IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea02/19683.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stated Preferences And Length Of Residency In Rural Communities: Are Development And Conservation Values Heterogeneous?

Author

Listed:
  • Johnston, Robert J.
  • Swallow, Stephen K.
  • Bauer, Dana Marie

Abstract

Newer residents of rural, urban-fringe communities are often assumed to have preferences for the development and conservation of rural lands that differ from those of longer-term residents. The existing literature offers little to verify or quantify presumed preference shifts. This paper provides a systematic, quantitative examination of whether stated preferences for development and conservation tradeoffs differ according to length of residency in a rural community, and explores implications of these findings for assumptions regarding development and conservation preferences. Results are based on stated preferences estimated from a multi-attribute contingent choice survey of Rhode Island rural residents. Heterogeneity-according to length of town residency-is incorporated using Lagrangian Interpolation Polynomials. This approach models the influence of policy attributes as a polynomial function of residence time, thereby allowing estimated coefficient values to vary as a continuous function of residence duration.

Suggested Citation

  • Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Bauer, Dana Marie, 2002. "Stated Preferences And Length Of Residency In Rural Communities: Are Development And Conservation Values Heterogeneous?," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19683, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea02:19683
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.19683
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/19683/files/sp02jo01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. David F. Layton, 2001. "Alternative Approaches for Modeling Concave Willingness to Pay Functions in Conjoint Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1314-1320.
    3. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    4. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    5. Johnston, Robert J. & Weaver, Thomas F. & Smith, Lynn A. & Swallow, Stephen K., 1995. "Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights from Ethnographic Interview Techniques," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 56-69, April.
    6. McConnell, K. E., 1990. "Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 19-34, January.
    7. Stephen K. Swallow & Thomas Weaver & James J. Opaluch & Thomas S. Michelman, 1994. "Heterogeneous Preferences and Aggregation in Environmental Policy Analysis: A Landfill Siting Case," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(3), pages 431-443.
    8. John B. Loomis, 1987. "Expanding Contingent Value Sample Estimates to Aggregate Benefit Estimates: Current Practices and Proposed Solutions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(4), pages 396-402.
    9. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    10. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, 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. Heigh, Lori & Rollins, Kimberly S. & Kanetkar, Vinay, 2001. "An Appropriate Welfare Measure Of Wildlife Damage," Working Papers 34153, University of Guelph, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    13. Tyrrell, Timothy J, 1983. "The Use of Polynomials to Shift Coefficients in Linear Regression Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 1(3), pages 249-252, July.
    14. Michelle A. Haefele & John B. Loomis, 2001. "Improving Statistical Efficiency and Testing Robustness of Conjoint Marginal Valuations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1321-1327.
    15. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:aaea02:19683. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.