IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/lsprsc/v15y2022i1d10.1007_s12076-022-00301-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining spatially heterogeneous preferences for coastal ecosystem restoration with Bayesian spatial probit approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Kei Kabaya

    (Rikkyo University)

Abstract

Preferences for environmental goods often display spatial heterogeneity. Nevertheless, spatial discrete choice models have received minimal attention in the stated-preference literature to date. The present study examined three alternative Bayesian spatial probit models to investigate the various implications of space on respondents’ voting patterns. The case study was a dichotomous choice contingent valuation of coastal ecosystem restoration in Yokohama City, Japan. A non-spatial probit model first showed that spatial observable variables, such as distance and landscapes, failed to explain spatially motivated voting patterns. A spatial autoregressive probit model then revealed significantly negative spatial feedback effects on respondents’ votes and demonstrated insignificant but potentially policy-relevant difference in willingness-to-pay estimates. A spatial error probit model also unveiled significant spatial heterogeneity based on latent factors. Finally, a spatially structured effects probit model with a more flexible boundary setting enabled the researcher to identify some regional voting patterns. These results suggest that the application of spatial probit models to a contingent valuation study can provide additional insights on the spatial aspects of respondents’ preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Kei Kabaya, 2022. "Examining spatially heterogeneous preferences for coastal ecosystem restoration with Bayesian spatial probit approaches," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 99-112, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:lsprsc:v:15:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s12076-022-00301-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s12076-022-00301-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12076-022-00301-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12076-022-00301-z?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. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    2. Loomis, John B. & Mueller, Julie M., 2013. "A Spatial Probit Modeling Approach to Account for Spatial Spillover Effects in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 53-63, February.
    3. Robert Johnston & Mahesh Ramachandran, 2014. "Modeling Spatial Patchiness and Hot Spots in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(3), pages 363-387, November.
    4. Kelley Pace, R. & LeSage, James P., 2008. "A spatial Hausman test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 282-284, December.
    5. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design And Contingent Valuation: The Noaa Panel'S No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(3), pages 484-487, August.
    6. Pate, Jennifer & Loomis, John, 1997. "The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 199-207, March.
    7. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Marek Giergiczny & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 705-727, November.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Daniel Jarvis & Kristy Wallmo & Daniel K. Lew, 2015. "Multiscale Spatial Pattern in Nonuse Willingness to Pay: Applications to Threatened and Endangered Marine Species," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(4), pages 739-761.
    9. Ian Bateman & Ian Langford & Naohito Nishikawa & Iain Lake, 2000. "The Axford Debate Revisited: A Case Study Illustrating Different Approaches to the Aggregation of Benefits Data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 291-302.
    10. Pinkse, Joris & Slade, Margaret E., 1998. "Contracting in space: An application of spatial statistics to discrete-choice models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 125-154, July.
    11. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    12. Anselin, Luc, 2002. "Under the hood : Issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 247-267, November.
    13. Danny Campbell & W George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 97-111, January.
    14. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    15. Kathleen P. Bell & Nancy E. Bockstael, 2000. "Applying the Generalized-Moments Estimation Approach to Spatial Problems Involving Microlevel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 72-82, February.
    16. J. Paul Elhorst & Pim Heijnen & Anna Samarina & Jan P. A. M. Jacobs, 2017. "Transitions at Different Moments in Time: A Spatial Probit Approach," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 422-439, March.
    17. James P. LeSage, 2014. "What Regional Scientists Need to Know about Spatial Econometrics," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 44(1), pages 13-32, Spring.
    18. Danny Campbell & Riccardo Scarpa & W. Hutchinson, 2008. "Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 117-126, December.
    19. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    20. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    21. repec:rre:publsh:v:40:y:2010:i:3:p:245-255 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Anna Gloria Billé & Giuseppe Arbia, 2019. "Spatial Limited Dependent Variable Models: A Review Focused On Specification, Estimation, And Health Economics Applications," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5), pages 1531-1554, December.
    23. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    24. Ronald J. Sutherland & Richard G. Walsh, 1985. "Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 281-291.
    25. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 217-237.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    2. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Elena Y. Besedin & Benedict M. Holland, 2019. "Modeling Distance Decay Within Valuation Meta-Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 657-690, March.
    4. Tomas Badura & Silvia Ferrini & Michael Burton & Amy Binner & Ian J. Bateman, 2020. "Using Individualised Choice Maps to Capture the Spatial Dimensions of Value Within Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 297-322, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Artell, Janne & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2019. "Distance decay and regional statistics in international benefit transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Valeria M. Toledo‐Gallegos & Jed Long & Danny Campbell & Tobias Börger & Nick Hanley, 2021. "Spatial clustering of willingness to pay for ecosystem services," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 673-697, September.
    8. Robert Johnston & Mahesh Ramachandran, 2014. "Modeling Spatial Patchiness and Hot Spots in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(3), pages 363-387, November.
    9. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2015. "Capturing More Relevant Measures of Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay: Using an Iterative Grid Search Algorithm to Quantify Proximate Environmental Impacts," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205450, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2017. "The Presence of Hypothetical Bias within Spatial Decay and Charismatic Species: An Application of Monarch and Viceroy Butterflies," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258204, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Joffre Swait & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2020. "Antecedent Volition and Spatial Effects: Can Multiple Goal Pursuit Mitigate Distance Decay?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 243-270, February.
    13. Céline Moreaux & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Bo Dalsgaard & Carsten Rahbek & Niels Strange, 2023. "Distance and Regional Effects on the Value of Wild Bee Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 37-63, January.
    14. Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y., 2011. "Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn’t Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Ladenburg, Jacob & Martinsen, Louise & Svenningsen, Stig Roar & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 58-66.
    16. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.
    17. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    18. Søren B. Olsen & Cathrine U. Jensen & Toke E. Panduro, 2020. "Modelling Strategies for Discontinuous Distance Decay in Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 351-386, February.
    19. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2018. "Estimating the Benefits of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in Atlantic Member States: A Spatial Value Transfer Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 82-94.
    20. Yamaguchi, Rintaro & Shah, Payal, 2020. "Spatial discounting of ecosystem services," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bayesian estimation; Contingent valuation; Spatial autoregressive probit model; Spatial error probit model; Spatially structured effect probit model; Willingness-to-pay;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological 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:spr:lsprsc:v:15:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s12076-022-00301-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.