Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer

In stated preference valuation of farmland preservation, respondents are often told that preservation will occur within various jurisdictional scales—that is, community or state—but are not told the specific location of parcels. The resultant availability of welfare estimates for different scales and regions provides numerous avenues for benefit transfer. This paper provides a systematic assessment of transfer error, contrasting different methods for the transfer of farmland preservation values across states and jurisdictional scales. Results drawn from multistate choice experiments suggest that the choice of across scale versus across state transfer method can have significant implications for transfer validity. (JEL Q24, Q51)

[1]  R. Johnston,et al.  Optimizing Farmland Preservation Choices Across Communities and Jurisdictional Scales: To What Extent are Amenity Values and Selection Criteria Transferable? , 2008 .

[2]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer , 2007 .

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

[4]  J. M. Halstead.  Measuring the Nonmarket Value of Massachusetts Agricultural Land: A Case Study , 1984 .

[5]  Klaus Moeltner,et al.  The Effect of Risk Context on the Value of a Statistical Life: a Bayesian Meta-model , 2011 .

[6]  Klaus Moeltner,et al.  Benefit Transfer from Multiple Contingent Experiments: A Flexible Two-Step Model Combining Individual Choice Data with Community Characteristics , 2009 .

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

[8]  David N. Barton,et al.  The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica , 2002 .

[9]  F. Hitzhusen,et al.  Status of Benefits Transfer in the United States and Canada: Comment , 2001 .

[10]  E. Irwin,et al.  What are Farmland Amenities Worth ? , 2003 .

[11]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions , 2005 .

[12]  S. Swallow,et al.  Context-Sensitive Benefit Transfer Using Stated Choice Models: Specification and Convergent Validity for Policy Analysis , 2005 .

[13]  J. Bergstrom,et al.  Status of Benefits Transfer in the United States and Canada: Reply , 1999 .

[14]  R. Ready,et al.  What Have We Learned from Over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America , 2009 .

[15]  George Van Houtven,et al.  Benefit Transfer via Preference Calibration: “Prudential Algebra” for Policy , 2002, Land Economics.

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

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

[18]  S. Swallow,et al.  Designing multidimensional environmental programs: Assessing tradeoffs and substitution in watershed management plans , 2002 .

[19]  Randall S. Rosenberger,et al.  Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management , 2006 .

[20]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: The mixed logit model , 2005 .

[21]  W. Martin,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy of the benefit transfer method: a rural water supply application in the USA. , 2001, Journal of environmental management.

[22]  Randall S. Rosenberger,et al.  Correspondence and Convergence in Benefit Transfer Accuracy: Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature , 2007 .

[23]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Aquatic Resource Improvements and Implications for Benefit Transfer: A Meta-Analysis , 2005 .

[24]  Warren F. Kuhfeld,et al.  Large Factorial Designs for Product Engineering and Marketing Research Applications , 2005, Technometrics.

[25]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Modeling relationships between use and nonuse values for surface water quality: A meta‐analysis , 2003 .

[26]  Mark Morrison,et al.  Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer , 2006 .

[27]  Marisa J. Mazzotta,et al.  Decision Making When Choices Are Complex: A Test of Heiner's Hypothesis , 1995 .

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

[29]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .

[30]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum , 2006 .

[31]  Joshua M. Duke,et al.  Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom , 2010 .

[32]  R. Johnston,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter? , 2007 .

[33]  D. Dillman.  Mail and internet surveys , 1999 .

[34]  Michael D. Kaplowitz,et al.  Multiple Methods for Developing and Evaluating a Stated‐Choice Questionnaire to Value Wetlands , 2004 .

[35]  T. Brown,et al.  Trichotomous Choice: A Possible Solution to Dual Response Objectives in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions , 1999 .

[36]  R. Johnston,et al.  Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Implications for Benefit Transfer: A Meta-Analysis , 2008 .

[37]  J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

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

[39]  J. Stoll,et al.  Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land , 1985, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[40]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  The Economic Value of Water Quality , 2001 .

[41]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Testing Transferability of Recreation Demand Models Across Regions: A Study of Corps of Engineer Reservoirs , 1995 .

[42]  Joshua M. Duke,et al.  Benefit Transfer Equivalence Tests with Non-normal Distributions , 2008 .

[43]  John B. Loomis,et al.  The Evolution of a More Rigorous Approach to Benefit Transfer: Benefit Function Transfer , 1992 .

[44]  P. Chisnall.  Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method , 2007, Journal of Advertising Research.

[45]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity , 2004 .

[46]  Mary Jo Kealy,et al.  Benefits Transfer in a Random Utility Model of Recreation , 1994 .

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

[48]  P. Schmidt,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1984 .

[49]  Stephen K. Swallow,et al.  Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights from Ethnographic Interview Techniques , 1995, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[50]  W. Adamowicz,et al.  Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information , 2005 .

[51]  Daniel A. Gerlowski,et al.  Estimating Existence Value for Users and Nonusers of New Jersey Beaches , 1992 .

[52]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation , 1996 .

[53]  W. Greene,et al.  计量经济分析 = Econometric analysis , 2009 .

[54]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Assessing the Accuracy of Benefits Transfers: Evidence from a Multi-State Contigent Valuation Study of Groundwater Quality , 1995 .

[55]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good , 1996 .

[56]  Joshua M. Duke,et al.  A Conjoint Analysis of Public Preferences for Agricultural Land Preservation , 2004, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.