IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/205450.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Capturing More Relevant Measures of Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay: Using an Iterative Grid Search Algorithm to Quantify Proximate Environmental Impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Holland, Benedict M.
  • Johnston, Robert J.

Abstract

Willingness to pay (WTP) for public goods is often spatially heterogeneous; the relevance of this heterogeneity for policy analysis is increasingly recognized. Within stated preference (SP) analysis, the most commonly analyzed form of spatial heterogeneity is distance decay, in which WTP is assumed to diminish as a monotonic function of distance from the affected resource. This distance is typically calculated from each respondent’s household to the nearest point of the affected resource, using either Euclidean or travel distance. A small but increasing literature, however, now suggests the limitations of a simple distance decay paradigm as the sole means to evaluate spatial heterogeneity. This article illustrates a novel approach to account for spatial welfare heterogeneity that may better capture the systematic sensitivity of preferences to resource proximity. The model accounts for the amount of the affected resource surrounding each respondent’s home location, at distance bands of varying length, rather than the distance to the closest point. This alternative “quantity-within-distance-x” measure is used as a substitute for the common “distance-to-nearestpoint” measure with distance-related models of spatial welfare heterogeneity. Methods and results are illustrated using a choice experiment addressing preferences for riparian land restoration in south coastal Maine. Results suggest that the resulting models better capture spatial elements relevant to respondents’ preferences. Comparison to standard distance decay models shows the additional insight provided by this novel approach.

Suggested Citation

  • 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;Western Agricultural Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/205450
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johnston, Robert J. & Segerson, Kathleen & Schultz, Eric T. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2011. "Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of aquatic ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1946-1956, September.
    2. 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.
    3. 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, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 41(1), pages 97-111, January.
    4. 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.
    5. John M. Rose & Michiel C. J. Bliemer, 2008. "Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(5), pages 587-617, October.
    6. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    7. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(01), pages 98-118, April.
    8. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How Can We Reduce the Errors from Benefits Transfer? An Investigation Using the Choice Experiment Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 128-147.
    9. 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.
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & John M. Rose, 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 253-282, September.
    11. Ian Bateman & Ian Langford, 1997. "Non-users' Willingness to Pay for a National Park: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 571-582.
    12. Nick Hanley & David Bell & Begona Alvarez-Farizo, 2003. "Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements Using Contingent and Real Behaviour," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(3), pages 273-285, March.
    13. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2012. "Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National Values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 347-365, November.
    14. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    15. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    16. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(4), pages 591-611, December.
    17. Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2013. "Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents' residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 58-71.
    18. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    19. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    20. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. Minjuan Zhao & Robert Johnston & Eric Schultz, 2013. "What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 3-25, September.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    28. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2009. "Informing Preservation of Multifunctional Agriculture when Primary Research Is Unavailable: An Application of Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1353-1359.
    29. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    30. John B. Loomis, 2000. "Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 312-321.
    31. Robert J. Johnston & Eric T. Schultz & Kathleen Segerson & Elena Y. Besedin & Mahesh Ramachandran, 2012. "Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(1), pages 102-120.
    32. Carson, Richard T & Wilks, Leanne & Imber, David, 1994. "Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 727-749, Supplemen.
    33. Georgiou, Stavros & Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Day, Rosemary J., 2000. "Coastal bathing water health risks: developing means of assessing the adequacy of proposals to amend the 1976 EC directive," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(01), pages 49-68, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    choice experiment; distance decay; nonmarket valuation; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea15:205450. 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.