Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges

[1]  Amy W. Ando,et al.  Spatial Environmental and Natural Resource Economics , 2021, Handbook of Regional Science.

[2]  J. Swait,et al.  Antecedent Volition and Spatial Effects: Can Multiple Goal Pursuit Mitigate Distance Decay? , 2020, Environmental and Resource Economics.

[3]  Luc Anselin,et al.  The Moran scatterplot as an ESDA tool to assess local instability in spatial association , 2019, Spatial Analytical Perspectives on GIS.

[4]  Elena Y. Besedin,et al.  Modeling Distance Decay Within Valuation Meta-Analysis , 2019 .

[5]  M. Kragt,et al.  Spatial and Scope Effects: Valuations of Coastal Management Practices , 2018, Journal of Agricultural Economics.

[6]  N. Hanley,et al.  Using Geographically Weighted Choice Models to Account for the Spatial Heterogeneity of Preferences , 2018 .

[7]  J. Rolfe,et al.  Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Valuation: Status, Challenges and Road Ahead , 2018, International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics.

[8]  B. Thorsen,et al.  Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders , 2018 .

[9]  Ivana Logar,et al.  Substitution Effects and Spatial Preference Heterogeneity in Single- and Multiple-Site Choice Experiments , 2018, Land Economics.

[10]  G. Decocq,et al.  Promoting biodiversity values of small forest patches in agricultural landscapes: Ecological drivers and social demand. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[11]  Thomas W. Scott,et al.  Land preservation policy effect or neighborhood dynamics: A repeat sales hedonic matching approach , 2018 .

[12]  J. Martin-Ortega,et al.  The economics of peatland restoration , 2018 .

[13]  N. Hanley,et al.  Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management , 2017 .

[14]  Elena Y. Besedin,et al.  Enhanced Geospatial Validity for Meta-analysis and Environmental Benefit Transfer: An Application to Water Quality Improvements , 2017 .

[15]  R. Johnston,et al.  Optimized Quantity-within-Distance Models of Spatial Welfare Heterogeneity , 2017 .

[16]  K. Glenk,et al.  Spatially explicit demand for afforestation , 2017 .

[17]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies , 2017, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

[18]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Systematic non-response in discrete choice experiments: implications for the valuation of climate risk reductions , 2017 .

[19]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management , 2017 .

[20]  S. Broekx,et al.  Testing the Influence of Substitute Sites in Nature Valuation by Using Spatial Discounting Factors , 2017 .

[21]  C. Blinn,et al.  Forest pests and home values: The importance of accuracy in damage assessment and geocoding of properties , 2017 .

[22]  Anne Sofie Elberg Nielsen,et al.  Local consequences of national policies - A spatial analysis of preferences for forest access reduction , 2016 .

[23]  R. Brouwer,et al.  Accounting for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in a labelled choice experiment. , 2016, Journal of environmental management.

[24]  R. Johnston,et al.  Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires: Implications for Survey Design and Welfare Estimation , 2016, Land Economics.

[25]  J. Whitehead.  Plausible Responsiveness To Scope In Contingent Valuation , 2016 .

[26]  M. Moretto,et al.  Exploring the Spatial Heterogeneity of Individual Preferences for Ambient Heating Systems , 2016 .

[27]  D. Petrolia,et al.  Location, Location, Habitat: How the Value of Ecosystem Services Varies across Location and by Habitat , 2016, Land Economics.

[28]  J. Araña,et al.  The Economic Benefits of Reducing the Environmental Effects of Landfills: Heterogeneous Distance Decay Effects , 2016 .

[29]  J. Abildtrup,et al.  Preferences for urban green spaces and peri-urban forests: An analysis of stated residential choices , 2016 .

[30]  R. Johnston,et al.  The effect of spatial interdependencies on prioritization and payments for environmental services , 2015 .

[31]  R. Johnston,et al.  Multiscale Spatial Pattern in Nonuse Willingness to Pay: Applications to Threatened and Endangered Marine Species , 2015, Land Economics.

[32]  J. Ladenburg,et al.  How Spatial Relationships Influence Economic Preferences for Wind Power—A Review , 2015 .

