Testing the Influence of Substitute Sites in Nature Valuation by Using Spatial Discounting Factors

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 66, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 17-43

  De Valck, Jeremy ^a,b   Broekx, Steven ^b   Liekens, Inge ^b   Aertsens, Joris ^b   Vranken, Liesbet ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b FLEMISH INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH VITO   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Benefit transfer; Discrete choice experiment; Ecosystem services; GIS; Latent class; Nature; Non market valuation; Spatial; Substitute

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

BENEFIT TRANSFER; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; LATENT CLASS; NATURE; NON-MARKET VALUATION; SPATIAL; SUBSTITUTE;

ECOSYSTEMS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; GIS; HETEROGENEITY; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; SITE EFFECT; SPATIAL ANALYSIS;

BELGIUM; FLANDERS;

EID: 84931079902     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: 15731502     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-015-9930-0     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manag 26(3):271–292
2. Adamowicz V, Naidoo R, Nelson E, Polasky S, Zhang J (2011) Nature-based tourism and recreation. In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford
3. Backhaus N (2011) Landscapes, spatial totalities or special regions? Proc Soc Behav Sci 14:193–202
4. Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Ferrini S, Schaafsma M, Barton DN, Dubgaard A, Hasler B, Hime S, Liekens I, Navrud S, De Nocker L, Ščeponavičiūtė R, Semėnienė D (2011) Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environ Resour Econ 50(3):365–387
5. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60(2):450–460
6. Bateman IJ, Jones AP, Lovett AA, Lake IR, Day B (2002) Applying geographical information systems (GIS) to environmental and resource economics. Environ Resour Econ 22(1):219–269
7. Bliem M, Getzner M, Rodiga-Laßnig P (2012) Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. J Environ Manag 103:65–73
8. Borgers A, Timmermans H (1987) Choice model specification, substitution and spatial structure effects: a simulation experiment. Reg Sci Urban Econ 17(1):29–47
9. Boxall P, Adamowicz W (2002) Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ Resour Econ 23:421–446
10. Brainard J, Bateman I, Lovett A (2001) Modelling demand for recreation in English woodlands. Forestry 74(5):423–438
11. Broekx S, Liekens I, Peelaerts W, De Nocker L, Landuyt D, Staes J, Meire P, Schaafsma M, Van Reeth W, Van den Kerckhove O, Cerulus T (2013) A web application to support the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:65–74
12. Brouwer R (2000) Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol Econ 32:137–152
13. Brown TC, Duffield JW (1995) Testing part-whole valuation effects in contingent valuation of instream flow protection. Water Resour Res 31(9):2341–2351
14. Brown G, Reed P, Harris CC (2002) Testing a place-based theory for environmental evaluation: an Alaska case study. Appl Geogr 22(1):49–77
15. Burt O, Brewer D (1971) Evaluation of net social benefits from outdoor recreation. Econometrica 39:812–827
16. Cadwallader M (1981) Towards a cognitive gravity model: the case of consumer spatial behavior. Reg Stud 15(4):275–284
17. Carson RT, Louviere JJ, Anderson DA, Arabie P, Bunch DS, Hensher DA, Johnson RM, Kuhfeld WF, Steinberg D, Swait J, Timmermans H, Wiley JB (1994) Experimental analysis of choice. Mark Lett 5:351–368
18. Cesario FJ, Knetsch JL (1973) A recreation site demand and benefits estimation model. Reg Stud 10:97–104
19. Colombo S, Calatrava-Requena J, Hanley N (2007) Testing choice experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity. Am J Agric Econ 89(1):135–151
20. Concu GB (2005) Are non-use values distance-independent? Identifying the market area using a choice modelling experiment. Murray Darling Program Working Paper M05\_6. University of Queensland, Brisbane
21. Concu GB (2007) Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 51(2):175–194
22. De Valck J, Vlaeminck P, Broekx S, Liekens I, Aertsens J, Chen W, Vranken L (2014) Benefits of clearing existing forests to restore nature? evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Flanders,Belgium. Landsc Urban Plan 125:65–75
23. Deutskens E, De Ruyter K, Wetzels M, Oosterveld P (2004) Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Mark Lett 15(1):21–36
24. European Environment Agency—EEA (2013a) Nationally designated areas (CDDA). http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/nationally-designated-areas-national-cdda-7
25. European Environment Agency—EEA (2013b) Corine land cover types—2006. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/corine-land-cover-types-2006
26. Fotheringham AS (1983) A new set of spatial-interaction models: the theory of competing destinations. Environ Plan A 15:15–36
27. Fotheringham AS (1986) Modelling hierarchical destination choice. Environ Plan A 18:401–418
