IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i19p5210-d269878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Central Kentuckians’ Willingness to Pay for Horse Farm Preservation

Author

Listed:
  • SuZanne Troske

    (Community and Economic Development in Kentucky (CEDIK), University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA)

  • Stephanie Waters

    (Neogen Corporation, Lansing, MI 48912, USA)

  • James Allen

    (Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

  • Alison Davis

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and CEDIK, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA)

  • C. Jill Stowe

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA)

Abstract

This study estimates the non-market value of horse farms of Central Kentucky’s equine economic cluster using a contingent valuation approach. Utilizing a payment card, respondents are asked to indicate how much they would be willing to pay in additional taxes for a hypothetical “horse farm preservation program.” Results from the study showed that, on average, a Central Kentucky household was willing to pay an additional $55.14–$67.78 in taxes annually to maintain the equine industry at its current levels. The additional taxes generated would compensate for lost tax revenue from development of the land.

Suggested Citation

  • SuZanne Troske & Stephanie Waters & James Allen & Alison Davis & C. Jill Stowe, 2019. "Central Kentuckians’ Willingness to Pay for Horse Farm Preservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5210-:d:269878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5210/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/19/5210/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yang, Shang-Ho & Hu, Wuyang & Mupandawana, Malvern & Liu, Yun, 2012. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Coffee: A Chinese Case Study," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(01), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Halstead, John M. & Luloff, A.E. & Stevens, Thomas H., 1992. "Protest Bidders In Contingent Valuation," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 1-10, October.
    3. Hanley, Nick & Shogren, Jason & White, Ben, 2013. "Introduction to Environmental Economics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199568734.
    4. Yang, Shang-Ho & Guan, Huanda & Hu, Wuyang & Liu, Yun, 2012. "Product Information and Willingness-to-Pay: A Case Study of Fair Trade Coffee on Chinese Market," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124360, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Hu, Wuyang, 2006. "Use of Spike Models in Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Non-GM Oil," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Michael E. Porter, 2000. "Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 14(1), pages 15-34, February.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    8. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    9. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    10. Tanya O’Garra & Susana Mourato, 2007. "Public Preferences for Hydrogen Buses: Comparing Interval Data, OLS and Quantile Regression Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 389-411, April.
    11. Cam Donaldson & Ruth Thomas & David Torgerson, 1997. "Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 79-84.
    12. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    13. Irwin, Elena G. & Nickerson, Cynthia J. & Libby, Lawrence W., 2003. "What are Farmland Amenities Worth?," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1-4.
    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. Zawojska, Ewa & Gastineau, Pascal & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Cheze, Benoit & Paris, Anthony, 2021. "Measuring policy consequentiality perceptions in stated preference surveys," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313977, 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. Joan Costa‐Font & Caroline Rudisill & Sayward Harrison & Luca Salmasi, 2023. "The social value of a SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine: Willingness to pay estimates from four western countries," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(8), pages 1818-1835, August.
    2. Champonnois, Victor & Chanel, Olivier & Makhloufi, Khaled, 2018. "Reducing the anchoring bias in multiple question CV surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-9.
    3. Farr, Marina & Stoeckl, Natalie & Alam Beg, Rabiul, 2014. "The non-consumptive (tourism) ‘value’ of marine species in the Northern section of the Great Barrier Reef," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 89-103.
    4. Lotte Soeteman & Job Exel & Ana Bobinac, 2017. "The impact of the design of payment scales on the willingness to pay for health gains," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 743-760, July.
    5. Nir Becker & Yael Choresh & Ofer Bahat & Moshe Inbar, 2010. "Cost benefit analysis of conservation efforts to preserve an endangered species: The Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus) in Israel," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 55-70, April.
    6. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    7. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2016. "Energy projects in Iceland – Advancing the case for the use of economic valuation techniques to evaluate environmental impacts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 104-113.
    8. Veenarat Ut-tha & Pai-Po Lee & Rebecca Chung, 2021. "Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Coffee: A Case of Thai Consumers," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, October.
    9. Jiwon Lee & Lee L. Schulz & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2021. "Swine producer willingness to pay for Tier 1 disease risk mitigation under multifaceted ambiguity," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 858-875, October.
    10. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    11. Sandra, Notaro & Alessandro, Paletto, 2021. "Consumers’ preferences, attitudes and willingness to pay for bio-textile in wood fibers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    12. Takahashi, Ryo, 2021. "How to stimulate environmentally friendly consumption: Evidence from a nationwide social experiment in Japan to promote eco-friendly coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    13. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    14. Takahashi, Ryo & Todo, Yasuyuki & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2018. "How Can We Motivate Consumers to Purchase Certified Forest Coffee? Evidence From a Laboratory Randomized Experiment Using Eye-trackers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 107-121.
    15. Paul Dolan & Robert Metcalfe, 2008. "Comparing Willingness-to-Pay and Subjective Well-Being in the Context of Non-Market Goods," CEP Discussion Papers dp0890, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    16. Lehrer, David & Becker, Nir & Bar, Pua, 2010. "The economic impact of the invasion of Acacia saligna in Israel," MPRA Paper 33954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Clemens Hetschko & Louisa von Reumont & Ronnie Schöb, 2019. "Embedding as a pitfall for survey‐based welfare indicators: evidence from an experiment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 182(2), pages 517-539, February.
    18. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, March.
    19. Erpeng Wang & Ning An & Zhifeng Gao & Emmanuel Kiprop & Xianhui Geng, 2020. "Consumer food stockpiling behavior and willingness to pay for food reserves in COVID-19," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(4), pages 739-747, August.
    20. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Pappa, Valentina, 2016. "Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: A study of climate neutral foods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 141-155.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:19:p:5210-:d:269878. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.