IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/276502.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Opinion on ColoradoWater Rights Transfers: Are Policy Preferences Consistent with Concerns over Impacts?

Author

Listed:
  • Stone, Janine
  • Costanigro, Marco
  • Goemans, Christopher

Abstract

We evaluate Coloradans’ preferences for policies decreasing the need for agricultural water transfers using two choice experiments with different frames—one highlighting policy choices and one emphasizing ex post impacts on prices, urban landscaping, and base charges. We find that a majority of users state a willingness to face private costs to reduce agricultural water transfers. Latent-class analysis is used to describe heterogeneity in opinion groups, showing that a minority of urban, lower-income participants would prefer to fallow agricultural land than to pay for alternative policies. This opinion group increases in size in the impact-framed survey.

Suggested Citation

  • Stone, Janine & Costanigro, Marco & Goemans, Christopher, 2018. "Public Opinion on ColoradoWater Rights Transfers: Are Policy Preferences Consistent with Concerns over Impacts?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:276502
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.276502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/276502/files/JARE%2C43.3%2CSeptember2018%2C%236%2CStone%2C403-422w_Supplement.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.276502?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. Blamey, Russell K. & Gordon, Jenny & Chapman, Ross, 1999. "Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 43(3), pages 1-21, September.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    3. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    4. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2016. "Putting the Chicken Before the Egg Price: An Ex Post Analysis of California's Battery Cage Ban," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-15, September.
    5. Daniele Pacifico & Hong il Yoo, 2013. "lclogit: A Stata command for fitting latent-class conditional logit models via the expectation-maximization algorithm," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(3), pages 625-639, September.
    6. Ronald C. Griffin & James W. Mjelde, 2000. "Valuing Water Supply Reliability," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 414-426.
    7. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    8. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2006. "Water Supply Security and Willingness to Pay to Avoid Drought Restrictions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(256), pages 56-66, March.
    9. Charles W. Howe & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Kenneth R. Weber, 1990. "The Economic Impacts of Agriculture-to-Urban Water Transfers on the Area of Origin: A Case Study of the Arkansas River Valley in Colorado," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(5), pages 1200-1204.
    10. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    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. Vincenzina Caputo & Jayson L. Lusk, 2020. "What agricultural and food policies do U.S. consumers prefer? A best–worst scaling approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 75-93, January.
    2. Kwon, Daye & Liverpool-Tasie, Saweda & Reardon, Thomas A. & Mason-Wardell, Nicole M. & Tasie, Oyinkansola, 2024. "Addressing Conflict and Weather Shocks in Agrifood Value Chains: Policy Preferences of Nigerian Maize Traders," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343947, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Mooney, Daniel & Kelley, Timothy H., 2023. "Comparative Profitability of Irrigated Cropping Activities for Temporary Water Transfers under Risk Aversion," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 48(1), January.

    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    2. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Colombo, Sergio & Faccioli, Michela, 2024. "Enhancing the face validity of choice experiments: A simple diagnostic check," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    3. Clevo Wilson & Wasantha Athukorala & Benno Torgler & Robert Gifford & Maria A. Garcia-Valiñas & Shunsuke Managi, 2021. "Willingness to pay to ensure a continuous water supply with minimum restrictions," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 1519-1537, September.
    4. Dupont, Diane P., 2011. "Reclaimed Wastewater and the WTP to avoid Summer Water Restrictions: Incorporation Endogenous Free-riding Beliefs," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108778, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Bart Neuts, 2020. "Mixed pricing strategies in museums: Examining the potential of voluntary contributions for capturing consumer surplus," Tourism Economics, , vol. 26(1), pages 115-136, February.
    6. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    7. Keval Amin & Erica Harris, 2022. "The Effect of Investor Sentiment on Nonprofit Donations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(2), pages 427-450, January.
    8. repec:ags:aaea22:335998 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Solomon Tarfasa & Roy Brouwer, 2013. "Estimation of the public benefits of urban water supply improvements in Ethiopia: a choice experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(9), pages 1099-1108, March.
    10. Kees Vringer & Eline van der Heijden & Daan van Soest & Herman Vollebergh & Frank Dietz, 2017. "Sustainable Consumption Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    12. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    13. Miklós Antal & Ardjan Gazheli & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2012. "Behavioural Foundations of Sustainability Transitions. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 3," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46424.
    14. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    15. Fredrik Carlsson & Jorge García & Åsa Löfgren, 2010. "Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 407-421, November.
    16. Theocharis Grigoriadis & Friedrich Heinemann, 2013. "Origins of Reform Resistance and the Southern European Regime. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 20," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46881.
    17. Blackman, Allen & Qin, Ping & Yang, Jun, 2020. "How costly are driving restrictions? Contingent valuation evidence from Beijing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    18. Bethany Cooper & Michael Burton & Lin Crase, 2019. "Willingness to Pay to Avoid Water Restrictions in Australia Under a Changing Climate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 823-847, March.
    19. Zhang, Fan & Fogarty, James, 2015. "Nonmarket Valuation of Water Sensitive Cities: Current Knowledge and Issues," Working Papers 207694, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    20. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    21. Groothuis, Peter A. & Cockerill, Kristan & Mohr, Tanga McDaniel, 2015. "Water does not flow up hill: determinants of willingness to pay for water conservation measures in the mountains of western North Carolina," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 88-95.

    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:jlaare:276502. 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/waeaaea.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.