IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v159y2019icp24-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Would County Residents Vote for an Increase in Their Taxes to Conserve Native Habitat and Ecosystem Services? Funding Conservation in Palm Beach County, Florida

Author

Listed:
  • Pienaar, Elizabeth F.
  • Soto, José R.
  • Lai, John H.
  • Adams, Damian C.

Abstract

In the 1990s, residents of Palm Beach County, Florida, voted in favor of two bonds to finance the acquisition and restoration of lands of environmental concern. In total, 31,445 acres of native habitat were conserved to create the Natural Areas Program. These lands protect both biodiversity and ecosystem services, including open space amenities, outdoor recreation, and flood protection in urban and peri-urban areas. In 2015, county staff determined that a dedicated source of funding (~$6.4 million per year) is required to maintain these natural areas. These funds would pay for continued revegetation of natural areas, removal of invasive plants, maintenance of recreation infrastructure, parking lots, fences, and signs, the provision of educational materials for visitors, and the monitoring of habitat, plants and animals to maintain ecosystem health. Palm Beach County's Department of Environmental Resources Management asked us to determine what value residents place on the Natural Areas Program and ecosystem services it provides. In 2017, we administered a stated preference choice experiment to residential property owners in Palm Beach County. Taking preference heterogeneity into account, we determined that allowing the natural areas to become degraded would likely reduce the welfare of 82% of respondents. Respondents were heterogeneous in terms of the value they placed on habitat conservation and ecosystem services. Our results suggest that Palm Beach County should hold a referendum on continued financing of the Natural Areas Program.

Suggested Citation

  • Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Soto, José R. & Lai, John H. & Adams, Damian C., 2019. "Would County Residents Vote for an Increase in Their Taxes to Conserve Native Habitat and Ecosystem Services? Funding Conservation in Palm Beach County, Florida," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 24-34.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:159:y:2019:i:c:p:24-34
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800917315859
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.011?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Waite, Richard & Kushner, Benjamin & Jungwiwattanaporn, Megan & Gray, Erin & Burke, Lauretta, 2015. "Use of coastal economic valuation in decision making in the Caribbean: Enabling conditions and lessons learned," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 45-55.
    2. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    3. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    4. John Turnpenny & Duncan Russel & Andrew Jordan, 2014. "The Challenge of Embedding an Ecosystem Services Approach: Patterns of Knowledge Utilisation in Public Policy Appraisal," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 247-262, April.
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    6. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    7. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    8. Richard Cowell & Mick Lennon, 2014. "The Utilisation of Environmental Knowledge in Land-Use Planning: Drawing Lessons for an Ecosystem Services Approach," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 263-282, April.
    9. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, January.
    10. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    11. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    12. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    15. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
    16. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    17. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    18. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    19. Daly, Andrew & Dekker, Thijs & Hess, Stephane, 2016. "Dummy coding vs effects coding for categorical variables: Clarifications and extensions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 36-41.
    20. Chandra R. Bhat, 1997. "An Endogenous Segmentation Mode Choice Model with an Application to Intercity Travel," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 34-48, February.
    21. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    22. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    23. Ruckelshaus, Mary & McKenzie, Emily & Tallis, Heather & Guerry, Anne & Daily, Gretchen & Kareiva, Peter & Polasky, Stephen & Ricketts, Taylor & Bhagabati, Nirmal & Wood, Spencer A. & Bernhardt, Joanna, 2015. "Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 11-21.
    24. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Soto, José R., 2016. "Does policy process influence public values for forest-water resource protection in Florida?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-131.
    25. Sun, Baohong & Morwitz, Vicki G., 2010. "Stated intentions and purchase behavior: A unified model," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 356-366.
    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. Deely, John & Hynes, Stephen, 2020. "Preferences for Blue-Green or Grey Infrastructure to Reduce Flood Risk: A Choice Experiment," Working Papers 309506, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    2. Takahiro Tsuge & Yasushi Shoji & Koichi Kuriyama & Ayumi Onuma, 2022. "Using a Choice Experiment to Understand Preferences for Disaster Risk Reduction with Uncertainty: A Case Study in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Legg, Peter & Hatton MacDonald, Darla & Bark, Rosalind H. & Tocock, Mark & Tinch, Dugald & Rose, John M., 2020. "Cultural Values, Deep Mining Operations and the Use of Surplus Groundwater for Towns, Landscapes and Jobs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    4. Evan Elderbrock & Chris Enright & Kathryn A. Lynch & Alexandra R. Rempel, 2020. "A Guide to Public Green Space Planning for Urban Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-23, October.
    5. Melts, Indrek & Ivask, Mari & Geetha, Mohan & Takeuchi, Kazuhiko & Heinsoo, Katrin, 2019. "Combining bioenergy and nature conservation: An example in wetlands," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 293-302.
    6. Zhang, Junze & Yin, Nan & Li, Yan & Yu, Jianping & Zhao, Wenwu & Liu, Yanxu & Fu, Bojie & Wang, Shuai, 2020. "Socioeconomic impacts of a protected area in China: An assessment from rural communities of Qianjiangyuan National Park Pilot," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    7. G Andrew Stainback & John H Lai & Elizabeth F Pienaar & Damian C Adam & Ruscena Wiederholt & Chloe’ Vorseth, 2020. "Public preferences for ecological indicators used in Everglades restoration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, June.

    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. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Catalina M. Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," DEA Working Papers 65, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.
    3. Pallante, Giacomo & Drucker, Adam G. & Sthapit, Sajal, 2016. "Assessing the potential for niche market development to contribute to farmers' livelihoods and agrobiodiversity conservation: Insights from the finger millet case study in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 92-105.
    4. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    6. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    7. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    9. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    10. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Beyene,Abebe Damte & Bluffstone,Randall & Gebreegziabher, Zenebe & Martinsson,Peter & Mekonnen,Alemu & Toman,Michael A. & Vieider,Ferdinand M., 2015. "Preferences for REDD+ contract attributes in low-income countries : a choice experiment in Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7296, The World Bank.
    11. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    12. 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").
    13. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    14. Ding, Ye & Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. & Zeng, Yinchu & Yang, Wei & Arielle Snell, Heather, 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    15. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    16. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    17. Reithmayer, Corrina & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Look at that! – The effect pictures have on consumer preferences for in ovo gender determination as an alternative to culling male chicks," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 298419, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    18. Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Producers' valuation of animal welfare practices: Does herd size matter?," DARE Discussion Papers 1801, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    19. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    20. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Stated preference choice experiments; Random parameters logit; Latent class analysis; Ecosystem services; Recreation; Habitat; Flood risk;
    All these keywords.

    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

    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:eee:ecolec:v:159:y:2019:i:c:p:24-34. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.