IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare12/124234.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

“Mixed signals: Stated preferences for future states of three New Zealand rivers”

Author

Listed:
  • Bell, Brian A.
  • Sinner, Jim
  • Phillips, Yvonne
  • Yap, Michael
  • Scarpa, Riccardo
  • Batstone, Chris
  • Marsh, Dan

Abstract

We conducted an online choice survey to inform advice to the Tasman District Council on setting management objectives for multiple uses and values across several catchments. One sub-sample was recruited via a survey company and a second via a public call with prize draw. From a survey with unlabelled choice sets for three rivers, we estimated a separate model for each river. Coefficients for natural character, fish & fishing, local jobs and cost were generally significant and had expected signs. Coefficients on swimming and boating attributes were weak even though 68% and 31%, respectively, of the panel sample reported engaging in these activities. Levels of attributes varied for the three rivers and, together with within-sample variation, made cross-river comparisons challenging. Latent class analysis was used to assess non-attendance with interesting results. The panel and public sample results highlighted the effect of random versus non-random sampling.

Suggested Citation

  • Bell, Brian A. & Sinner, Jim & Phillips, Yvonne & Yap, Michael & Scarpa, Riccardo & Batstone, Chris & Marsh, Dan, 2012. "“Mixed signals: Stated preferences for future states of three New Zealand rivers”," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124234, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare12:124234
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.124234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/124234/files/2012AC%20Bell_%20Brian%20CP.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.124234?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. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    2. Morrison, Mark & Bergland, Olvar, 2006. "Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 420-428, December.
    3. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Stanley, Tom D., 2006. "Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 372-378, December.
    4. Land and Water Forum, 2010. "Report of the Land and Water Forum: A Fresh Start for Freshwater," Reports 128675, Land and Water Forum.
    5. Lennox, James & Proctor, Wendy & Russell, Shona, 2011. "Structuring stakeholder participation in New Zealand's water resource governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1381-1394, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2018. "Benefit Transfer and Commodity Measurement Scales: Consequences for Validity and Reliability," Working Papers 2018-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2020. "Relative Versus Absolute Commodity Measurements in Benefit Transfer: Consequences for Validity and Reliability," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1245-1270, August.
    3. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M., 2010. "Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 421-438, August.
    4. Aleksandra Wiśniewska & Ewa Zawojska & Andrea Baldin & Joanna Rachubik, 2023. "Reliability of international benefit transfer in cultural economics: Non-market valuation of theater in Denmark and Poland," Working Papers 2023-19, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Randall S. Rosenberger & Robert J. Johnston, 2009. "Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis and Benefit Transfer: Avoiding Unintended Consequences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 410-428.
    6. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Scasný, Milan, 2010. "Study on benefit transfer in an international setting. How to improve welfare estimates in the case of the countries' income heterogeneity?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2409-2416, October.
    7. Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M. & Kukielka, Jessica B., 2008. "Optimizing Farmland Preservation Choices Across Communities and Jurisdictional Scales: To What Extent are Amenity Values and Selection Criteria Transferable?," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6243, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Robert Johnston, 2007. "Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 331-351, November.
    9. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 217-237.
    10. Kukielka, Jessica B. & Johnston, Robert J. & Duke, Joshua M., 2008. "Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Implications for Benefit Transfer: A Meta-Analysis," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6121, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Robert Johnston & Joshua Duke, 2008. "Benefit Transfer Equivalence Tests with Non-normal Distributions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(1), pages 1-23, September.
    12. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Maria L. Loureiro & Ståle Navrud & John Rolfe, 2021. "Guidance to Enhance the Validity and Credibility of Environmental Benefit Transfers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 575-624, July.
    13. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    15. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Bliemer, Michiel C.J., 2019. "Information theoretic-based sampling of observations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 181-197.
    16. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    17. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    19. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    20. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Pascual Fernández Martínez & Amelia Pérez Zabaleta & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "Dealing with Water Conflicts: A Comprehensive Review of MCDM Approaches to Manage Freshwater Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-32, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aare12:124234. 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.