IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/semrui/309506.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preferences for Blue-Green or Grey Infrastructure to Reduce Flood Risk: A Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Deely, John
  • Hynes, Stephen

Abstract

Flood reduction infrastructure is a vital aspect of many urban and peri-urban areas. To date, the majority of flood reduction projects use traditional “grey” materials and techniques. However, the use of blue-green infrastructures (BGI) is becoming more popular. This paper explores residents’ preferences for BGI or grey infrastructure projects to reduce flood risk. A discrete choice experiment using a split sample methodology was employed to determine if residents of the Carlingford Lough catchment in Ireland prefer either type of infrastructure to reduce flood risk. A random parameter logit was applied to the data. The results reveal that for the average person, they have a preference for flood risk reduction resulting in a flooding event once every 25 years rather than once every five years. The average respondent also holds a preference for BGI based solutions as opposed to a grey infrastructure solution. However, respondent living in a flood-prone area show no greater preference for a BGI solution.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:semrui:309506
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.309506
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/309506/files/20-SEMRU-WP-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.309506?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. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    2. Nurmi, Väinö & Votsis, Athanasios & Perrels, Adriaan & Lehvävirta, Susanna, 2016. "Green Roof Cost-Benefit Analysis: Special Emphasis on Scenic Benefits," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 488-522, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    5. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Mauricio Sillano & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(3), pages 525-550, March.
    7. John Deely & Stephen Hynes & John Curtis, 2019. "Are objective data an appropriate replacement for subjective data in site choice analysis?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 159-178, April.
    8. Nahuelhual, Laura & Loureiro, Maria L. & Loomis, John B., 2004. "Using Random Parameters to Account for Heterogeneous Preferences in Contingent Valuation of Public Open Space," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Kenneth Train, 2012. "Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-31, January.
    10. Di Marino, Mina & Tiitu, Maija & Lapintie, Kimmo & Viinikka, Arto & Kopperoinen, Leena, 2019. "Integrating green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning. Results from two Finnish case studies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 643-656.
    11. Brouwer, Roy & Tinh, Bui Duc & Tuan, Tran Huu & Magnussen, Kristin & Navrud, Ståle, 2014. "Modeling demand for catastrophic flood risk insurance in coastal zones in Vietnam using choice experiments," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 228-249, April.
    12. Oleson, Kirsten L.L. & Barnes, Michele & Brander, Luke M. & Oliver, Thomas A. & van Beek, Ingrid & Zafindrasilivonona, Bienvenue & van Beukering, Pieter, 2015. "Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows among indigenous fishers: A discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 104-116.
    13. Doherty, Edel & Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Buckley, Cathal, 2014. "Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 89-97.
    14. Markus Glatt & Roy Brouwer & Ivana Logar, 2019. "Combining Risk Attitudes in a Lottery Game and Flood Risk Protection Decisions in a Discrete Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(4), pages 1533-1562, December.
    15. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    16. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    17. Cathal Buckley & Peter Howley & Cathal O'Donoghue & Paul Kilgarriff, 2016. "Willingness to Pay For Achieving Good Status Across Rivers in the Republic of Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 47(3), pages 425-445.
    18. 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.
    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. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo A., 2018. "Individual-specific point and interval conditional estimates of latent class logit parameters," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 50-61.
    2. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    3. Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    4. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    5. Nannan Kang & Erda Wang & Yang Yu, 2019. "Valuing forest park attributes by giving consideration to the tourist satisfaction," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(5), pages 711-733, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Deely, J. & Hynes, S. & Curtis, J., 2019. "Are objective data a suitable replacement for subjective data in site choice analysis?," Working Papers 309602, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    8. Beeramoole, Prithvi Bhat & Arteaga, Cristian & Pinz, Alban & Haque, Md Mazharul & Paz, Alexander, 2023. "Extensive hypothesis testing for estimation of mixed-Logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    9. Mokas, Ilias & Lizin, Sebastien & Brijs, Tom & Witters, Nele & Malina, Robert, 2021. "Can immersive virtual reality increase respondents’ certainty in discrete choice experiments? A comparison with traditional presentation formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. Christos Makriyannis & Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2022. "Do numerical probabilities promote informed stated preference responses under inherent uncertainty? Insight from a coastal adaptation choice experiment," Working Papers 2022-05, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    11. Schmid, Basil & Molloy, Joseph & Peer, Stefanie & Jokubauskaite, Simona & Aschauer, Florian & Hössinger, Reinhard & Gerike, Regine & Jara-Diaz, Sergio R. & Axhausen, Kay W., 2021. "The value of travel time savings and the value of leisure in Zurich: Estimation, decomposition and policy implications," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 186-215.
    12. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Aanesen, Margrethe & Navrud, Ståle, 2016. "Valuing unfamiliar and complex environmental goods: A comparison of valuation workshops and internet panel surveys with videos," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 50-61.
    13. repec:sss:wpaper:201407 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Whittle, Colin, 2022. "Household acceptability of energy efficiency policies in the European Union: Policy characteristics trade-offs and the role of trust in government and environmental identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    17. Achtnicht Martin & Osberghaus Daniel, 2019. "The Demand for Index-Based Flood Insurance in a High-Income Country," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 20(2), pages 217-242, May.
    18. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Le Goffe, 2020. "Economic evaluation of catch-and-release salmon fishing: impact on anglers’ willingness to pay," Working Papers hal-02441505, HAL.
    19. Daan Hulshof & Machiel Mulder, 2020. "Willingness to Pay for $$\hbox {CO}_2$$CO2 Emission Reductions in Passenger Car Transport," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 899-929, April.
    20. Lan Anh Nguyen & Manh-Hung Nguyen & Viet-Ngu Hoang & Arnaud Reynaud & Michel Simioni & Clevo Wilson, 2024. "Tourists’ preferences and willingness to pay for protecting a World Heritage site from coastal erosion in Vietnam," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 27607-27628, November.
    21. Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental 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:semrui:309506. 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/semgaie.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.