IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eerhrr/94813.html

A Choice Modelling Survey of Community Attitudes to Improvements in Environmental Quality in NSW Catchments

Author

Listed:
  • Mazur, Kasia
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.

Abstract

The survey was designed to estimate environmental values suitable for integration into MOSAIC, a bio-economic model for catchment and farm level planning. Local residents, as well as distant rural and distant urban communities, were surveyed in three NSW catchments (Lachlan, Namoi and Hawkesbury-Nepean) using choice modelling (CM). The survey aimed to find out respondents’ attitudes about, and preferences for, potential natural resource management (NRM) improvements. In total, 3,997 responses were collected from seven different locations in NSW. Fourteen split samples were established to allow for testing of incentive compatibility in CM, the impact of respondent location on values held, and scale effects. This research report describes the development of the CM questionnaires, the survey design and the data collection process.

Suggested Citation

  • Mazur, Kasia & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "A Choice Modelling Survey of Community Attitudes to Improvements in Environmental Quality in NSW Catchments," Research Reports 94813, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eerhrr:94813
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.94813
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/94813/files/EERH-RR13-1v3%2009.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.94813?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawson, Kenton & Hill, Christine M. & Hodges, Andrew & Jacobs, Brent, 2007. "Exploring natural resource management tradeoffs in an agricultural landscape - an application of the MOSAIC model," 2007 Conference (51st), February 13-16, 2007, Queenstown, New Zealand 10374, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. 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.
    3. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    4. Hill, Christine M. & Farquharson, Robert J. & Ferrier, Simon & Grieve, Alastair, 2007. "Issues of scale and scope in bio-physical modelling for natural resource management decision making in New South Wales," 2007 Conference (51st), February 13-16, 2007, Queenstown, New Zealand 10427, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    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. Tertius Greyling & Jeff Bennett, 2010. "Revegetation of Regent Honeyeater habitat in the Capertee Valley: a Cost-Benefit Analysis," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1081, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    2. Tertius Greyling & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Protecting the Booroolong Frog in the Namoi Catchment: A Cost-Benefit Analysis," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 10101, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    3. Greyling, Tertius & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2011. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of the protection of Malleefowl in the Lachlan Catchment," Research Reports 107849, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    4. Farquharson, Robert J. & Kelly, Jason A. & Welsh, Pam & Mazur, Kasia & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "Policy responses to invasive native species: issues of social and private benefits and costs," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48157, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Gillespie, Robert & Bennett, Jeff, 2017. "Costs and Benefits of Rodent Eradication on Lord Howe Island, Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 215-224.
    6. Leroux, Anke D. & Whitten, Stuart M., 2014. "Optimal investment in ecological rehabilitation under climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 133-144.

    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. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    2. Birol, Ekin & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," MPRA Paper 38232, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    4. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.
    5. Boyd, James & Krupnick, Alan, 2009. "The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-35, Resources for the Future.
    6. 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.
    7. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    8. Christine Bertram & Heini Ahtiainen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Kristine Pakalniete & Eija Pouta & Katrin Rehdanz, 2020. "Contingent Behavior and Asymmetric Preferences for Baltic Sea Coastal Recreation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(1), pages 49-78, January.
    9. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Le Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Post-Print hal-03342732, HAL.
    10. Catalina M. Torres & Antoni Riera & Dolores García, 2009. "Are Preferences for Water Quality Different for Second-Home Residents?," Tourism Economics, , vol. 15(3), pages 629-651, September.
    11. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    12. Ekin Birol & Andreas Kontoleon & Melinda Smale, 2005. "Using a Choice Experiment to Estimate the Demand of Hungarian Farmers for Food Security and Agrobiodiversity During Economic Transition," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Working Papers 12.2005, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economics, revised 2005.
    13. Christoph, Inken B. & Peter, Guenter & Rothe, Andrea & Salamon, Petra & Weber, Sascha A. & Weible, Daniela, 2011. "School Milk Consumption in Germany - What are Important Product Attributes for Children and Parents?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114294, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    16. Emily Lancsar, 2002. "Deriving welfare measures from stated preference discrete choice modelling experiments, CHERE Discussion Paper No 48," Discussion Papers 48, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    17. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    18. Dolan, Paul & Metcalf, Robert, 2008. "Comparing willingness-to-pay and subjective well-being in the context of non-market goods," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28504, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Folkersen, Maja Vinde, 2018. "Ecosystem valuation: Changing discourse in a time of climate change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 1-12.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eerhrr:94813. 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/asanuau.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.