IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rsm/murray/m05_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are non-use values distance-independent? Identifying the market area using a choice modelling experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Giovanni B. Concu

    (Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland)

Abstract

This article tests for the effect of distance on non-use values using a Choice Modelling (CM) experiment. Estimating a distance decay relationship for non-use values (NUVs) is important because it would define the market area for an environmental good, i.e. identify the limits for aggregating individual benefit estimates. In contrast to the common definition of NUVs as non-usersÕ values, the CM experiment designs the environmental attributes so that NUV changes can be disentangled from Use Value (UV) changes. The experiment also allows for testing different specification of the distance covariates. Data are obtained from a geographically representative sample. Results show that NUVs do not depend on distance. Aggregation of NUVs is based on income and individualsÕ environmental attitudes.

Suggested Citation

  • Giovanni B. Concu, 2005. "Are non-use values distance-independent? Identifying the market area using a choice modelling experiment," Murray-Darling Program Working Papers WP6M05, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsm:murray:m05_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.uq.edu.au/rsmg/WP/WPM05_6.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    2. Ian Bateman & Ian Langford, 1997. "Non-users' Willingness to Pay for a National Park: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 571-582.
    3. Pate, Jennifer & Loomis, John, 1997. "The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 199-207, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Jonathan Silberman & Daniel A. Gerlowski & Nancy A. Williams, 1992. "Estimating Existence Value for Users and Nonusers of New Jersey Beaches," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 225-236.
    6. John Mackenzie, 1993. "A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 593-603.
    7. Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-25.
    8. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    9. Garrod, G. D. & Willis, K. G., 1997. "The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 45-61, April.
    10. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    11. Ronald J. Sutherland & Richard G. Walsh, 1985. "Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 281-291.
    12. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    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. De Valck, Jeremy & Broekx, Steven & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Testing the influence of substitutes in nature valuation by using spatial discounting factors," Working Papers 182808, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    2. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    3. Jeremy Valck & Steven Broekx & Inge Liekens & Joris Aertsens & Liesbet Vranken, 2017. "Testing the Influence of Substitute Sites in Nature Valuation by Using Spatial Discounting Factors," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(1), pages 17-43, January.

    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. G. Concu, 2004. "Effects of distance on non-use values," Working Paper CRENoS 200411, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    2. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    3. 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.
    4. repec:ags:aare05:139324 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. G. Concu, 2004. "A choice modelling approach to investigate biases in individual and aggregated benefit estimates due to omission of distance," Working Paper CRENoS 200412, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    6. Robert W. Turner & Blake Willmarth, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    7. 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.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    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. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    12. Aguilar, Francisco X. & Cai, Zhen, 2010. "Conjoint effect of environmental labeling, disclosure of forest of origin and price on consumer preferences for wood products in the US and UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 308-316, December.
    13. Ladenburg, Jacob & Hevia-Koch, Pablo & Petrović, Stefan & Knapp, Lauren, 2020. "The offshore-onshore conundrum: Preferences for wind energy considering spatial data in Denmark," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    14. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    15. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    16. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Robert Johnston & Mahesh Ramachandran, 2014. "Modeling Spatial Patchiness and Hot Spots in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(3), pages 363-387, November.
    18. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How to ‘Sell’ an Environmental Good: Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects," Working Papers 2008-03, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2015. "Capturing More Relevant Measures of Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay: Using an Iterative Grid Search Algorithm to Quantify Proximate Environmental Impacts," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205450, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Choi, Andy S. & Lee, Choong-Ki & Tanaka, Katsuya & Xu, Honggang, 2018. "Value spillovers from the Korean DMZ areas and social desirability," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 95-104.
    21. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    choice modelling; non-use values; aggregation; distance; geographical sampling.;
    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

    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:rsm:murray:m05_6. 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: David Adamson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rsmuqau.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.