A unique US database combining survey and housing data is used to obtain household-level stated and market-based willingness-to-pay (WTP) measures to avoid living near landfills. Systematic differences are found between individuals with zero and positive stated WTP, suggesting that a double hurdle model be used. Positive stated WTP is related to whether a respondent donated to an environmental organisation or lives downwind from an open landfill, while zero WTP is associated with age, high education levels or high ranking of house location. WTP difference (survey—hedonic) depends positively on respondents' consideration of a landfill prior to home purchase, toxic air release levels, relative valuation of neighbourhood and environmental characteristics and donations to environmental organisations; WTP difference is highly negatively associated with age and high levels of education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adamowicz, W.L., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26(3), pp. 271-292.
2.
Andreoni, J. (1989) Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence, Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), pp. 1447-1458.
3.
Bajari, P. and Benkard, C.L. (2005) Demand estimation with heterogeneous consumers and unobserved product characteristics: a hedonic approach, Journal of Political Economy, 113(6), pp. 1239-1276.
4.
Bayer, P. and Timmins, C. (2005) On the equilibrium properties of locational sorting models, Journal of Urban Economics, 57(3), pp. 462-477.
5.
Blamey, R.K. (1998) Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys, Journal of Economic and Business Behavior, 34, pp. 577-601.
6.
Brasington, D.M. (2000) Demand and supply of school quality in metropolitan areas: the role of private schools, Journal of Regional Science , 40(3), pp. 583-605.
7.
Brasington, D.M. and Hite, D. (2005) Demand for environmental quality: a spatial hedonic analysis, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 33(1), pp. 57-82.
8.
Brasington, D.M. and Hite, D. (2006) Mixed index vs. traditional hedonic price models: implications for policy predictions. Working Paper, Social Science Research Network (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=928252).
9.
Brookshire, D.S., Thayer, M.A., Schulze, W.D. and D'Arge, R. (1982) Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches, American Economic Review, 72(1), pp. 165-177.
10.
Cameron, T.A. (1992) Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of non market goods, Land Economics , 68(3), pp. 302-317.
11.
Carroll, J., McCarthy, S. and Newman, C. (2005) An econometric analysis of charitable donations in the Republic of Ireland, Economic and Social Review, 36(3), pp. 229-249.
12.
Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E. and Meade, N.F. (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence , Environmental and Resource Economics19(2), pp. 173-210.
13.
Carson, R.T., Groves, T. and Machina, M. (2000) Incentive and informational properties of incentive questions. Working Paper, University of California, San Diego.
14.
Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Martin, K.M. and Wright, J.L. (1996) Contingent valuation and revealed preference, Land Economics, 72(1), pp. 80-99.
15.
Case, K.E. and Shiller, R.A. (1989) The behavior of home buyers in boom and bust markets. Working Paper No. 2748, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
16.
Chattopadhyay, S. (1999) Estimating the demand for air quality: new evidence from based on the Chicago housing market, Land Economics, 75(1), pp. 22-38.
17.
Deaton, B.J. and Hoehn, J.P. (2004) Hedonic analysis of hazardous waste sites in the presence of other urban disamenities, Environmental Science and Policy, 7(6), pp. 499-508.
18.
Gegax, D., Gerking, S. and Schulze, W. (1991) Perceived risk and the marginal value of safety , The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(3), pp. 589-596.
19.
Glower, M., Haurin, D.R. and Hendershott, P.H. (1998) Selling time and selling price: the influence of seller motivation, Real Estate Economics , 26(4), pp. 719-740.
20.
Green, D., Jacowitz, K.E., Kahneman, D. and McFadden, D. (1998) Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring and willingness to pay for public goods, Resource and Energy Economics , 20, pp. 85-116.
21.
Haab, T.C., Huang, J.C. and Whitehead, J.C. (1999) Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible? A comment, Journal of Political Economy, 107(1), pp. 186-196.
22.
Hite, D. (1998) Information and bargaining in markets for environmental quality, Land Economics, 43(3), pp. 303-316.
23.
Hite, D. (2006) Out of market transactions as neighborhood quality indicators in hedonic house price models. Working Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University , Auburn, AL.
24.
Hite, D., Hudson, D. and Intarapapong, W. (2002) Willingness to pay for precision application technology: the case of Mississippi, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 27(2), pp. 433-449.
25.
Hite, D., Chern, W.S., Hitzhusen, F. and Randall, A. (2001) Property value impacts of an environmental disamenity: the case of landfills, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 22(2/3), pp. 185-202.
26.
Ioannides,Y.M. and Zabel, J.E. (2003) Neighbourhood effects and housing demand, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(5), pp. 563-584.
27.
Irwin, E.G. and Bockstael, N.E. (2001) The problem of identifying land use spillovers: measuring the effects of open space on residential property values, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(3), pp. 698-705.
28.
Kask, S.B. and Maani, S.A. (1992) Uncertainty, information and hedonic pricing, Land Economics, 68(May), pp. 170-184.
29.
Kiel, K.A. and McClain, K.T. (1995) House prices through siting decision stages: the case of an incinerator from rumor through operation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25(March), pp. 241-255.
30.
Kohlhase, J. (1991) The impact of toxic waste sites on housing values , Journal of Urban Economics, 30(July), pp. 1-26.
31.
Martinez-Espineira, R. (2006) A Box-Cox double-hurdle model of wildlife valuation: the citizen's perspective, Ecological Economics, 58(1), pp. 192-208.
32.
Michaels, G.R. and Smith, V.K. (1990) Market segmentation and valuing amenities with hedonic models: the case of hazardous waste sites, Journal of Urban Economics, 28(September), pp. 223-242.
33.
Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
34.
Mutlu, S. and Gracia, A. (2006 ) Spanish food expenditure away from home (FAFH): by type of meal, Applied Economics, 38(May), pp. 1037-1047.
35.
Nelson, A.C., Genereux, J. and Genereux, M. (1992) Price effects of landfills on house values, Land Economics, 68(November), pp. 359-365.
36.
Nelson, C.R. and Startz, R. (1990) The distribution of the instrumental variables estimator and its t-ratio when the instrument is a poor one, Journal of Business, 63, pp. 125-140.
37.
Nelson, J.P. (1978) Residential choice, hedonic prices and the demand for urban air quality, Journal of Urban Economics, 5(July), pp. 357-369.
38.
Peng, L. (2002) GMM repeat sales price indices, Real Estate Economics, 30(2), pp. 239-261.
39.
Rosen, S. (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition, Journal of Political Economics, 82(1), pp. 34-55.
40.
Rubin, D.B. (1987) Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys . New York : John Wiley & Sons .
41.
Sieg, H., Smith, V.K., Banzhaf, H.S. and Walsh, R.P. (2004) Estimating the general equilibrium benefits of large changes in spatially delineated public goods, International Economic Review, 45(4), pp. 1047-1077.
42.
Tiebout, C. (1956) A pure theory of local public expenditure, Journal of Political Economy, 64, pp. 416-424.
43.
Whitehead, J.C. ( 2005) Combining willingness to pay and behavior data with limited information, Resource and Energy Economics, 27(2), pp. 143-155.
44.
Zhao, J. and Kling, C.L. (2004) Willingness-to-pay, compensating variation, and the cost of commitment, Economic Inquiry, 42(3), pp. 503-517.
