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

The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios

  • De Valck, Jeremy
  • Vlaeminck, Pieter
  • Liekens, Inge
  • Aertsens, Joris
  • Chen, Wendy
  • Vranken, Liesbet

Due to the steady reduction of nature sites in urbanised regions, nature restoration projects are now a focal point of public interest. Policy-makers are required to balance public preferences for nature sites, with the high costs of nature restoration projects. Landscape preferences are, in general, positively correlated with ecological preferences. However this relationship is far from straightforward. Past studies show that different factors, such as personal, site-specific and spatial characteristics, influence preferences, while at the same time, little is known about the relative importance of these factors. This article proposes a conceptual approach for gaining insights into preference heterogeneity, in the context of stated preference environmental valuation studies. We conduct a choice experiment at the Drongengoed (Belgium); an afforested heathland with a diversified mosaic of natural habitats. The experiment determines public preferences towards nature restoration scenarios and illustrates the public’s willingness-to-pay for a change from the current state to a scenario with less coniferous trees, higher biodiversity and good maintaining of accessibility. Area-specific and socio-demographic characteristics are controlled for and affect the preferences for certain types of nature restoration scenarios. Preference heterogeneity is also observed for most of the choice attributes, suggesting that more sophisticated modelling methods are needed.

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/146522
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics in its series Working Papers with number 146522.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:kucawp:146522
Contact details of provider: Postal: Celestijnenlaan 200 E - box 2411, 3001 Leuven (Heverlee)
Phone: +32-16-32 29 80
Fax: +32-16-32 78 00
Web page: http://www.agr.kuleuven.ac.be/aee/clo/clohomee.htm

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. Atakelty Hailu & Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall, 2000. "Complements, Substitutes, Budget Constraints and Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(1), pages 51-68, May.
  2. Jacob A. Mincer, 1974. "Introduction to "Schooling, Experience, and Earnings"," NBER Chapters, in: Schooling, Experience, and Earnings, pages 1-4 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
  4. Vincent Colson & Serge Garcia & Jacques Rondeux & Philippe Lejeune, 2010. "Maps and determinants of woodland visiting in Wallonia," Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2010-03, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA.
  5. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across E," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
  6. Chuan-zhong Li & Jari Kuuluvainen & Eija Pouta & Mika Rekola & Olli Tahvonen, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 361-374, November.
  7. Andrew Mill, Greig & van Rensburg, Tom M. & Hynes, Stephen & Dooley, Conor, 2007. "Preferences for multiple use forest management in Ireland: Citizen and consumer perpectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 642-653, January.
  8. Englin, Jeffrey & Mendelsohn, Robert, 1991. "A hedonic travel cost analysis for valuation of multiple components of site quality: The recreation value of forest management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 275-290, November.
  9. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.
  10. Pepermans, Guido, 2011. "Do Flemish Households Value Renewables?," Working Papers 2011/05, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
  11. Andy Jones & Jan Wright & Ian Bateman & Marije Schaafsma, 2010. "Estimating Arrival Numbers for Informal Recreation: A Geographical Approach and Case Study of British Woodlands," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 2(2), pages 684-701, February.
  12. John Loomis & Armando Gonzalez-Caban & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(4), pages 499-506.
  13. Pouta, Eija & Rekola, Mika & Kuuluvainen, Jari & Li, Chuan-Zhong & Tahvonen, Olli, 2002. "Willingness to pay in different policy-planning methods: insights into respondents' decision-making processes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 295-311, February.
  14. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
  15. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2006. "Directional heterogeneity in distance profiles in hedonic property value models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 26-45, January.
  16. Stenger, Anne & Harou, Patrice & Navrud, Ståle, 2009. "Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 1-14, January.
  17. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
  18. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
  19. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
  20. 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.
  21. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083.
  22. 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.
  23. Riccardo Scarpa & Susanne Menzel, 2005. "Protection Motivation Theory and Contingent Valuation: Perceived Realism, Threat and WTP Estimates for Biodiversity Protection," Working Papers 2005.26, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  24. Elena Ojea & Paulo Nunes & Maria Loureiro, 2010. "Mapping Biodiversity Indicators and Assessing Biodiversity Values in Global Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 329-347, November.
  25. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
  26. Jacob A. Mincer, 1974. "Schooling, Experience, and Earnings," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number minc74-1, December.
  27. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R. & Stein, Taylor V. & Carter, Douglas R. & Denny, Christine B., 2002. "Visitor Preferences And Values For Water-Based Recreation: A Case Study Of The Ocala National Forest," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(03), December.
  28. Hanley, Nicholas & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2008. "Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation?," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-03, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  29. Ready, Richard C. & Malzubris, J nis & Senkane, Silva, 2002. "The relationship between environmental values and income in a transition economy: surface water quality in Latvia," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(01), pages 147-156, February.
  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. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Needham, Mark D. & Morzillo, Anita T. & Moehrke, Caitlin, 2012. "Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 271-281.
  32. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
  33. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
  34. Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2.
  35. 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.
  36. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
  37. N. D. Hanley & R. J. Ruffell, 1993. "The Contingent Valuation Of Forest Characteristics: Two Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 218-229.
  38. R.K. Blamey & J.W. Bennett & J.J. Louviere & M.D. Morrison & J.C. Rolfe, 2002. "Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(2), pages 167-186, October.
  39. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-62, July.
  40. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Louviere, Jordan, 2002. "Stated values and reminders of substitute goods: Testing for framing effects with choice modelling," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(1), March.
  41. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
  42. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-40, September.
  43. Hausman, Jerry A. & Leonard, Gregory K. & McFadden, Daniel, 1995. "A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model Assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 1-30, January.
  44. Luzar, E. Jane & Cosse, Kelli J., 1998. "Willingness to pay or intention to pay: The attitude-behavior relationship in contingent valuation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 427-444.
  45. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2007. "Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 807-814, September.
  46. Thomas Broberg, 2010. "Income Treatment Effects in Contingent Valuation: The Case of the Swedish Predator Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 1-17, May.
  47. Roy Brouwer & Frank Spaninks, 1999. "The Validity of Environmental Benefits Transfer: Further Empirical Testing," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 95-117, July.
  48. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
  49. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
  50. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
  51. Turner, R. Kerry & Paavola, Jouni & Cooper, Philip & Farber, Stephen & Jessamy, Valma & Georgiou, Stavros, 2003. "Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 493-510, October.
  52. Richard Blundell & Lorraine Dearden & Barbara Sianesi, 2005. "Evaluating the effect of education on earnings: models, methods and results from the National Child Development Survey," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(3), pages 473-512.
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:kucawp:146522. 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.