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

Testing Different Types of Benefit Transfer in Valuation of Ecosystem Services: New Zealand Winegrowing Case Studies

  • Baskaran, Ramesh
  • Cullen, Ross
  • Colombo, Sergio

Most ecosystem services (ES) are neither priced nor marketed. Resource managers may fail to take into account degradation of unpriced services in their resource management decisions. Being able to estimate values for ES is fundamental to designing policies to induce resource users to provide (or improve) ES at levels that are acceptable to society. Conducting ecosystem valuation via non-market methods is costly and time consuming. Benefit Transfer (BT) using choice modeling (CM) is a potentially cost-effective method for valuing ES by transferring information from existing valuation studies (and study sites) to a target area of interest (policy sites). The prime objective of this paper is to examine the validity of BT and hence whether it is feasible to conduct the transfer process and assist policy making. The paper focuses on the environmental impact of winegrowing practices in two New Zealand winegrowing regions. The two sites, Hawke’s Bay and Marlborough, have similar environmental issues and attributes but are geographically separated. The study estimates WTP and Compensating Surplus (CS) for ES applying CM and, subsequently, given the preferences of respondents across sites and populations, tests the transferability of unadjusted value transfer (WTP) and benefits function (CS) assessing four different types of BT.

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/48189
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 48189.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:aare09:48189
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. Dadi Kristofersson & Ståle Navrud, 2005. "Validity Tests of Benefit Transfer – Are We Performing the Wrong Tests?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 279-286, 03.
  2. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521788304 is not listed on IDEAS
  3. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Conzalex-Roa, M.C., 2005. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24747, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  4. 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.
  5. Robert Johnston & Joshua Duke, 2008. "Benefit Transfer Equivalence Tests with Non-normal Distributions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(1), pages 1-23, September.
  6. Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo & Dugald Tinch & Andrew Black & Ashar Aftab, 2006. "Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: are benefits transferable?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 33(3), pages 391-413, September.
  7. Morrison, Mark & Bergland, Olvar, 2006. "Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 420-428, December.
  8. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
  9. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
  10. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, 03.
  11. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
  12. Desvouges, William H. & Naughton, Michael C. & Parsons, George R., 1992. "Benefits transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies," MPRA Paper 36405, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  13. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083.
  14. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
  15. John C. Bergstrom & Paul Civita, 1999. "Status of Benefits Transfer in the United States and Canada: A Review," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(1), pages 79-87, 03.
  16. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2008. "Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 433-446, April.
  17. Sergio Colombo & Javier Calatrava-Requena & Nick Hanley, 2007. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer with Preference Heterogeneity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 135-151.
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:aare09:48189. 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.