Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 85, Issue , 2017, Pages 110-129

  Holland, Benedict M ^a   Johnston, Robert J ^b  

^a ABT ASSOCIATES   (United States)

^b CLARK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice modeling; Discrete choice experiment; Distance decay; Geographic information system; Nonuse value; Riparian; Spatial; Stated preference; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; MANAGEMENT;

CHOICE MODEL; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; DISTANCE DECAY; NONUSE VALUE; RIPARIAN; SPATIAL; STATED PREFERENCES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

ALGORITHM; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENT; GIS; HETEROGENEITY; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ANALYSIS; OPTIMIZATION; RIPARIAN ZONE; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; WELFARE ECONOMICS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

MAINE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85019227828     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2017.04.006     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Abildtrup, J., Garcia, S., Olsen, S.B., Stenger, A., Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol. Econ. 92 (1) (2013), 67–77.
2. Adamowicz, W., Swait, J., Boxall, P., Louviere, J., Williams, M., Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 32:1 (1997), 65–84.
3. Bateman, I., Day, B., Georgiou, S., Lake, I., The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol. Econ. 60:2 (2006), 450–460.
4. Bateman, I.J., Jones, A.P., Lovett, A.A., Lake, I.R., Day, B.H., Applying geographicalinformation systems (GIS) to environmental and resource economics. Environ. Resour. Econ. 22 (2002), 219–269.
5. Bateman, I., Langford, I., Non-users' willingness to pay for a national park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Reg. Stud. 31:6 (1997), 571–582.
6. Bateman, I., Langford, I., Nishikawa, N., Lake, I., The Axford debate revisited: a case study illustrating different approaches to the aggregation of benefits data. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 43:2 (2000), 291–302.
7. Bateman, I., Mace, G., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G., Turner, K., Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48:2 (2011), 177–218.
8. Bierlaire, M., 2003. BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models, In: Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland.
9. Bliemer, M.C.J., Rose, J.M., Hensher, D.A., Constructing efficient stated choice experiments allowing for differences in error variances across subsets of alternatives. Transp. Res. Part B 43:1 (2009), 19–35.
10. Brouwer, R., Martin-Ortega, J., Berbel, J., Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Econ. 86:3 (2010), 552–568.
11. Cameron, T.A., Directional heterogeneity in distance profiles in hedonic property value models. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 51:1 (2006), 26–45.
12. Cameron, T., James, M., Efficient estimation methods for closed-ended contingent valuation survey data. Rev. Econ. Stat. 69:2 (1987), 269–276.
13. Campbell, D., Scarpa, R., Hutchinson, W.G., Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci. 1:2–3 (2008), 117–126.
14. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W.G., Scarpa, R., Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environ. Plan. A 41:1 (2009), 97–111.
15. Carson, R.T., Groves, T., Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37:1 (2007), 181–210.
16. Carson, R.T., Wilks, L., Imber, D., Valuing the preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone. Oxf. Econ. Pap. New Ser. 46 (1994), 727–749.
17. Caulkins, P.P., Bishop, R.C., Bouwes, N.W., The travel cost model for lake recreation: a comparison of two methods for incorporating site quality and substitution effects. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 68:2 (1986), 291–297.
18. Cohen, J., Blinn, C., Boyle, K., Holmes, T., Moeltner, K., Hedonic valuation with translating commodities: mountain pine beetles and host trees in the Colorado Front Range. Environ. Resour. Econ. 63:3 (2016), 613–642.
19. Colombo, S., Hanley, N., How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Econ. 84:1 (2008), 128–147.
20. Concu, G.B., Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 51:2 (2007), 175–194.
21. Concu, G.B., Measuring environmental externality spillovers through choice modelling. Environ. Plan. A 41:1 (2009), 199–212.
22. Czajkowski, M., Budziński, W., Campbell, D., Giergiczny, M., Hanley, N., Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management. Environ. Resour. Econ., 2016, 10.1007/s10640-016-0044-0.
23. Daly, A., Hess, S., Train, K., Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models. Transportation 39:1 (2012), 19–31.
24. De Valck, J., Broekx, S., Liekens, I., Aertsens, J., Vranken, L., Testing the influence of substitute sites in nature valuation by using spatial discounting factors. Environ. Resour. Econ. 66:1 (2017), 17–43.
25. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., Christian, L.M., Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 3rd ed, 2009, Wiley Publishing; Hoboken, NJ.
