Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity

Choice experiments (CE – otherwise known as Choice Modelling) have become widespread as an approach to environmental valuation in Australia. There are, however, limited applications that have focused on the estimation of estuary values. Furthermore, none of the existing valuation studies have addressed catchment management changes in Tasmania. The CE study described in this report aims to elicit community preferences for natural resource management options in the George catchment in north-eastern Tasmania. The survey was administered in different sub-sample locations in Tasmania to assess the trade-offs respondents are willing to make between environmental attributes and costs. Catchment health attributes were the length of native riverside vegetation and the number of rare animal and plant species in the George catchment. The area of healthy seagrass beds in the Georges Bay was used as a measure of estuary condition. Results from mixed logit models show that respondents are, on average, willing to pay between $3.47 and $5.11 for a km increase in native riverside vegetation and between $7.10 and $12.42 per species for the protection of rare native plants and animals, ceteris paribus. The results are ambiguous about respondents’ preferences for estuary seagrass area. This study further shows significant differences between logit models when accounting for unobserved preference heterogeneity and repeated choices made by the same individual. Key words: Choice experiments, Preference heterogeneity, Mixed Logit models, River health, Estuary health, Tasmania, Environmental valuation

[1]  J. Ladenburg,et al.  Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study , 2008 .

[2]  K. Train Halton Sequences for Mixed Logit , 2000 .

[3]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities , 1986 .

[4]  R. Hill,et al.  Evaluation of the utility of water quality based indicators of estuarine lagoon condition in NSW, Australia , 2007 .

[5]  Danny Campbell,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models , 2007 .

[6]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[7]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Measuring the Difference in Mean Willingness to Pay When Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Responses Are Not Independent , 1997 .

[8]  J. Bennett,et al.  The economic value of improved environmental health in Victorian rivers , 2008 .

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

[10]  Marisa J. Mazzotta,et al.  Valuing Estuarine Resource Services Using Economic and Ecological Models: The Peconic Estuary System Study , 2002 .

[11]  John M. Rose,et al.  Design Efficiency for Non-Market Valuation with Choice Modelling: How to Measure it, What to Report and Why , 2008 .

[12]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Implementing the Convolutions Approach: A Companion to "Measuring the Difference (X-Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach" , 1994 .

[13]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit , 2007 .

[14]  John Rolfe,et al.  Assessing values for estuary protection with Choice Modelling using different payment mechanisms , 2004 .

[15]  J. Louviere,et al.  The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .

[16]  Fredrik Carlsson,et al.  Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments , 2003 .

[17]  John M. Rose,et al.  Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models , 2006 .

[18]  J. Bennett,et al.  Developing a Questionnaire for Valuing Changes in Natural Resource Management in the George Catchment, Tasmania , 2008 .

[19]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The Mixed Logit Model: the State of Practice and Warnings for the Unwary , 2001 .

[20]  K. Lancaster A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[21]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments , 2008 .

[22]  A. Cameron,et al.  Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications , 2005 .

[23]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

[24]  Peter Martinsson,et al.  Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. , 2003, Health economics.

[25]  J. Bennett,et al.  Designing choice experiments to Test for Anchoring and Framing Effects , 2008 .

[26]  K. Train,et al.  Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[27]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Choice set awareness and ordering effects in discrete choice experiments in discrete choice experiments , 2008 .