IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare11/100704.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is Choice Modelling Really Necessary? Public versus expert values for marine reserves in Western Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Rogers, Abbie A.

Abstract

One of the motivations for choice modelling is to provide values that can be used to inform decisionmakers about the non-market costs and benefits of proposed projects or policies. However, the question must be asked as to whether decision-makers consider choice modelling to be a policy relevant tool. There may be more cost-effective and convenient means of providing comparable policy guidance than commissioning a choice modelling study. For example, advice on decision options may be sought from experts, such as scientists. However, expert advice may not accurately reflect the value judgements of the public. The aim of this study is to investigate whether public and expert preferences diverge, using the choice modelling technique. Two case studies are utilised – the Ningaloo Marine Park and the proposed Ngari Capes Marine Park in Western Australia. Evidence of both divergence and convergence between public and expert values is found in different instances, with public awareness factors playing a role in this divide. Where preference divergence appears likely, decision-makers should consider choice modelling as a useful tool to inform policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Rogers, Abbie A., 2011. "Is Choice Modelling Really Necessary? Public versus expert values for marine reserves in Western Australia," 2011 Conference (55th), February 8-11, 2011, Melbourne, Australia 100704, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare11:100704
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.100704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/100704/files/Rogers%20A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.100704?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    2. Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-25.
    3. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Roebeling, Peter C. & Ruijs, Arjan, 2006. "Effects of Great Barrier Reef Degradation on Recreational Demand: A Contingent Behaviour Approach," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12228, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    4. Peter C. Roebeling & M.E. Kragt & A. Ruijs, 2006. "Effects of Great Barrier Reef Degradation on Recreational Demand: A Contingent Behaviour Approach," Working Papers 2006.45, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    6. S. L. Goodman & W. Seabrooke & S. A. Jaffry, 1998. "Considering Conservation Value in Economic Appraisals of Coastal Resources," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(3), pages 313-336.
    7. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Roebeling, Peter C. & Ruijs, Arjan, 2006. "Effects of Great Barrier Reef Degradation on Recreational Demand: A Contingent Behaviour Approach," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25753, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Colombo, S. & Angus, A. & Morris, J. & Parsons, D.J. & Brawn, M. & Stacey, K. & Hanley, N., 2009. "A comparison of citizen and "expert" preferences using an attribute-based approach to choice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2834-2841, September.
    9. Robert J. Johnston & Gisele Magnusson & Marisa J. Mazzotta & James J. Opaluch, 2002. "Combining Economic and Ecological Indicators to Prioritize Salt Marsh Restoration Actions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1362-1370.
    10. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J. & Quevedo, Jose L., 2006. "The effect of medical experience on the economic evaluation of health policies. A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 512-524, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.

    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. Rogers, Abbie A. & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Comparing Scientist and Public Preferences for Conserving Environmental Systems: A Case of the Kimberley’s Tropical Waterways and Wetlands," Research Reports 107579, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    2. Abbie A. Rogers, 2013. "Public and Expert Preference Divergence: Evidence from a Choice Experiment of Marine Reserves in Australia," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 346-370.
    3. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2017. "Expert judgements and public values: preference heterogeneity for protecting ecology in the Swan River, Western Australia," Working Papers 254025, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    4. McCartney, Abbie, 2009. "The Policy Relevance of Choice Modelling: An Application to the Ningaloo and Proposed Capes Marine Parks," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48033, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John C. & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2020. "Expert judgements and community values: preference heterogeneity for protecting river ecology in Western Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(2), April.
    6. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2018. "Difference in Preferences or Multiple Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 131-141.
    7. Ghermandi, Andrea & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2013. "A global map of coastal recreation values: Results from a spatially explicit meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-15.
    8. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2016. "Difference in Preferences or in Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Working Papers in Economics 669, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    10. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.
    11. Fiebig, Denzil G. & Haas, Marion & Hossain, Ishrat & Street, Deborah J. & Viney, Rosalie, 2009. "Decisions about Pap tests: What influences women and providers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 1766-1774, May.
    12. Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Henrik Jaldell, 2012. "Do administrators have the same priorities for risk reductions as the general public?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 79-95, August.
    13. repec:ags:aare05:139316 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    15. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    16. Michael Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "Comparing Alternative Models Of Heterogeneity In Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1018-1045, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Hu, Wuyang, 2008. "Modeling Yeah- and Nay-Saying to Alternatives in Conjoint Experiments," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6346, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Choi, Andy Sungnok & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2006. "A Critique of Conventional Non-market Valuation: Attitudes and Action," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 174461, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    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:aare11:100704. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.