IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aareaj/117846.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing remnant vegetation in Central Queensland using choice modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Blamey, Russell K.
  • Rolfe, John
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.
  • Morrison, Mark

Abstract

In the Desert Uplands region of Central Queensland, many pastoralists are clearing vegetation in order to improve cattle grazing production. A choice modelling study was undertaken to provide estimates of the benefits of retaining remnant vegetation that are appropriate for inclusion in a cost benefit analysis of tighter clearing restrictions. Attributes included in the choice model were reductions in the population size of non‐threatened species, the number of endangered species lost to the region, and changes in regional income and employment. A nested logit model was used to model the data in order to avoid violations of the independence of irrelevant alternatives condition. The estimated benefits are reported for several tree clearing policy regimes that are more stringent than those currently applied.

Suggested Citation

  • Blamey, Russell K. & Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark, 2000. "Valuing remnant vegetation in Central Queensland using choice modelling," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(3), pages 1-18.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aareaj:117846
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.117846
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/117846/files/1467-8489.00119.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.117846?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth E. Train & Daniel L. McFadden & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 1987. "The Demand for Local Telephone Service: A Fully Discrete Model of Residential Calling Patterns and Service Choices," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(1), pages 109-123, Spring.
    2. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 1997. "The Performance of Nested Logit Models When Welfare Estimation Is the Goal," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 792-802.
    3. 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.
    4. Choi, Ki-Hong & Moon, Choon-Geol, 1997. "Generalized extreme value model and additively separable generator function," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1-2), pages 129-140.
    5. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    6. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 1996. "Valuing International Rainforests: A Choice Modelling Approach," 1996 Conference (40th), February 11-16, 1996, Melbourne, Australia 156450, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Kling, Catherine L. & Herriges, Joseph A., 1997. "Model Performance of Nested Logit Models when Welfare Estimation is the Goal, The," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12331, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    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. Catherine L. Kling & Cynthia J. Thomson, 1996. "The Implications of Model Specification for Welfare Estimation in Nested Logit Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 103-114.
    10. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    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. David C. Cook & Rob W. Fraser & Jeffrey K. Waage & Matthew B. Thomas, 2009. "Prioritising Biosecurity Investment between Protecting Agricultural and Environmental Systems," Studies in Economics 0908, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    2. Jonelle Cleland & Abbie McCartney, 2010. "Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition: Divergence Between Experts and the Public," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1077, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    3. Jonelle Cleland & Abbie Rogers, 2010. "Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition:a knowledge base approach," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1079, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    4. Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2005. "Australasian environmental economics: contributions, conflicts and ‘cop-outs’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 1-19.
    5. 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), pages 1-32.
    6. Rolfe, John & Loch, Adam & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2002. "Framing effects and benefit transfer in the Fitzroy basin," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 174038, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Sangha, Kamaljit K. & Russell-Smith, Jeremy & Morrison, Scott C. & Costanza, Robert & Edwards, Andrew, 2017. "Challenges for valuing ecosystem services from an Indigenous estate in northern Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 167-178.
    8. Shunsuke Managi & Yasutaka Yamamoto & Hiroyuki Iwamoto & Kiyotaka Masuda, 2008. "Valuing the influence of underlying attitudes and the demand for organic milk in Japan," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 339-348, November.
    9. Gibson, Fiona & Pannell, David & Boxall, Peter & Burton, Michael & Johnston, Robert & Kragt, Marit & Rogers, Abbie & Rolfe, John, 2016. "Non-market valuation in the economic analysis of natural hazards," Working Papers 236941, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    10. Mahadevan, Renuka & Asafu-Adjaye, John, 2015. "Exploring the potential for green revolution: a choice experiment on maize farmers in Northern Ghana," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 1-15.
    11. Jill Windle & John Rolfe, 2005. "Diversification choices in agriculture: a Choice Modelling case study of sugarcane growers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 63-74, March.
    12. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2005. "Diversification choices in agriculture: a Choice Modelling case study of sugarcane growers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 1-12.
    13. Gillespie, Robert & Bennett, Jeff, 2017. "Costs and Benefits of Rodent Eradication on Lord Howe Island, Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 215-224.
    14. repec:sae:envval:v:10:y:2001:i:2:p:225-242 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Patterson, Murray G., 2006. "Development of ecological economics in Australia and New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 312-331, March.
    16. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    17. Donaghy, Peter & Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2003. "Consumer demands for organic and genetically modified foods," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57862, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Donaghy, Peter & Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2002. "Disaggregating consumer demands for organic and genetically modified foods using the Choice Modelling technique," 2002 Conference (46th), February 13-15, 2002, Canberra, Australia 179524, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Iain Fraser & Robert Waschik, 2005. "Agricultural Land Retirement and Slippage: Lessons from an Australian Case Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(2).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    2. R.K. Blamey & J.W. Bennett & J.J. Louviere & M.D. Morrison & J.C. Rolfe, 2002. "Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(2), pages 167-186, October.
    3. W. Shaw & Michael Ozog, 1999. "Modeling Overnight Recreation Trip Choice: Application of a Repeated Nested Multinomial Logit Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(4), pages 397-414, June.
    4. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    5. repec:sss:wpaper:201407 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Pek, Chuen Khee & Othman, Jamal, 2009. "Solid Waste Disposal: A Choice Experiment Experience in Malaysia," MPRA Paper 23126, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Crooker, John & Kling, Catherine L., 2000. "Nonparametric Bounds on Welfare Measures: A New Tool for Nonmarket Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 145-161, March.
    8. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    9. Kjartan Sælensminde, 2002. "The Impact of Choice Inconsistencies in Stated Choice Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 403-420, December.
    10. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    11. Riccardo Scarpa, 2000. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland: Comment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 122-128, January.
    12. Yongjie Ji & Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 2016. "Modeling Recreation Demand When the Access Point Is Unknown," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(3), pages 860-880.
    13. Torres, Cati & Hanley, Nick & Riera, Antoni, 2011. "How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 111-121, July.
    14. Robert Hearne & C. Santos, 2005. "Tourists‘ and Locals‘ Preferences Toward Ecotourism Development in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 303-318, September.
    15. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Antoni Riera Font, 2008. "The implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2008/6, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    16. Cati Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2014-07, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    17. Schwabe, Kurt A. & Schuhmann, Peter W., 1999. "The Value Of Increasing The Length Of Deer Season In Ohio," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21574, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Saelensminde, Kjartan, 2006. "Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 331-340, September.
    19. Kurt Schwabe & Peter Schuhmann & Roy Boyd & Khosrow Doroodian, 2001. "The Value of Changes in Deer Season Length: An Application of the Nested Multinomial Logit Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 131-147, June.
    20. Bienabe, Estelle & Hearne, Robert R., 2006. "Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 335-348, December.
    21. Sælensminde, Kjartan, 2003. "Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 59-72, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aareaj:117846. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.