IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/een/eenhrr/0916.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Marit E Kragt

    () (Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, Australia)

  • Jeff Bennett

    () (Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, Australia)

Abstract

Choice experiments (CE – otherwise known as Choice Modelling) have become widespread as an approach to environmental valuation in Australia. There are, however, limited applications that have focused on the estimation of estuary values. Furthermore, none of the existing valuation studies have addressed catchment management changes in Tasmania. The CE study described in this report aims to elicit community preferences for natural resource management options in the George catchment in north-eastern Tasmania. The survey was administered in different sub-sample locations in Tasmania to assess the trade-offs respondents are willing to make between environmental attributes and costs. Catchment health attributes were the length of native riverside vegetation and the number of rare animal and plant species in the George catchment. The area of healthy seagrass beds in the Georges Bay was used as a measure of estuary condition. Results from mixed logit models show that respondents are, on average, willing to pay between $3.47 and $5.11 for a km increase in native riverside vegetation and between $7.10 and $12.42 per species for the protection of rare native plants and animals, ceteris paribus. The results are ambiguous about respondents’ preferences for estuary seagrass area. This study further shows significant differences between logit models when accounting for unobserved preference heterogeneity and repeated choices made by the same individual. Key words: Choice experiments, Preference heterogeneity, Mixed Logit models, River health, Estuary health, Tasmania, Environmental valuation

Suggested Citation

  • Marit E Kragt & Jeff Bennett, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 0916, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, revised Sep 2009.
  • Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:0916
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2007. "Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 610-623, September.
    2. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    3. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), September.
    4. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(4), pages 591-611, December.
    5. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    6. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    7. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    8. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    9. Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh & Patricia A. Champ, 1997. "Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 255-267.
    10. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2008. "Designing choice experiments to Test for Anchoring and Framing Effects," Research Reports 94810, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    11. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    12. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, May.
    13. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2008. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9787111235767, May.
    14. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294.
    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. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," Working Papers 144447, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. John Rolfe & Roy Brouwer, 2011. "Testing for value stability with a meta-analysis of choice experiments: River health in Australia," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1095, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    3. Deborah Ellen Lee & Stephen Gerald Hosking & Mario Du Preez, 2015. "Managing Some Motorised Recreational Boating Challenges in South African Estuaries: A Case Study at the Kromme River Estuary," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 83(2), pages 286-302, June.
    4. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "Integrating economic values and catchment modelling," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47956, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Rolfe, John & Brouwer, Roy, 2011. "Testing for value stability with a meta-analysis of choice experiments: River health in Australia," Research Reports 107744, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    6. 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, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.

    More about this item

    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:een:eenhrr:0916. 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: (CAP Web Team). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/asanuau.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.