28. Hanley N, Schlapfer F, Spurgeon J (2003) Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J Environ Manag 68(3):297–304
29. Herzog TR, Herbert EJ, Kaplan R, Crooks CL (2000) Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environ Behav 32(3):323–346
30. Hoehn JP, Loomis JB (1993) Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental-programs. J Environ Econ Manag 25(1):56–75
31. Hoyos D (2010) The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol Econ 69:1595–1603
32. Hunt LM, Boots B, Kanaroglou PS (2004) Spatial choice modelling: new opportunities to incorporate space into substitution patterns. Prog Hum Geogr 28(6):746–766
33. Hynes S, Hanley N, Scarpa R (2008) Effects on welfare measures of alternative means of accounting for preference heterogeneity in recreational demand models. Am J Agric Econ 90(4):1011–1027
34. Jones A, Wright J, Bateman I, Schaafsma M (2010) Estimating arrival numbers for informal recreation: a geographical approach and case study of British Woodlands. Sustainability 2:684–701
35. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
36. Langeheine R, Rost J (1988) Latent trait and latent class models. Plenum Press, New York
37. León CJ, Araña JE, de León J, González MM (2015) The economic benefits of reducing the environmental effects of landfills: heterogeneous distance decay effects. Environ Resour Econ. doi:10.1007/s10640-014-9874-9
38. León CJ, Araña JE, Hanemann WM, Riera P (2014) Heterogeneity and emotions in the valuation of non-use damages caused by oil spills. Ecol Econ 97:129–139
39. León CJ, Araña JE (2014b) The economic valuation of climate change policies in tourism: impact of joint valuation, emotions, and information. J Travel Res. doi:10.1177/0047287514559034
40. Loomis JB (2000) Vertically summing public good demand curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Econ 76(2):312–321
41. Louviere J, Hensher D (1982) Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling.Transp Res Rec 890:11–17
42. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods, analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
43. Lovett AA, Brainard JS, Bateman IJ (1997) Improving benefit transfer demand functions: a GIS approach. J Environ Manag 51(4):373–389
44. Luce RD (1959) Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis. Wiley, New York
45. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice models. Front Econom 1(2):105–142
46. Mark TL, Swait J (2004) Using stated preference and revealed preference modelling to evaluate prescribing decisions. Health Econ 13(6):563–573
47. Matsuoka RH, Kaplan R (2008) People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landsc Urban Plan 84:7–19
48. Neuvonen M, Sievänen T, Tönnes S, Koskela T (2007) Access to green areas and the frequency of visits—a case study in Helsinki. Urban For Urban Green 6(4):235–247
49. Pate J, Loomis J (1997) The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol Econ 20(3):199–207
50. Pearce D, Özdemiroglu E (2002) Economic valuation withstated preference techniques: Summary guide. Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, London. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/146871.pdf
51. Pellegrini PA, Fotheringham AS (2002) Modelling spatial choice: a review and synthesis in a migration context. Prog Hum Geogr 26(4):487–510
52. Perrings C, Hannon B (2001) An introduction to spatial discounting. J Reg Sci 41(1):23–38
53. Peterson GL, Stynes DJ, Rosenthal DH, Dwyer JF (1984) Substitution in recreation choice behavior. In: Recreation choice behavior symposium, Missoula, MT, 22–23 March 1984
54. Scarpa R, Thiene M (2005) Destination choice models for rock-climbing in the North-Eastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of participation. Land Econ 81:426–444
55. Schaafsma M, Brouwer R (2013) Testing geographical framing and substitution effects in spatial choice experiments. J Choice Model 8:32–48
56. Schaafsma M, Brouwer R, Gilbert A, van den Bergh J, Wagtendonk A (2013) Estimation of distance-decay functions to account for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in stated preference research. Land Econ 89(3):514–537
57. Sevenant M, Antrop M (2009) Geography cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J Environ Manag 90:2889–2899
58. Shrestha RK, Stein TV, Clark J (2007) Valuing nature-based recreation in public natural areas of the Apalachicola River region, Florida. J Environ Manag 85(4):977–985
59. Smith TE (1975) An axiomatic theory of spatial discounting behaviour. Pap Reg Sci 35(1):31–43
60. Soini K (2001) Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes through mapping and map-making. Landsc Urban Plan 57:225–239
61. Termansen M, Zandersen M, McClean CJ (2008) Spatial substitution patterns in forest recreation. Reg Sci Urban Econ 38:81–97
62. Termansen M, McClean CJ, Jensen FS (2013) Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services. Ecol Econ 92:48–57
63. Van den Berg AE, Vlek CAJ, Coeterier JF (1998) Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. J Environ Psychol 18:141–157