A choice modelling approach to investigate biases in individual and aggregated benefit estimates due to omission of distance
This paper describes a Choice Modelling experiment set up to investigate the relationship between distance and willingness to pay for environmental quality changes. The issue is important for aggregation and transfer of benefits. So far the problem has been analysed though the use of Contingent Valuation-type of experiments, producing mixed results. The experiment allows testing distance effects on parameters of environmental attributes that imply different trade-offs between use and non-use values. The distance covariate enters the estimated utility function in a flexible form to accommodate for several possible relationships. The sampling procedure is designed to provide a "geographically balanced" sample. Welfare analysis shows that disregarding distance produces under-estimation of individual and aggregated benefits and losses, seriously hindering the reliability of cost-benefit analyses.
|Date of creation:||2004|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Via S. Giorgio 12, I-09124 Cagliari|
Web page: http://www.crenos.unica.it/
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.:
- Ian Bateman & Ian Langford & Naohito Nishikawa & Iain Lake, 2000. "The Axford Debate Revisited: A Case Study Illustrating Different Approaches to the Aggregation of Benefits Data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 291-302.
- Richard A. Hofler & John A. List, 2004.
"Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements of Value,"
American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 213-221.
- Richard Hofler & John List, 2004. "Valuation on the frontier: Calibrating actual and hypothetical statements of value," Framed Field Experiments 00159, The Field Experiments Website.
- Hadker, Nandini & Sharma, Sudhir & David, Ashish & Muraleedharan, T. R., 1997. "Willingness-to-pay for Borivli National Park: evidence from a Contingent Valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 105-122, May.
- Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
- Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Bueren, Martin van, 2004. "Choice and temporal welfare impacts: incorporating history into discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 94-116, January.
- 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.
- Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2002. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 17-31, November.
- D M Hanink & K White, 1999. "Distance effects in the demand for wildland recreational services: the case of national parks in the United States," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 31(3), pages 477-492, March.
- D M Hanink & K White, 1999. "Distance Effects in the Demand for Wildland Recreational Services: The Case of National Parks in the United States," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 31(3), pages 477-492, March.
- repec:cup:jagaec:v:33:y:2001:i:03:p:487-492_02 is not listed on IDEAS
- Ian Bateman & Ian Langford, 1997. "Non-users' Willingness to Pay for a National Park: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 571-582.
- Mary F. Evans & Nicholas E. Flores & Kevin J. Boyle, 2003. "Multiple-Bounded Uncertainty Choice Data as Probabilistic Intentions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 549-560.
- G. Concu, 2004. "Effects of distance on non-use values," Working Paper CRENoS 200411, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
- Pate, Jennifer & Loomis, John, 1997. "The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 199-207, March.
- Ronald J. Sutherland & Richard G. Walsh, 1985. "Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 281-291.
- 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.
- Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Louviere, J. & Willians, M., 1992. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Staff Paper Series 232531, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
- Espey, Molly & Owusu-Edusei, Kwame, 2001. "Neighborhood Parks and Residential Property Values in Greenville, South Carolina," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(03), pages 487-492, December.
- Espey, Molly & Owusu-Edusei, Kwame, 2001. "Neighborhood Parks And Residential Property Values In Greenville, South Carolina," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(03), December.
- Keith, John E. & Fawson, Christopher & Johnson, Van, 1996. "Preservation or use A contingent valuation study of wilderness designation in Utah," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 207-214, September. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cns:cnscwp:200412. 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: (Antonello Pau)
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.