[33]  M. Schaafsma.  Spatial and Geographical Aspects of Benefit Transfer , 2015 .

[34]  B. Thorsen,et al.  Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality , 2015 .

[35]  R. Brouwer,et al.  Agri-environmental policy valuation: Farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes , 2015 .

[36]  B. Thorsen,et al.  Patriotic values for public goods: transnational trade-offs for biodiversity and ecosystem services? , 2015 .

[37]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Modeling Spatial Patchiness and Hot Spots in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay , 2014 .

[38]  Magnus Söderberg,et al.  Marginal WTP and Distance Decay: The Role of ‘Protest’ and ‘True Zero’ Responses in the Economic Valuation of Recreational Water Quality , 2014 .

[39]  Jaren C. Pope,et al.  Do 'Capitalization Effects' for Public Goods Reveal the Public's Willingness to Pay? , 2014 .

[40]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  The value of water quality improvements in the region Berlin–Brandenburg as a function of distance and state residency , 2014 .

[41]  John M. Rose,et al.  Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay , 2014 .

[42]  G. Chi.  Applied Spatial Data Analysis with R , 2015 .

[43]  J. Whitehead,et al.  From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's “Dubious to Hopeless” Critique of Contingent Valuation , 2013 .

[44]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Testing geographical framing and substitution effects in spatial choice experiments , 2013 .

[45]  Berit Hasler,et al.  Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay , 2013 .

[46]  Mette Termansen,et al.  Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services , 2013 .

[47]  Kerrie A. Wilson,et al.  Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution , 2013 .

[48]  Juergen Meyerhoff,et al.  Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents' residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation? , 2013 .

[49]  J. C. van den Bergh,et al.  Estimation of Distance-Decay Functions to Account for Substitution and Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Research , 2013, Land Economics.

[50]  Bruno Lanz,et al.  Valuing Local Environmental Amenity with Discrete Choice Experiments: Spatial Scope Sensitivity and Heterogeneous Marginal Utility of Income , 2013 .

[51]  Zhidong Cao,et al.  Design-based spatial sampling: Theory and implementation , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[52]  Jan Staes,et al.  Developing a value function for nature development and land use policy in Flanders, Belgium. , 2013 .

[53]  Jinfeng Wang,et al.  A review of spatial sampling , 2012 .

[54]  R. Carson.  Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available , 2012 .

[55]  R Brouwer,et al.  Benefit transfer and spatial heterogeneity of preferences for water quality improvements. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[56]  John M. Rose,et al.  Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation , 2012 .

[57]  John Rolfe,et al.  Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National Values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia , 2012 .

[58]  Ross Cullen,et al.  Nonmarket valuation of water quality: addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model , 2012 .

[59]  Kathleen Segerson,et al.  Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators , 2012, Land Economics.

[60]  Jens Abildtrup,et al.  Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation , 2013 .

[61]  Yiyi Wang,et al.  Anticipation of Land use Change through use of Geographically Weighted Regression Models for Discrete Response , 2011 .

[62]  Manfred M. Fischer,et al.  Spatial Data Analysis: Models, Methods and Techniques , 2011 .

[63]  B. Hasler,et al.  Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across Europe , 2011 .

[64]  M. D. Ugarte,et al.  Introduction to Spatial Econometrics , 2011 .

[65]  I. Bateman,et al.  Coastal and marine ecosystem services valuation for policy and management: Managed realignment case studies in England , 2011 .

[66]  K. Glenk.  Using local knowledge to model asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay for environmental services. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[67]  Bill Provencher,et al.  Valuing a Spatially Variable Environmental Resource: Reducing Non-Point-Source Pollution in Green Bay, Wisconsin , 2011, Land Economics.

[68]  Daniel J. Phaneuf,et al.  Valuing open space in a residential sorting model of the Twin Cities , 2010 .

[69]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment , 2010, Land Economics.

[70]  B. Thorsen,et al.  Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks. , 2010 .

[71]  Jason F. Shogren,et al.  Introduction to spatial natural resource and environmental economics , 2010 .

[72]  Luc Anselin,et al.  Thirty years of spatial econometrics , 2010 .

