IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/saea18/266684.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Monetary Incentives And Eco-Friendly Residential Landscape Preferences For Florida Friendly Landscaping

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Xumin
  • Khachatryan, Hayk

Abstract

To mitigate potential impacts from the increasing maintained residential landscapes to the environment, state and local governments and water management organizations are interested in policies that promote resource-efficient landscaping practices by individual homeowners. Incentives including rebates, tax returns, and low rate financing, are common monetary instruments used to promote the adoption of eco-friendly equipment or practices (e.g., water-saving appliances). However, the effects of monetary incentives on homeowners’ preferences for alternative landscapes are less understood. Using discrete choice experimentation, this study investigated homeowners’ preferences for rebate incentive programs and willingness to pay (WTP) for alternative landscape attributes. The results reveal that homeowners are willing to pay a premium for rebate programs, and that the environmental benefit information improves homeowners’ preference and WTP for alternative landscape attributes. Also, we clustered homeowners into low, medium, and high rebate preference groups, which allowed investigating the difference in WTP estimates for alternative landscape attributes. Results estimated by mixed logit in WTP space model revealed that homeowners in high rebate preference group assign higher weights to economic attributes, such as rebate and maintenance, while homeowners in the low rebate preference group give more importance to environmental friendly attributes such as smart irrigation or pollinator friendly habitat. The results offer implications for policy makers as they develop water conservation programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Xumin & Khachatryan, Hayk, 2018. "Monetary Incentives And Eco-Friendly Residential Landscape Preferences For Florida Friendly Landscaping," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266684, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:saea18:266684
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.266684
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/266684/files/Monetary%20Incentive%20and%20Eco-friendly%20Residential%20Landscape%20Preferences%20for%20Florida%20Friendly%20Landscaping_SAEA%202018.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/266684/files/Monetary%20Incentive%20and%20Eco-friendly%20Residential%20Landscape%20Preferences%20for%20Florida%20Friendly%20Landscaping_SAEA%202018.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.266684?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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    2. Hayk Khachatryan & Dong Hee Suh & Guzhen Zhou & Michael Dukes, 2017. "Sustainable Urban Landscaping: Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Turfgrass Fertilizers," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 65(3), pages 385-407, September.
    3. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. David F. Suárez & Youngmi Lee, 2011. "Participation and Policy," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(8), pages 1117-1138, November.
    6. Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    7. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    8. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    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. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    2. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Ryan, Lisa & Mukherjee, Sanghamitra C., 2022. "Heterogeneity in preferences for renewable home heating systems among Irish households," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    3. Biancamaria Torquati & Giulia Giacchè & Tiziano Tempesta, 2020. "Landscapes and Services in Peri-Urban Areas and Choice of Housing Location: An Application of Discrete Choice Experiments," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-21, October.
    4. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    7. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    8. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Teferi, Ermias Tesfaye & Kassie, Girma T. & Pe, Mario Enrico & Fadda, Carlo, 2020. "Are farmers willing to pay for climate related traits of wheat? Evidence from rural parts of Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    10. Jesús Barreiro‐Hurle & Azucena Gracia & Tiziana De‐Magistris, 2010. "The Effects of Multiple Health and Nutrition Labels on Consumer Food Choices," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 426-443, June.
    11. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    13. Shr, Yau-Huo & Ready, Richard C. & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2017. "Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258397, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Asioli, Daniele & Fuentes-Pila, Joaquìn & Alarcón, Silverio & Han, Jia & Liu, Jingjing & Hocquette, Jean-Francois & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of cultured beef Burger: A Multi-Country investigation using choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    15. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    16. Ulf Liebe & Veronika A. Andorfer & Patricia A. Gwartney & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2014. "Ethical Consumption and Social Context: Experimental Evidence from Germany and the United States," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 7, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences.
    17. Chiara Paffarini & Biancamaria Torquati & Tiziano Tempesta & Sonia Venanzi & Daniel Vecchiato, 2021. "Rural sustainability and food choice: the effect of territorial characteristics on the consumers’ preferences for organic lentils," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-23, December.
    18. Schueftan, Alejandra & Aravena, Claudia & Reyes, René, 2021. "Financing energy efficiency retrofits in Chilean households: The role of financial instruments, savings and uncertainty in energy transition," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    19. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Ready, Richard & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2019. "How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 375-386.
    20. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Institutional and Behavioral Economics;

    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:saea18:266684. 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/saeaaea.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.