IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v86y2010iii1p552-568.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Roy Brouwer
  • Julia Martin-Ortega
  • RJulio Berbel

Abstract

The main objective is to assess preference heterogeneity related to the spatial distribution of water quality improvements throughout a river basin. In a choice experiment, the river basin’s hydrogeographical units and the levels of water quality improvement are included as attributes in the experimental design. Changes in water quality throughout the river basin are visualized with maps and modeled simultaneously in relation to where respondents live, in a random utility model. Not accounting for spatial preference heterogeneity results, in this case study, in an underestimation of welfare when aggregating willingness-to-pay values from subbasins to the river basin as a whole.

Suggested Citation

  • Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:86:y:2010:iii:1:p552-568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/86/3/552
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    2. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    3. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    4. Louis Anthony Cox Jr. & Weihsueh A. Chiu & David M. Hassenzahl & Daniel M. Kammen, 2000. "Response," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 295-296, June.
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    6. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, October.
    8. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    9. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    10. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    11. Roy Brouwer, 2008. "The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(5), pages 597-614.
    12. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    13. Eduardo Moyano & Fernando Garrido & Clemente J. Navarro Yañez & Begoña Buiza, 2004. "La cuestión hídrica en Andalucía. Actitudes y valores de los andaluces respecto al problema del agua," Revista de Estudios Regionales, Universidades Públicas de Andalucía, vol. 2, pages 85-116.
    14. Robert J. Johnston & RStephen K. Swallow & Dana Marie Bauer, 2002. "Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Use," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 481-500.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    2. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2013. "Valuing Local Environmental Amenity with Discrete Choice Experiments: Spatial Scope Sensitivity and Heterogeneous Marginal Utility of Income," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 105-130, September.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    5. Danny Campbell & W George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 97-111, January.
    6. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2013. "Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 78-86.
    7. Kloos, Julia & Tsegai, Daniel W., 2009. "Preferences for domestic water services in the Middle Olifants sub-basin of South Africa," Discussion Papers 49970, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    8. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.
    9. Catalina M. Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," DEA Working Papers 65, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.
    10. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    11. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    12. Eric Ruto & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate Preferences for Cattle Traits in Kenya," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    14. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    15. Domanski, Adam, 2009. "Estimating Mixed Logit Recreation Demand Models With Large Choice Sets," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49413, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Solomon Tarfasa & Roy Brouwer, 2013. "Estimation of the public benefits of urban water supply improvements in Ethiopia: a choice experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(9), pages 1099-1108, March.
    17. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    18. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Liekens, Inge & De Nocker, Leo, 2014. "Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test–retest," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 243-260.
    19. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    20. J Blasch & B van der Kroon & P van Beukering & R Munster & S Fabiani & P Nino & S Vanino, 2022. "Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: a case study from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(1), pages 33-81.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:86:y:2010:iii:1:p552-568. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://le.uwpress.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.