Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-dkqnh Total loading time: 0.281 Render date: 2021-10-22T17:45:45.664Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2017

Seong-Hoon Cho
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee.
Steven T. Yen
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee.
J.M. Bowker
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
David H. Newman
Affiliation:
Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, The University of Georgia.
Get access

Abstract

This study compares an ordered probit model and a Tobit model with selection to take into account both true zero and protest zero bids while estimating the willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation easements in Macon County, NC. By comparing the two models, the ordered/unordered selection issue of the protest responses is analyzed to demonstrate how the treatment of protest responses can significantly influence WTP models. Both models consistently show that income and knowledge are positive and significant factors, while distance to poorer quality streams and duration of residency are negative and significant factors on WTP.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arana, J.E., and Leon, C.J.Repeated Dichotomous Choice Formats for Elicitation of Willingness to Pay: Simultaneous Estimation and Anchoring Effect.” Environmental & Resource Economics 36(April 2007):475–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Learner, E., Radner, R., and Schuman, H.Report of the National Oceanie and Atmospheric Administration Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58(January 1993):4602–14.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, J.C., and Volinskiy, D.Public Preferences and Values for Purchases of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) Program in Georgia.” Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development, Report No. 04–01, 2004.Google Scholar
Bishop, R.C., and Heberlein, T.A.Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61(December 1979):926–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaine, T.W., Lichtkoppler, F.R., and Stanbro, R.An Assessment of Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Green Space and Farmland Preservation Conservation Easements Using the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM).” Journal of Extension 41(August 2003). Internet site: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/a3.shtml (Accessed January 26, 2007).Google Scholar
Botelho, A., and Pinto, L.C.Hypothetical, Real, and Predicted Real Willingness to Pay in Open-Ended Surveys: Experimental Results.” Applied Economics Letters 9(December 2002):993–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowker, J.M., Newman, D.H., Warren, R.J., and Henderson, D.W.Estimating the Economic Value of Lethal Versus Nonlethal Deer Control in Suburban Communities.” Society and Natural Resources 16(February 2003):143–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, K.J.Commodity Specification and the Framing of Contingent-Valuation Questions.” Land Economics 65(February 1989):5763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breffle, W.S., Morey, E.R., and Lodder, T.S.Using Contingent Valuation to Estimate a Neighbourhood’s Willingness to Pay to Preserve Undeveloped Urban Land.” Urban Studies 35(April 1998):715–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, R., and Slangen, L.H.Contingent Valuation of the Public Benefits of Agricultural Wildlife Management: The Case of Dutch Peat Meadow Land.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 25(1998):5372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calia, P., and Strazzera, E.A Sample Selection Model for Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation Analyses.” Statistica 61(2001):473–85.Google Scholar
Cameron, T., and James, M.Efficient Estimation Methods for Use with ‘Closed-Ended’ Contingent Valuation Survey Data.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15(December 1987):355–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, R.T., Groves, T., and Machina, M.J.Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Unpublished Manuscript. Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, February 2000.Google Scholar
Carson, R.T., and Hanemann, W.M.Contingent Valuation.” Handbook of Environmental Economics: Valuing Environmental Changes, Vol. 2, Mäler, Karl-Göran and Vincent, Jeffrey R. eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005.Google Scholar
Cho, S., Newman, D.H., and Bowker, J.M.Measuring Rural Homeowner’s Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements.” Forest Policy and Economics 7(August 2005):757–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choe, K., Whittington, D., and Lauria, D.T.The Economic Benefits of Surface Water Quality Improvements in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Davao, Philippines.” Land Economics 72(November 1996):519–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinch, J.P., and Murphy, A.Modeling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis.” The Economic Journal 111(April 2001):420–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooksey, R.A., and Howard, T.E.Willingness to Pay to Protect Forest Benefits with Conservation Easements.” Abstract of Invited Papers. IUFRO World Congress. Aug 6–12, Tampere, Finland, p. 446, 1995.Google Scholar
Cooper, J.C., Hanemann, M., and Signorello, G.One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 84(November 2002):742–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalmau-Matarrondona, E.Alternative Approaches to Obtain Optimal Bid Values in Contingent Valuation Studies and to Model Protest Zeros. Estimating the Determinants of Individuals’ Willingness to Pay for Home Care Services in Day Case Surgery.” Health Economics 10(March 2001):101–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R.K.The Value of Outdoor Recreation: An Economic Study of the Maine Woods.” Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University, 1963.Google Scholar
Desvousges, W., Johnson, R., Dunford, R., Boyle, K., Hudson, S., and Wilson, N.Measuring Non-Use Damages Using Contingent Valuation: An Experimental Evaluation of Accuracy. RTIM (Research Triangle Institute Monograph), Durham, NC. 93–1. North Carolina: Research Triangle, 1992.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A.Mail and Internet Surveys, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.Google Scholar
