impacts of sea sand mining: Evidence from a choice experiment in South Korea," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    15. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    16. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    17. Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    18. Heng, Yan & Lu, Chao-Lin & Yu, Luqing & Gao, Zhifeng, 2020. "The heterogeneous preferences for solar energy policies among US households," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    19. Espinosa-Goded, María & Rodriguez-Entrena, Macario & Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania, 2021. "A straightforward diagnostic tool to identify attribute non-attendance in discrete choice experiments," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 211-226.
    20. Chad M. Botes & Alberto M. Zanni, 2021. "Trees, ground vegetation, sidewalks, cycleways: users’ preferences and economic values for different elements of an urban street—a case study in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 145-171, January.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:101:y:2021:i:c:s0264837720310681. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.