26. Ferrini, S., Scarpa, R., Designs with a-priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice-experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 53:3 (2007), 342–363.
27. Fiebig, D.G., Keane, M.P., Louviere, J., Wasi, N., The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark. Sci. 29:3 (2010), 393–421.
28. Geoghegan, J., Wainger, L., Bockstael, N.E., Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecol. Econ. 23:3 (1997), 251–264.
29. Georgiou, S., Bateman, I., Cole, M., Hadley, D., 2000. Contingent ranking and valuation of river water quality improvements: testing for scope sensitivity, ordering and distance decay effects. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 2000–2018. Norwich, UK: Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia and University College London.
30. Hanemann, W.M., Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66:3 (1984), 332–341.
31. Hanley, N., Schläpfer, F., Spurgeon, J., Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J. Environ. Manag. 68:3 (2003), 297–304.
32. Haynes, K.E., Fotheringham, A.S., Gravity and Spatial Interaction Models, 2, 1984, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
33. Hensher, D.A., Greene, W.H., The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30:2 (2003), 133–176.
34. Hess, S., Daly, A., (eds.) Handbook of Choice Modelling., 2014, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
35. Hess, S., Train, K., Polaka, J., On the use of a modified Latin hypercube sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a mixed logit model for vehicle choice. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 40:2 (2006), 147–163.
36. Johnston, R.J., Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 52:1 (2006), 469–481.
37. Johnston, R.J., Abdulrahman, A.S., Systematic non-response in discrete choice experiments: implications for the valuation of climate risk reductions. J. Environ. Econ. Policy, 2017, 10.1080/21606544.2017.1284695.
38. Johnston, R.J., Duke, J.M., Willingness to pay for agricultural land preservation and policy process attributes: does the method matter?. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 89:4 (2007), 1098–1115.
39. Johnston, R.J., Swallow, S.K., Asymmetries in ordered strength of preference models: implications of focus shift for discrete choice preference estimation. Land Econ. 75:2 (1999), 295–310.
40. Johnston, R.J., Opaluch, J.J., Grigalunas, T.A., Mazzotta, M.J., Estimating amenity benefits of coastal farmland. Growth Change 32:3 (2001), 305–325.
41. Johnston, R.J., Opaluch, J.J., Mazzotta, M.J., Magnusson, G., Who are resource nonusers and what can they tell us about nonuse values? Decomposing user and nonuser willingness to pay for coastal wetland restoration. Water Resour. Res., 41(7), 2005, W07017.
42. Johnston, R.J., Holland, B.M., Yao, L., Individualized geocoding in stated preference questionnaires: implications for survey design and welfare estimation. Land Econ. 92:4 (2016), 737–759.
43. Johnston, R.J., Ramachandran, M., Modeling spatial patchiness and hot spots in stated preference willingness to pay. Environ. Resour. Econ. 59:3 (2014), 363–387.
44. Johnston, R.J., Schultz, E.T., Segerson, K., Besedin, E.Y., Ramachandran, M., Enhancing the content validity of stated preference valuation: the structure and function of ecological indicators. Land Econ. 88:1 (2012), 102–120.
45. Johnston, R.J., Segerson, K., Schultz, E.T., Besedin, E.Y., Ramachandran, M., Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of aquatic ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 70:11 (2011), 1946–1956.
46. Johnston, R.J., Magnusson, G., Mazzotta, M., Opaluch, J.J., Combining economic and ecological indicators to prioritize salt marsh restoration actions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 84:5 (2002), 1362–1370.
47. Johnston, R.J., Swallow, S.K., Allen, C.W., Smith, L.A., Designing multidimensional environmental programs: assessing tradeoffs and substitution in watershed management plans. Water Resour. Res. 38:7 (2002), 1099–1105.
48. Johnston, R.J., Jarvis, D., Wallmo, K., Lew, D., Multi-scale spatial pattern in nonuse willingness to pay: applications to threatened and endangered marine species. Land Econ. 91:4 (2015), 739–761.
49. Jordan, S.J., Smith, L.M., Indicators of ecosystem integrity for estuaries. Pages 467–480. Bortone, S.A., (eds.) Estuarine Indicators., 2005, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
50. Jørgensen, S.L., Olsen, S.B., Ladenburg, J., Martinsen, L., Svenningsen, S.R., Hasler, B., Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecol. Econ. 92 (2013), 58–66.
51. Lawrence, C., Zhou, J., Tits, A., 1997. Users Guide for CFSQP Version 2.5: A C Code for Solving (large scale) Constrained Nonlinear(minimax) Optimization Problems, Generating Iterates Satisfying all Inequality Constraints. Technical Report TR-94-16r1, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742: Institute for Systems Research.
52. León, C.J., Araña, J.E., de León, J., González, M.M., The economic benefits of reducing the environmental effects of landfills: heterogeneous distance decay effects. Environ. Resour. Econ. 63:1 (2016), 193–218.