Dubbink, D.I’ll Have My Town Medium-Rural, Please.” Journal of the American Planning Association 50(1984):406–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, A.M., III. “On Assessing the State of the Arts of the Contingent Valuation Method of Valuing Environmental Changes.” Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., and Schulze, W.D., eds. Totawa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1986.Google Scholar
Haab, T.C., and McConnell, K.E.Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32(February 1997):251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halstead, J.M., Luloff, A.E., and Stevens, T.H.Protest Bidders in Contingent Valuation.” Northeast Journal of Agricultural Resource Economics 21(October 1992):160–69.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M.Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(August 1984):332–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, W.M., and Kanninen, B.The Statistical Analysis of Discrete-Response CV Data.” Working Paper 798. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Policy, Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources, University of California, June 1998.Google Scholar
Harrison, G.W., and Lesley, J.C.Must Contingent Valuation Surveys Cost So Much?Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(July 1996):7995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, R., and Short, J.Rural Land: Market Trends and Planning Implication.” Journal of the American Planning Association 45(1979):305–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J.J.Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47(January 1979):153–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtala, A.Binary Choice Valuation Studies with Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding the Program Being Valued.” Environmental and Resource Economics 16(July 2000):263–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R.J., Swallow, S.K., Tyrrell, T.J., and Bauer, D.M.Rural Amenity Values and Length of Residency.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(November 2003):1000–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, J.E., C Fawson, and Johnson, V.Preservation or Use: A Contingent Valuation Study of Wilderness Designation in Utah.” Ecological Economics 18(September 1996):207–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R.A., Mercer, E., and Sharma, N.Valuing Tropical Rainforest Protection Using the Contingent Valuation Method.” Forestry, Economics and the Environment, Adamowicz, W.L., Boxall, P.C., Luckert, M.K., Phillips, W.E. and White, W.A. eds. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International, 1996.Google Scholar
Kristrom, B.Spike Models in Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(August 1997):1013–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K., and Covich, A.Measuring the Total Economic Value of Restoring Ecosystem Services in an Impaired River Basin: Results from a Contingent Valuation Survey.” Ecological Economics 33(April 2000):103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddala, G.S.Introduction to Econometrics. New York, NY: McMillan Publishing Company, 1992.Google Scholar
McFadden, D.Contingent Valuation and Social Choice.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(November 1994):689708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillan, D.C., Duff, E.I., and Elston, D.A.Modeling the Nonmarket Environmental Costs and Benefits of Biodiversity Projects Using Contingent Valuation Data.” Environmental and Resource Economics 18(April 2001):391410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R.C., and Carson, R.T.Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R.C.Current Issues in the Design, Administration, and Analysis of Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Economics Working Paper Series 9354. Department of Economics, University of California at San Diego, 1993.Google Scholar
N.C Division of Water Quality. 2002 Little Tennessee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan N.C. Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC, 2002.Google Scholar
Rao, C.R.Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applications. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reaves, D.W., Kramer, R.A., and Holmes, T.P.Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species.” Environmental and Resource Economics 14(October 1999):365–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E.M.Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY: The Free Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, S.Moments of a Truncated Bivariate Normal Distribution.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 23B(1961):405–08.Google Scholar
Strazzera, E., Genius, M., Scarpa, R., and Hutchinson, G.The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites.” Environmental and Resource Economics 25(August 2003a):461–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strazzera, E., Scarpa, R., Calia, P., Garrod, G.D., and Willis, K.G.Modeling Zero Values and Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Applied Economics 35(January 2003b):133–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobin, J.Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables.” Econometrica 26(January 1958):2436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuong, Q.H.Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Nonnested Hypotheses.” Econometrica 57(March 1989):307–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, H.Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Misspecified Models.” Econometrica 50(January 1982):125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, J.C., Groothuis, P.A., and G.C Blomquist. “Testing for Non-Response and Sample Selection Bias in Contingent Valuation.” Economics Letters 41(1993):215–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yen, S.T., and Rosinski, J.On the Marginal Effects of Variables in the Log-Transformed Sample Selection Models.” Economics Letters 96(2008).Google Scholar
Yoo, S., and Yang, H.Application of Sample Selection Model to Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies.” Environmental and Resource Economics 20(October 2001):147–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yrjölä, T., and Kola, J.Consumer Preferences Regarding Multifunctional Agriculture.” International Food and Agribusiness Review 7(2004):7890.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *