This paper illustrates the design and implementation of a choice modelling experiment to determine the spatial distribution of environmental benefits of Kings Park (Western Australia). The objective is to understand which environmental change produces benefit spillovers, and whether this information can help to determine the appropriate form of funding for conservation policies. Results indicate that distance effects vary across the choice attributes, and can take very complex forms, according to the use-value/non-use-value ratio implicit in each attribute. For policy purposes, the results suggest that funding for the park should be a mix of local, state, and federal resources.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamowiczW L, 2004, “What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation”Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics48419–443
BatemanI JLangfordI H, 1997, “Non-users' willingness to pay for a national park: An application and critique of the contingent valuation method”Regional Studies31571–582
4.
BatemanI JDayB HGeorgiouSLakeI, 2006, “The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP”Ecological Economics60450–460
5.
BeckmannM J, 1999Lectures on Location Theory (Springer, Berlin)
6.
BennettJ WBlarneyR K, 2001, “The strengths and weaknesses of environmental choice modelling”, in The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation Eds BennettJ WBlarneyR K (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 227–242
7.
BhatC R, 2000, “Incorporating observed and unobserved heterogeneity in urban work travel mode choice modelling”Transportation Science34228–237
8.
BlameyRCommonMQuigginJ, 1995, “Respondents to contingent valuation surveys: Consumers or citizens”Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics39264–288
9.
BoxallP CAdamowiczW LSwaitJ DWilliamsMLouviereJ, 1996, “A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation”Ecological Economics18243–253
10.
CanAMegbolugbeI, 1997, “Spatial dependence and house price index construction”Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics14203–222
11.
CaulkinsP PBishopR CBouwesN W, 1985, “Omitted cross-price variable biases in the linear travel cost model: Correcting common misperceptions”Land Economics61182–187
12.
ClarkeK ASignorinoC S, 2003, “Discriminating methods: tests for non nested discrete choice models”, Political Methodology working paper, Department of Political Science, University of Rochester, http://polmeth.wustl.edu/working03.chron.html
13.
ConcuG B, 2007, “Investigating distance effects on environmental values: A choice modelling approach”Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics151175–194
14.
CornesRSandlerT, 1996The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods2nd edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
15.
FreemanM A, 1994The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC)
16.
HanleyNWrightR EAdamowiczW L, 1998, “Using choice experiments to value the environment: Design issues, current experience and future prospects”Environmental and Resource Economics11413–428
17.
HanleyNSchlapferFSpurgeonJ, 2003, “Aggregating benefits of environmental improvements: Distance–decay functions for use and non-use values”Journal of Environmental Management68297–304
18.
LancasterK J, 1966, “A new approach to consumer theory”Journal of Political Economy74132–157
19.
LansdellNGangadharanL, 2003, “Comparing travel cost models and the precision of their consumer surplus estimates: Albert Park and Maroondah Reservoir”Australian Economic Papers42399–417
20.
LeggettC GBockstaelN E, 2000, “Evidence of the effects of water quality on residential land prices”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management39121–144
21.
LoomisJ B, 1996, “How large is the extent of the market for public goods: Evidence from a nationwide contingent valuation survey”Applied Economics28779–782
22.
LoomisJ B, 2000, “Vertically summing public good demand curves: An empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions”Land Economics76312–321
23.
LouviereJ JHensherD ASwaitJ D, 2000Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
24.
McConnellK EStrandI E, 1981, “Measuring the cost of time in recreation demand analysis: An application to sport fishing”American Journal of Agricultural Economics63153–156
25.
McFaddenD, 1981, “Econometric models of probabilistic choice”, in Structural Analysis of Discrete Data Eds ManskiC FMcFaddenD (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 198–272
26.
MitchellR CCarsonR T, 1989Using Survey to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method (Resource for the Future, Washington, DC)
27.
MorrisonMBennettJ, 2004, “Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer”Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics48591–611
28.
NiedercornJ HBechdoltB V, 1969, “An economic derivation of the ‘gravity law’ of spatial interaction”Journal of Regional Science9273–282
29.
OlsonM, 1969, “The principle of ‘fiscal equivalence’: The division of responsibilities among different levels of government”American Economic Review59479–487
30.
PearsonLTisdellCLisleA T, 2002, “The impact of Noosa National Park on surrounding property values: An application of the hedonic price method”Economic Analysis and Policy32155–171
31.
ShapiroPPetcheyJ, 1997, “The welfare economics of environmental regulatory authority: Two parables on state versus federal control”, in The Economic Theory of Environmental Policy in a Federal System Eds BradenJ BProostS (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos) pp 122–146
32.
SheppardE S, 1978, “Theoretical underpinnings of the gravity hypothesis”Geographical Analysis10386–402
33.
SigmanH, 2005, “Transboundary spillovers and decentralization of environmental policies”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management5082–101
34.
TrainK E, 1998, “Recreation demand models with taste differences over people”Land Economics74230–239
35.
TrainK, 2003Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
36.
VuongQ H, 1989, “Likelihood ratio tests for models selection and non-nested hypothesis”Econometrica57307–333
