IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nceewp/280870.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Determining the Extent of Market and Extent of Resource for Stated Preference Survey Design Using Mapping Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Vajjhala, Shalini P.
  • John, Anna Mische
  • Evans, David A.

Abstract

Determining the appropriate survey population and the commodity to be valued are among the most fundamental design decisions for stated preference (SP) surveys. However, often little information is available about who in the population holds measurable value for the resource (the extent of the market) and their perceptions regarding the scope of the resource to be valued (the extent of the resource). In this paper, we present a novel approach using cognitive mapping interview techniques to shed light on these design questions. The method also provides ancillary information that assists in the interpretation of information collected during focus groups and through SP survey administration. The approach was developed and tested as part of an ongoing study on environmental degradation associated with acidification in the Southern Appalachian Mountain region. Although damage from acidification in the study region is broad, it is not clear whether residents of this region care, in both a use and nonuse sense, about resources in their states of residence, in neighboring states, on public lands, or more broadly across the region. From a pilot study, we found that participants show a significant home-state preference in the number and size of natural areas that they value within the larger Southern Appalachian Mountain region. However, this preference is not strong enough to suggest that the market for improving these resources is solely constrained to residents of the state in which the resource is located.

Suggested Citation

  • Vajjhala, Shalini P. & John, Anna Mische & Evans, David A., 2008. "Determining the Extent of Market and Extent of Resource for Stated Preference Survey Design Using Mapping Methods," National Center for Environmental Economics-NCEE Working Papers 280870, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nceewp:280870
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.280870
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/280870/files/NCEE2008-09.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.280870?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. 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.
    2. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    3. Fischhoff, Baruch & Quadrel, Marilyn Jacobs & Kamlet, Mark & Loewenstain, George & Dawes, Robyn & Fischbeck, Paul & Klepper, Steven & Leland, Jonathan & Stroh, Patrick, 1993. "Embedding Effects: Stimulus Representation and Response Mode," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 211-234, June.
    4. V. Kerry Smith, 1993. "Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive Appraisal," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(1), pages 1-26.
    5. V. Kerry Smith, 1993. "Welfare Effects, Omitted Variables, and the Extent of the Market," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(2), pages 121-131.
    6. George R. Parsons & A. Brett Hauber, 1998. "Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 32-48.
    7. Chambers, Robert, 1994. "The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 953-969, July.
    8. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    9. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Shalini P. Vajjhala & Anna Mische John & David A. Evans, 2008. "Determining the Extent of Market and Extent of Resource for Stated Preference Survey Design Using Mapping Methods," NCEE Working Paper Series 200809, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Oct 2008.
    2. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    3. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    4. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    5. Jasper N. Meya, 2018. "Environmental Inequality and Economic Valuation," Working Papers V-416-18, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Dec 2018.
    6. van der Heide, C. Martijn & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. & van Ierland, Ekko C. & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2008. "Economic valuation of habitat defragmentation: A study of the Veluwe, the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 205-216, September.
    7. Céline Moreaux & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Bo Dalsgaard & Carsten Rahbek & Niels Strange, 2023. "Distance and Regional Effects on the Value of Wild Bee Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 37-63, January.
    8. Bakhtiari, Fatemeh & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Strange, Niels & Boman, Mattias, 2018. "Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 11-20.
    9. John Cullinan, 2011. "A Spatial Microsimulation Approach to Estimating the Total Number and Economic Value of Site Visits in Travel Cost Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 27-47, September.
    10. Tomas Badura & Silvia Ferrini & Michael Burton & Amy Binner & Ian J. Bateman, 2020. "Using Individualised Choice Maps to Capture the Spatial Dimensions of Value Within Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 297-322, February.
    11. Stephen Newbold & R. David Simpson & D. Matthew Massey & Matthew T. Heberling & William Wheeler & Joel Corona & Julie Hewitt, 2018. "Benefit Transfer Challenges: Perspectives from U.S. Practitioners," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 467-481, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Jasper N. Meya, 2020. "Environmental Inequality and Economic Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(2), pages 235-270, July.
    14. Choi, Andy S. & Lee, Choong-Ki & Tanaka, Katsuya & Xu, Honggang, 2018. "Value spillovers from the Korean DMZ areas and social desirability," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 95-104.
    15. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    16. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.
    17. Glenk, Klaus & Schaafsma, Marije & Moxey, Andrew & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "A framework for valuing spatially targeted peatland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 20-33.
    18. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    19. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    20. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.

    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:nceewp:280870. 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/nepgvus.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.