53. Lew, D.K., Larson, D.M., Accounting for stochastic shadow values of time in discrete-choice recreation demand models. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 50 (2) (2005), 341–361.
54. Lizin, S., Brouwer, R., Liekens, I., Broeckx, S., Accounting for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in a labelled choice experiment. J. Environ. Manag. 181 (2016), 289–297.
55. Loomis, J.B., Vertically summing public good demand curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Econ. 76:2 (2000), 312–321.
56. Martin-Ortega, J., Brouwer, R., Ojea, E., Berbel, J., Benefit transfer and spatial heterogeneity of preferences for water quality improvements. J. Environ. Manag. 106 (1) (2012), 22–29.
57. Meyerhoff, J., Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents' residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation?. J. choice Model. 7 (1) (2013), 58–71.
58. Meyerhoff, J., Boeri, M., Hartje, V., The value of water quality improvements in the region Berlin–Brandenburg as a function of distance and state residency. Water Resour. Econ. 5 (2014), 49–66.
59. Moore, R., Williams, T., Rodriguez, E., Hepinstall-Cymerman, J., Using nonmarket valuation to target conservation payments: an example involving Georgia's private forests. J. For. 111:4 (2013), 261–270.
60. Morrison, M., Bennett, J.W., Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 48:4 (2004), 591–611.
61. Murdock, J., Handling unobserved site characteristics in random utility models of recreation demand. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 51 (2006), 1–25.
62. Nielsen, A.S.E., Lundhede, T.H., Jacobsen, J.B., Local consequences of national policies - a spatial analysis of preferences for forest access reduction. For. Policy Econ. 73 (2016), 68–77.
63. Parsons, G.R., Hauber, A.B., Spatial boundaries and choice set definition in a random utility model of recreation demand. Land Econ. 74:1 (1998), 32–48.
64. Parsons, G.R., Massey, D.M., Tomasi, T., Familiar and favorite sites in a random utility model of beach recreation. Mar. Resour. Econ. 14:4 (1999), 299–315.
65. Pate, J., Loomis, J., The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol. Econ. 20:3 (1997), 199–207.
66. Paterson, R.W., Boyle, K.J., Out of sight, out of mind? Using GIS to incorporate visibility in hedonic property value models. Land Econ. 78:3 (2002), 417–425.
67. Rolfe, J., Windle, J., Distance decay functions for iconic assets: assessing national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Environ. Resour. Econ. 53:3 (2012), 347–365.
68. Rose, J.M., Bliemer, M.C.J., Stated preference experimental design strategies. Hensher, D.A., Button, K.J., (eds.) Handbook of Transport Modelling, 2008, Elsevier, Oxford, United Kingdom, 151–179.
69. Sándor, Z., Wedel, M., Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. J. Mark. Res. 38:4 (2001), 430–444.
70. Sándor, Z., Wedel, M., Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Mark. Sci. 21:4 (2002), 455–475.
71. Scarpa, R., Rose, J.M., Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 52:3 (2008), 253–282.
72. Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., Train, K., Utility in willingness to pay space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 90:4 (2008), 994–1010.
73. Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., Rose, J., Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 79 (1) (2012), 21–31.
74. Schaafsma, M., Spatial and geographical aspects of benefit transfer, chapter 18. Johnston, R.J., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R.S., Brouwer, R., (eds.) Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values: A Guide for Researchers and Practitioners., 2015, Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
75. Schkade, D.A., Payne, J.W., How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 26:1 (1994), 88–109.
76. Sutherland, R.J., Walsh, R.G., Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Econ. 64:3 (1985), 281–291.
77. Tait, P., Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., Bicknell, K., Nonmarket valuation of water quality: addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model. Ecol. Econ. 75 (1) (2012), 15–21.
78. Thiene, M., Scarpa, R., Deriving and testing efficient estimates of WTP distributions in destination choice models. Environ. Resour. Econ. 44:3 (2009), 379–395.
79. Train, K., Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2009, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
80. Train, K., Weeks, M., Discrete choice models in preference space and willing-to-pay space. Scarpa, Riccardo, Alberini, Anna, (eds.) Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, 1, 2005, Springer, Dordrecht, 1–16.
81. Yao, R.T., Scarpa, R., Turner, J.A., Barnard, T.D., Rose, J.M., Palma, J.H.N., Harrison, D.R., Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay. Ecol. Econ. 98 (2014), 90–101.
82. Zhao, M., Johnston, R.J., Schultz, E.T., What to value and how? Ecological indicator choices in stated preference valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 56:1 (2013), 3–25.