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

Testing for geographic scope and scale effects with choice modelling: Application to the Great Barrier Reef

  • John Rolfe

    ()

    (Faculty of Business and Informatics at Central Queensland University)

  • Jill Windle

    ()

    (Faculty of Business and Informatics at Central Queensland University)

Registered author(s):

    The focus of this report is to report choice modelling experiments that have tested the consistency of values across differently scoped dimensions of an environmental asset. The case study involved the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia, where a key policy question is to identify if protection values for one part of the reef can be transferred to different sections and scaled from local case studies to the whole reef area without adjustment. The study involved 12 split-samples in three CM experiments to assess values for the whole GBR, a regional section of the GBR and a local reef area while controlling for variations across populations, the scope of the choice tasks, and survey formats. The results demonstrate that issues of geographic scope and scale remain challenging in CM experiments. Contrary to expectations, the proportional values for different regions of the GBR remained consistent when geographic scope and scale increased, while absolute values declined. This was despite substantial efforts in designing and presenting the surveys to define the amenity of interest to respondents. The results indicate that it is difficult to identify single unit values for an environmental amenity that can be easily transferred and extrapolated across geographic regions and scales. However, there may be good theoretical reasons why marginal values for specific areas of interest in the GBR have much higher protection values, which then decline as larger and more general areas are considered.

    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: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR69.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University in its series Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports with number 1069.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: Sep 2010
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:1069
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Crawford Building, Lennox Crossing, Building #132, Canberra ACT 2601
    Phone: +61 2 6125 4705
    Fax: +61 2 6125 5448
    Web page: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/
    Email:


    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. van Bueren, Martin & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2001. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide 125993, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. 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.
    3. Roger H. von Haefen & D. Matthew Massey & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(4), pages 1061-1076.
    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:een:eenhrr:1069. 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: (Crawford Webmaster)

    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.