(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Capturing More Relevant Measures of Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay: Using an Iterative Grid Search Algorithm to Quantify Proximate Environmental Impacts
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea15/205450.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Capturing More Relevant Measures of Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay: Using an Iterative Grid Search Algorithm to Quantify Proximate Environmental Impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Holland, Benedict M.
  • Johnston, Robert J.

Abstract

Willingness to pay (WTP) for public goods is often spatially heterogeneous; the relevance of this heterogeneity for policy analysis is increasingly recognized. Within stated preference (SP) analysis, the most commonly analyzed form of spatial heterogeneity is distance decay, in which WTP is assumed to diminish as a monotonic function of distance from the affected resource. This distance is typically calculated from each respondent’s household to the nearest point of the affected resource, using either Euclidean or travel distance. A small but increasing literature, however, now suggests the limitations of a simple distance decay paradigm as the sole means to evaluate spatial heterogeneity. This article illustrates a novel approach to account for spatial welfare heterogeneity that may better capture the systematic sensitivity of preferences to resource proximity. The model accounts for the amount of the affected resource surrounding each respondent’s home location, at distance bands of varying length, rather than the distance to the closest point. This alternative “quantity-within-distance-x” measure is used as a substitute for the common “distance-to-nearestpoint” measure with distance-related models of spatial welfare heterogeneity. Methods and results are illustrated using a choice experiment addressing preferences for riparian land restoration in south coastal Maine. Results suggest that the resulting models better capture spatial elements relevant to respondents’ preferences. Comparison to standard distance decay models shows the additional insight provided by this novel approach.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea15:205450
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.205450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/205450/files/Spatial_Heterogeneity_AAEA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.205450?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. Danny Campbell & W George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 97-111, January.
    2. Ian Bateman & Ian Langford & Naohito Nishikawa & Iain Lake, 2000. "The Axford Debate Revisited: A Case Study Illustrating Different Approaches to the Aggregation of Benefits Data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 291-302.
    3. John M. Rose & Michiel C. J. Bliemer, 2008. "Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(5), pages 587-617, October.
    4. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 98-118, April.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How Can We Reduce the Errors from Benefits Transfer? An Investigation Using the Choice Experiment Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 128-147.
    6. 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.
    7. Schkade David A. & Payne John W., 1994. "How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 88-109, January.
    8. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    9. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2012. "Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National Values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 347-365, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    12. 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.
    13. Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2013. "Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents' residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 58-71.
    14. 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.
    15. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    16. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    17. Minjuan Zhao & Robert Johnston & Eric Schultz, 2013. "What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 3-25, September.
    18. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    19. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2009. "Informing Preservation of Multifunctional Agriculture when Primary Research Is Unavailable: An Application of Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1353-1359.
    20. Georgiou, Stavros & Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Day, Rosemary J., 2000. "Coastal bathing water health risks: developing means of assessing the adequacy of proposals to amend the 1976 EC directive," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 49-68, April.
    21. Johnston, Robert J. & Segerson, Kathleen & Schultz, Eric T. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2011. "Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of aquatic ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1946-1956, September.
    22. 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.
    23. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. Nick Hanley & David Bell & Begona Alvarez-Farizo, 2003. "Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements Using Contingent and Real Behaviour," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(3), pages 273-285, March.
    27. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    28. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    29. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    30. 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.
    31. 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.
    32. Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Ladenburg, Jacob & Martinsen, Louise & Svenningsen, Stig Roar & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 58-66.
    33. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    34. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    35. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    36. John B. Loomis, 2000. "Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 312-321.
    37. Robert J. Johnston & Eric T. Schultz & Kathleen Segerson & Elena Y. Besedin & Mahesh Ramachandran, 2012. "Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(1), pages 102-120.
    38. Carson, Richard T & Wilks, Leanne & Imber, David, 1994. "Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 727-749, Supplemen.
    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. 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.
    2. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Elena Y. Besedin & Benedict M. Holland, 2019. "Modeling Distance Decay Within Valuation Meta-Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 657-690, March.
    8. Tomas Badura & Silvia Ferrini & Michael Burton & Amy Binner & Ian J. Bateman, 2020. "Using Individualised Choice Maps to Capture the Spatial Dimensions of Value Within Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 297-322, February.
    9. Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y., 2011. "Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn’t Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. 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.
    11. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2016. "Local consequences of national policies - A spatial analysis of preferences for forest access reduction," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 68-77.
    12. Céline Moreaux & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Bo Dalsgaard & Carsten Rahbek & Niels Strange, 2023. "Distance and Regional Effects on the Value of Wild Bee Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 37-63, January.
    13. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    14. 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.
    15. Søren B. Olsen & Cathrine U. Jensen & Toke E. Panduro, 2020. "Modelling Strategies for Discontinuous Distance Decay in Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 351-386, February.
    16. Joffre Swait & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2020. "Antecedent Volition and Spatial Effects: Can Multiple Goal Pursuit Mitigate Distance Decay?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 243-270, February.
    17. Artell, Janne & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2019. "Distance decay and regional statistics in international benefit transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    18. 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).
    19. 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.
    20. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "Reprint of ‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 283-294.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use;

    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:aaea15:205450. 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/aaeaaea.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.