[73]  Oleg A. Smirnov.  Modeling spatial discrete choice , 2010 .

[74]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Landscape externalities from onshore wind power , 2010 .

[75]  Manfred M. Fischer,et al.  Handbook of Applied Spatial AnalysisSoftware Tools, Methods and Applications , 2010 .

[76]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  Accommodating Spatial Correlation Across Choice Alternatives in Discrete Choice Models: Application to Modeling Residential Location Choice Behavior , 2011 .

[77]  I. Bateman.  Bringing the real world into economic analyses of land use value: Incorporating spatial complexity , , 2009 .

[78]  W. Schlenker,et al.  Reduced-Form Versus Structural Modeling in Environmental and Resource Economics , 2009 .

[79]  Joshua M. Duke,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer , 2009, Land Economics.

[80]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change , 2009 .

[81]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  A copula-based closed-form binary logit choice model for accommodating spatial correlation across observational units , 2009, J. Geogr. Syst..

[82]  G. Concu.  Measuring Environmental Externality Spillovers through Choice Modelling , 2009 .

[83]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments , 2008 .

[84]  Thomas H. Klier,et al.  Clustering of Auto Supplier Plants in the United States , 2008 .

[85]  J. Deshazo,et al.  Scenario Adjustment in Stated Preference Research , 2009 .

[86]  James E. Wilen,et al.  Economics of Spatial-Dynamic Processes , 2007 .

[87]  Jacob Ladenburg,et al.  Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in denmark , 2007 .

[88]  Christopher Timmins,et al.  A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models , 2007 .

[89]  D. O’Reilly,et al.  Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements , 2007 .

[90]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  Operationalizing the Concept of Neighborhood: Application to Residential Location Choice Analysis , 2007 .

[91]  G. Concu,et al.  Investigating Distance Effects on Environmental Values: A Choice Modelling Approach , 2007 .

[92]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: Needed improvements in primary study design and reporting , 2006 .

[93]  John C. Bergstrom,et al.  Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice , 2006 .

[94]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP , 2006 .

[95]  Luc Anselin,et al.  Interpolation of Air Quality Measures in Hedonic House Price Models: Spatial Aspects , 2006 .

[96]  G. Metternicht,et al.  Testing the performance of spatial interpolation techniques for mapping soil properties , 2006 .

[97]  T. Cameron.  Directional heterogeneity in distance profiles in hedonic property value models , 2006 .

[98]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation , 2005 .

[99]  Marisa J. Mazzotta,et al.  Who are resource nonusers and what can they tell us about nonuse values? Decomposing user and nonuser willingness to pay for coastal wetland restoration , 2005 .

[100]  Wiktor L. Adamowicz,et al.  Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment , 2005 .

[101]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: Examining validity through scope sensitivity testing , 2005, Aquatic Sciences.

[102]  Erwin H. Bulte,et al.  The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values : Evidence from a field study , 2005 .

[103]  Jeffrey Bennett,et al.  Valuing New South Wales Rivers for Use in Benefit Transfer , 2004 .

[104]  B. Roe,et al.  The Effects of Farmland, Farmland Preservation, and Other Neighborhood Amenities on Housing Values and Residential Growth , 2004, Land Economics.

[105]  Mark M. Fleming.  Techniques for Estimating Spatially Dependent Discrete Choice Models , 2004 .

[106]  Martin D. Smith,et al.  Economic impacts of marine reserves: the importance of spatial behavior , 2003 .

[107]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. , 2003, Journal of environmental management.

[108]  Dana Marie Bauer,et al.  Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Use , 2002, Land Economics.

[109]  Luc Anselin,et al.  Under the hood , 2002 .

[110]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Using GIS to Incorporate Visibility in Hedonic Property Value Models , 2002, Land Economics.

[111]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation , 2002 .

[112]  J. Bennett,et al.  Assessing Rainforest Conservation Demands , 2002 .

[113]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Applying Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to Environmental and Resource Economics , 2002 .

[114]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Values and Reminders of Substitute Goods: Testing for Framing Effects with Choice Modelling , 2002 .

