IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsm/murray/m05_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Investigating distance effects on environmental values: A choice modelling approach

Author

Listed:
  • Giovanni B. Concu

    () (Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland)

Abstract

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 the estimation and transfer of benefits. So far the problem has been analysed through the use of Contingent Valuation-type of experiments, producing mixed results. The Choice Modelling experiment allows testing distance effects on parameters of environmental attributes that imply different trade-offs between use and non-use values. The sampling procedure is designed to provide a Ògeographically balancedÓ sample. Several specifications of the distance covariate are compared and distance effects are shown to take complex shapes. Welfare analysis also shows that disregarding distance produces under-estimation of individual and aggregated benefits and losses, seriously hindering the reliability of costbenefit analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanni B. Concu, 2005. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: A choice modelling approach," Murray-Darling Program Working Papers WP7M05, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.
  • Handle: RePEc:rsm:murray:m05_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.uq.edu.au/rsmg/WP/WPM05_7.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yong Jiang & Stephen Swallow & Michael Mcgonagle, 2005. "Context-Sensitive Benefit Transfer Using Stated Choice Models: Specification and Convergent Validity for Policy Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(4), pages 477-499, August.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Pearson, L. J. & Tisdell, C. & Lisle, A. T., 2002. "The Impact of Noosa National Park on Surrounding Property Values: An Application of the Hedonic Price Method," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 155-171, June Spec.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. van Bueren, Martin & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), March.
    8. 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.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    10. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    11. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    12. repec:cup:jagaec:v:33:y:2001:i:03:p:487-492_02 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, May.
    14. Jonathan Silberman & Daniel A. Gerlowski & Nancy A. Williams, 1992. "Estimating Existence Value for Users and Nonusers of New Jersey Beaches," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 225-236.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    18. 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.
    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. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2010. "Valuing environmental improvements in the Great Barrier Reef: Ecological and preference heterogeneity in local area case studies," Research Reports 95052, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    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. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2013. "The limitations of applying benefit transfer to assess the value of ecosystem services in a “generic” peri-urban, coastal town in Australia," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152183, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. repec:eee:jeeman:v:85:y:2017:i:c:p:110-129 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Klaus Glenk & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2014. "Choice modelling research in environmental and resource economics," Chapters,in: Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 27, pages 661-674 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    7. Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2013. "Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents' residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 58-71.
    8. Tait, Peter R. & Baskaran, Ramesh, 2011. "Incorporating Local Water Quality in Welfare Measures of Agri-environmental Policy: A Choice Modelling Approach Employing GIS," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116074, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Roberto Ponce & Felipe Vásquez & Alejandra Stehr & Patrick Debels & Carlos Orihuela, 2011. "Estimating the Economic Value of Landscape Losses Due to Flooding by Hydropower Plants in the Chilean Patagonia," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(10), pages 2449-2466, August.
    10. Jeremy Valck & Steven Broekx & Inge Liekens & Joris Aertsens & Liesbet Vranken, 2017. "Testing the Influence of Substitute Sites in Nature Valuation by Using Spatial Discounting Factors," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(1), pages 17-43, January.
    11. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2012. "Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National Values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 347-365, November.
    12. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2012. "Testing benefit transfer of reef protection values between local case studies: The Great Barrier Reef in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 60-69.
    13. Tait, Peter & Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Bicknell, Kathryn, 2012. "Nonmarket valuation of water quality: Addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 15-21.
    14. Carmelo J. León & Jorge E. Araña & Javier León & Matías M. González, 2016. "The Economic Benefits of Reducing the Environmental Effects of Landfills: Heterogeneous Distance Decay Effects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(1), pages 193-218, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    choice Modelling techniques; distance; aggregation; sampling; functional forms.;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:rsm:murray:m05_7. 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: (David Adamson). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/rsmuqau.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.