IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eerhrr/94816.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Kragt, Marit Ellen
  • Bennett, Jeffrey W.

Abstract

Choice experiments (CE), also known as choice modelling (CM), are now used widely in environmental valuation in Australia. Many examples assess the trade-offs between river catchment management and socio-economic impacts. There is, however, limited information about the values of Australian estuaries and none of the existing valuation studies addresses catchment management changes in Tasmania. The CE study described in this report aims to elicit community preferences for protecting the rivers and estuary of the George catchment in north-eastern Tasmania. Results from conditional and mixed logit models show that respondents are, on average, willing to pay between $2.47 and $4.46 for a one kilometre increase in native riverside vegetation, and between $9.35 and $10.97 per species for the protection of rare native plants and animals, ceteris paribus. The study results are ambiguous about respondents’ preferences for estuary seagrass area. It also shows significant differences between logit models when accounting for individual heterogeneity, and repeated choices made by individual respondents.

Suggested Citation

  • Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity," Research Reports 94816, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eerhrr:94816
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.94816
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/94816/files/EERH_RR16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.94816?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2007. "Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 610-623, September.
    2. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(4), pages 591-611, December.
    5. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    7. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    8. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh & Patricia A. Champ, 1997. "Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 255-267.
    11. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2008. "Designing choice experiments to Test for Anchoring and Framing Effects," Research Reports 94810, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    12. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    13. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    14. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
    15. מחקר - ביטוח לאומי, 2006. "Summary for 2005," Working Papers 29, National Insurance Institute of Israel.
    16. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2005. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521848053.
    17. Gregory L. Poe & Eric K. Severance-Lossin & Michael P. Welsh, 1994. "Measuring the Difference (X — Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 904-915.
    18. 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.
    19. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    20. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, 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. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," Working Papers 144447, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Abdurakhmanova, Milana, 2013. "Analysis of the interaction of the banking sector and small businesses," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, pages 113-125, December.
    3. Rolfe, John & Brouwer, Roy, 2011. "Testing for value stability with a meta-analysis of choice experiments: River health in Australia," Research Reports 107744, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    4. Saem Lee & Hyun No Kim & Trung Thanh Nguyen & Thomas Koellner & Hio-Jung Shin, 2018. "Farmers’ and Consumers’ Preferences for Drinking Water Quality Improvement through Land Management Practices: The Case Study of the Soyang Watershed in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    5. Deborah Ellen Lee & Stephen Gerald Hosking & Mario Du Preez, 2015. "Managing Some Motorised Recreational Boating Challenges in South African Estuaries: A Case Study at the Kromme River Estuary," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 83(2), pages 286-302, June.
    6. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "Integrating economic values and catchment modelling," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47956, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Amare Tesfaw & Feyera Senbeta & Dawit Alemu & Ermias Teferi, 2022. "Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-17, July.
    8. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.

    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. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    2. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    3. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152198, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    7. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    8. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    9. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    10. 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).
    11. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2013. "Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 199-214.
    13. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    14. Alejandra R. Enríquez & Angel Bujosa Bestard, 2020. "Measuring the economic impact of climate-induced environmental changes on sun-and-beach tourism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 203-217, May.
    15. Anthony PARIS & Pascal GASTINEAU & Pierre-Alexandre MAHIEU & Benoît CHEZE, 2020. "Citizen involvement in the energy transition: Highlighting the role played by the spatial heterogeneity of preferences in the public acceptance of biofuels," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2828, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    16. Bakhtiari, Fatemeh & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Strange, Niels & Boman, Mattias, 2018. "Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 11-20.
    17. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    18. Arata, Linda & Diluiso, Francesca & Guastella, Gianni & Pareglio, Stefano & Sckokai, Paolo, 2021. "Willingness to pay for alternative features of land-use policies: the case of the lake Garda region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    19. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.

    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:eerhrr:94816. 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/asanuau.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.