We report findings from a choice experiment survey designed to estimate the economic benefits of policy measures to improve the rural landscape in the Republic of Ireland. Using a panel mixed logit specification to account for unobserved taste heterogeneity we derived individual-specific willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates for each respondent in the sample. We subsequently investigated the spatial dependence of these estimates. Results suggest the existence of positive spatial autocorrelation for all rural landscape attributes. As a means of benefit transfer, kriging methods were employed to interpolate WTP estimates across the whole of the Republic of Ireland. The kriged WTP surfaces confirm the existence of spatial dependence and illustrate the implied spatial variation and regional disparities in WTP for all the rural landscape improvements investigated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlpízarFCarlssonFMartinssonP, 2001, “Using choice experiments for non-market valuation”Economic Issues83–110
2.
Álvarez-FarizoBHanleyN, 2002, “Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms: An example from Spain”Energy Policy30107–116
3.
AnselinLGalloJ L, 2006, “Interpolation of air quality measures in hedonic house price models: Spatial aspects”Spatial Economic Analysis131–52
4.
BatemanI JEnnewCLovettA ARaynerA J, 1999, “Modelling and mapping agricultural output values using farm specific details and environmental databases”Journal of Agricultural Economics50488–511
5.
BatemanI JCarsonR TDayB HHanemannW MHanleyNHettTJones-LeeMLoomesGMouratoSÖzdemiroğluEPearceD WSugdenRSwansonJ, 2002aEconomic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
6.
BatemanI JJonesA PLovettA ALakeI RDayB H, 2002b, “Applying geographical information systems (GIS) to environmental and resource economics”Environmental and Resource Economics22219–269
7.
BatemanI JBrouwerRDaviesHDayB HDeflandreADi-FalcoSGeorgiouSHadleyDHutchinsMJonesA PKayDLeeksGLewisMLovettA SNealCPosenPRigbyDTurnerR K, 2006a, “Analysing the agricultural costs and non-market benefits of implementing the Water Framework Directive”Journal of Agricultural Economics57221–237
8.
BatemanI JDayB HGeorgiouSLakeI, 2006b, “The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP”Ecological Economics60450–460
9.
BhatC R, 2001, “Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model”Transportation Research Part B35677–693
10.
BhatC R, 2003, “Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences”Transportation Research Part B37837–855
11.
BirolESmaleMGyovaiÁ, 2006, “Using a choice experiment to estimate farmers' valuation of agrobiodiversity on Hungarian small farms”Environmental and Resource Economics34439–469
12.
BockstaelN E, 1996, “Modeling economics and ecology: The importance of a spatial perspective”American Journal of Agricultural Economics781168–1180
13.
BurroughPMcDonnellR, 1998Principles of Geographical Information Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
14.
CampbellD, 2008, “Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: Combining mixed logit and random effects models”Journal of Agricultural Economics58467–483
15.
CressieN A C, 1993Statistics for Spatial Data (John Wiley, New York)
EadeJ D OMoranD, 1996, “Spatial economic valuation: Benefits transfer using geographical information systems”Journal of Environmental Management4897–110
18.
FerriniSScarpaR, 2007, “Designs with a-priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice-experiments: A Monte Carlo study”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management53342–363
19.
GarrodG DScarpaRWillisK G, 2002, “Estimating the benefits of traffic calming on through routes: A choice experiment approach”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy39211–231
20.
GeogheganJWaingerL ABockstaelN E, 1997, “Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: An ecological economics analysis using GIS”Ecological Economics23251–264
21.
HanleyNMacMillanDWrightR EBullockCSimpsonIParsissonDCrabtreeB, 1998, “Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland”Journal of Agricultural Economics491–15
22.
HanleyNSchläpferFSpurgeonJ, 2003, “Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: Distance-decay functions for use and non-use values”Journal of Environmental Management68297–304
23.
HensherD AGreeneW H, 2003, “The mixed logit model: The state of practice”Transportation30133–176
24.
HensherD ARoseJGreeneW H, 2005Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
25.
HensherD AGreeneW HRoseJ M, 2006, “Deriving willingness-to-pay estimates of travel-time savings from individual-based parameters”Environment and Planning A382365–2376
26.
HessSPolakJ, 2003, “An alternative method to the scrambled Halton sequence for removing correlation between standard Halton sequences in high dimensions”, paper presented at the European Regional Science Annual Conference, Jyväskylä; copy available from http://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa03p406.html
27.
IsaaksE HSrivastavaR M, 1989An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics (Oxford University Press, New York)
28.
JohnstonR JSwallowS KBauerD M, 2002, “Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods: Considerations for rural land use”Land Economics78481–500
29.
LouviereJ JHensherD ASwaitJ, 2003Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
30.
LuskJ LNorwoodF B, 2005, “Effect of experimental design on choice-based conjoint valuation estimates”American Journal of Agricultural Economics87771–785
31.
McFaddenD LTrainK E, 2000, “Mixed MNL models for discrete response”Journal of Applied Econometrics15447–470
32.
NaidooRRickettsT H, 2006, “Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation”Public Library of Science (PLoS) Biology42153–2164
33.
PateJLoomisJ, 1997, “The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: A case study of wetlands and salmon in California”Ecological Economics20199–207
34.
RandallA, 2002, “Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture”European Review of Agricultural Economics29289–307
35.
SándorZWebelM, 2001, “Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs”Journal of Marketing Research38430–444
36.
ScarpaRCampbellDHutchinsonW G, 2008, “Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: Sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment study”Land Economics83617–634
37.
SchkadeD APayneJ 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 Management2688–109
38.
SillanoMOrtúzarJ D, 2005, “Willingness-to-pay estimation with mixed logit models: Some new evidence”Environment and Planning A37525–550
39.
TrainK E, 2003Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
40.
TrainK EWeeksM, 2005, “Discrete choice models in preference space and willing-to-pay space”, in Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics Eds ScarpaRAlberiniA (Springer, Dordrecht) pp 1–16
41.
TroyAWilsonM A, 2006, “Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer”Ecological Economics60435–449
WillisK GGarrodG D, 1999, “Angling and recreation values of low-flow alleviation in rivers”Journal of Environmental Management5771–83
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