[115]  Russell Blamey,et al.  Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer , 2002 .

[116]  J. Bennett,et al.  Towards the Development of a Transferable Set of Value Estimates for Environmental Attributes , 2004 .

[117]  J. Wilen,et al.  A Bioeconomic Model of Marine Reserve Creation , 2001 .

[118]  Luc Anselin,et al.  Spatial Effects in Econometric Practice in Environmental and Resource Economics , 2001 .

[119]  E. Irwin,et al.  Theory, data, methods: developing spatially explicit economic models of land use change , 2001 .

[120]  J. Payne,et al.  Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs , 2000 .

[121]  Mark Morrison,et al.  Aggregation Biases in Stated Preference Studies , 2000 .

[122]  I. Bateman,et al.  The Axford Debate Revisited: A Case Study Illustrating Different Approaches to the Aggregation of Benefits Data , 2000 .

[123]  P. Boxall,et al.  Complements, Substitutes, Budget Constraints and Valuation , 2000 .

[124]  K. Bell,et al.  Applying the Generalized-Moments Estimation Approach to Spatial Problems Involving Micro-Level Data , 2000, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[125]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions , 2000 .

[126]  Amy J. Ruggles,et al.  An Experimental Comparison of Ordinary and Universal Kriging and Inverse Distance Weighting , 1999 .

[127]  J. Wilen,et al.  Bioeconomics of Spatial Exploitation in a Patchy Environment , 1999 .

[128]  J. Whitehead,et al.  Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates? Reply to Another Comment , 1999 .

[129]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods , 1998 .

[130]  George R. Parsons,et al.  Spatial boundaries and choice set definition in a random utility model of recreation demand. , 1998 .

[131]  Joris Pinkse,et al.  Contracting in space: An application of spatial statistics to discrete-choice models , 1998 .

[132]  Amy W. Ando,et al.  Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation , 1998, Science.

[133]  N. Bockstael,et al.  Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS , 1997 .

[134]  I. Bateman,et al.  Non-users' Willingness to Pay for a National Park: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method , 1997 .

[135]  J. Loomis,et al.  The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California , 1997 .

[136]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation , 1997 .

[137]  N. Bockstael.  Modeling Economics and Ecology: The Importance of a Spatial Perspective , 1996 .

[138]  J. Loomis.  How large is the extent of the market for public goods: evidence from a nationwide contingent valuation survey , 1996 .

[139]  R. Cornes,et al.  The theory of externalities, public goods and club goods. 2nd. ed. , 1996 .

[140]  Heidi J. Albers,et al.  Modeling Ecological Constraints on Tropical Forest Management: Spatial Interdependence, Irreversibility, and Uncertainty , 1996 .

[141]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Testing Part‐Whole Valuation Effects in Contingent Valuation of Instream Flow Protection , 1995 .

[142]  Wiktor L. Adamowicz,et al.  Influence of Choice Set Considerations in Modeling the Benefits From Improved Water Quality , 1995 .

[143]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  The measurement and decomposition of nonuse values: A critical review , 1995 .

[144]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates , 1994 .

[145]  S. Swallow,et al.  Spatial Interactions in Multiple-Use Forestry and Substitution and Wealth Effects for the Single Stand , 1993 .

[146]  J. Hoehn,et al.  Substitution Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs , 1993 .

[147]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection , 1993 .

[148]  V. K. Smith,et al.  Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretive appraisal , 1993 .

[149]  Edward E. Leamer,et al.  Report of the NOOA Panel on Contingent Valuation , 1993 .

[150]  D. McMillen.  PROBIT WITH SPATIAL AUTOCORRELATION , 1992 .

[151]  L. Anselin,et al.  Spatial statistical analysis and geographic information systems , 1992 .

[152]  A. Case.  Spatial Patterns in Household Demand , 1991 .

[153]  John P. Hoehn,et al.  Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy: Theory and Methods , 1991 .

[154]  L. Anselin,et al.  Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models , 1988 .

[155]  Todd Sandler,et al.  The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods , 1986 .

[156]  Richard G. Walsh,et al.  Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality , 1985 .

[157]  W. Tobler.  A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region , 1970 .