IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Using choice experiments to value river and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity

  • Kragt, Marit Ellen
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.

Choice experiments (CE – otherwise known as Choice Modelling) have become a widespread approach to environmental valuation in Australia, with many examples assessing the tradeoffs between river catchment management and socio-economic impacts. There is, however, limited information on the values of Australian estuaries. Furthermore, none of the existing valuation studies address catchment management changes in Tasmania. The CE study reported in this paper aims to elicit community preferences for the protection of the rivers and estuary of the George catchment in north-eastern Tasmania. Results from conditional and mixed logit models show that respondents are, on average, willing to pay between $2.47 and $4.46 for a km increase in native riverside vegetation and between $9.35 and $10.97 per species for the protection of rare native plants and animals, ceteris paribus. The results are ambiguous about respondents’ preferences for estuary seagrass area. This study further shows significant differences between logit models when accounting for individual heterogeneity and repeated choices made by individual respondents.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/48058
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia with number 48058.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:aare09:48058
Contact details of provider: Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: 0409 032 338
Web page: http://www4.agr.gc.ca
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  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 715-19, November.
  2. Morrison, Mark & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 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), December.
  3. Marit Kragt & Jeff Bennett, 2008. "Designing Choice Experiments to Test for Anchoring and Framing Effects," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 0810, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
  4. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 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), September.
  5. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, 09.
  6. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
  7. Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh & Patricia A. Champ, 1997. "Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 255-267.
  8. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294.
  9. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
  10. Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2007. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Working Papers in Economics 07/18, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.
  11. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
  12. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132.
  13. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521788304 is not listed on IDEAS
  14. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2007. "Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 610-623, September.
  15. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aare09:48058. 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)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.