We adopt an attribute-based stated choice approach to evaluate public preferences over planning alternatives for an urban site of environmental interest. Since such projects involve some uncertainty and irreversibility, special attention is devoted to the estimation of quasi-option values associated with project development. Two distinct measures for the quasi-option value are estimated, and both coefficients indicate that the public place significant value on the reduction of the possibility of adverse irreversible effects: a more prudent development strategy is valued at about four times greater than a procedure that provides a greater chance of an undesired outcome. Furthermore, the study involves elicitation of intertemporal preferences over projects with different time spans, and estimation of the implicit discount rates: the values obtained seem high if compared with standard discount rates applied to public projects, but not far from interest rates on consumption found in the market.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlberiniALongoAToninSTrombettaFTurvaniM, 2005, “The role of liability, regulation and economic incentives in brownfield remediation and redevelopment: Evidence from surveys of developers”Regional Science and Urban Economics35327–351.
2.
Alvarez-FarizoBHanleyN, 2002, “Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms”Energy Policy30107–116.
3.
ArrowK JFisherA C, 1974, “Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility”Quarterly Journal of Economics88312–319.
4.
ArrowK JCropperM LEadsG CHahnR WLaveL BNollR GPortneyP RRusselMSchmalenseeRSmithV KStavinsR N, 1996, “Is there a role for benefit–cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation?”Science272221–222.
5.
Ben-AkivaM EBolducD, 1996, “Multinomial probit with a logit kernel and a general parametric specification of the covariance structure”, working paper, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/reprints/misc/multinomial.pdf.
6.
BergmannAHanleyNWrightR, 2006, “Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments”Energy Policy341004–1014.
7.
BierlaireM, 2001, A general formulation of the cross-nested logit model”, in Proceedings of the 1st Swiss Transport Research ConferenceMonte Verita, Ascona, Switzerland, pp 1–14.
8.
BierlaireMBolducDMcFaddenD, 2008, “The estimation of generalized extreme value models from choice-based samples”Transportation Research B42381–394.
9.
CampbellDHutchinsonW GScarpaR, 2009, “Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements”Environment and Planning A4197–111.
10.
CantilloVOrtúzarJ de D, 2005, “A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception”Transportation Research B39641–657.
11.
CherchiEPolakJ W, 2005, “The assessment of user benefit using discrete choice models: Implications of specification errors under random taste heterogeneity”Transportation Research Record number 1926, 61–69.
12.
CherchiEStrazzeraE, 2009, “La valutazione economica di interventi di restrizione all'uso dell'auto mirati alla riqualificazione urbana”, in Interventi e metodologie di progetto per una mobilità sostenibile Eds AstaritaVD'EliaSFestaC (Franco Angeli, Milan) pp 145–157.
13.
CorriganJ RKlingC LZhaoJ, 2008, “Willingness to pay and the cost of commitment: An empirical specification and test”Environmental and Resource Economics40285–298.
14.
DaganzoC F, 1979Multinomial Probit: The Theory and Its Applications to Demand Forecasting (Academic Press, New York).
FerriniSScarpaR, 2007, “Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management53342–363.
22.
FisherA CHanemannW M, 1987, “Quasi-option value: Some misconceptions dispelled”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management14183–190.
23.
FrederickSLoewensteinGDonoghueT O, 2002, “Time discounting and time preference: A critical review”Journal of Economic Literature40351–401.
24.
FreemanA M, 2003The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods (Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC).
25.
GarrodGScarpaRWillisK, 2002, “Estimating the benefits of traffic calming on through routes: A choice experiment approach”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy36211–231.
26.
GroomBHepburnCKoundouriPPearceD, 2005, “Discounting the future: The long and the short of it”Environmental and Resource Economics32445–493.
27.
Ha-DuongM, 1998, “Quasi-option value and climate policy choices”Energy Economics20599–620.
28.
HanemannW M, 1989, “Information and the concept of option value”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management1623–37.
29.
HanleyN, 2001, “Cost–benefit analysis and environmental policymaking”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy19103–118.
30.
HendersonNBatemanI, 1995, “Empirical and public choice evidence for hyperbolic social discount rates and the implications for intergenerational discounting”Environmental and Resource Economics5413–423.
31.
HenryC, 1974a, “Investment decisions under uncertainty: The irreversibility effect”American Economic Review641006–1012.
32.
HenryC, 1974b, “Option values in the economics of irreplaceable assets”Review of Economic Studies Symposium19689–104.
33.
HensherD AGreeneW H, 2003, “The mixed logit model: The state of practice”Transportation30133–176.
34.
HensherD ARoseJGreeneW, 2005Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
35.
KellerR LStrazzeraE, 2002, “Examining predictive accuracy among discounting models”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty24143–160.
36.
KrinskyIRobbA L, 1986, “On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities”Review of Economics and Statistics68715–719.
37.
LindR C, 1990, “Reassessing the government's discount rate policy in light of new theory and data in a world economy with a high degree of capital mobility”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management18S8–S28.
38.
LouviereJ JHensherD ASwaitJ D, 2000Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
39.
McFaddenD, 1981, “Econometric models of probabilistic choice”, in Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications Eds ManskiCMcFaddenD (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 198–272.
40.
McFaddenDTrainK, 2000, “Mixed MNL models for discrete response”Journal of Applied Econometrics15447–470.
41.
ManskiC, 1977, “The structure of random utility models”Theory and Decisions8229–254.
42.
MeijerERouwendalJ, 2006, “Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients”Journal of Applied Econometrics21227–244.
43.
OppewalHTimmermansHJPLouviereJ J, 1997, “Modelling the effects of shopping centre size and store variety on consumer choice behaviour”Environment and Planning A291073–1090.
44.
OrtúzarJ de DWillumsenL G, 2001Modelling Transport (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex).
45.
PortneyP RWeyantJ P (Eds), 1999Discounting and Intergenerational Equity (Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC).
46.
RambonilazaMDachary-BernardJ, 2007, “Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments method?”Landscape and Urban Planning83318–326.
47.
ReveltDTrainK, 1998, “Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households' choices of appliance efficiency level”Review of Economics and Statistics80647–657.
48.
ScarpaRWillisKGarrodG, 2001, “Estimating benefits for effective enforcement of speed reduction from dichotomous-choice CV: The case of rural trunk routes”Environmental and Resource Economics20281–304.
49.
SillanoMde OrtúzarJ D, 2005, “Willingness-to-pay estimation with mixed logit models: Some new evidence”Environment and Planning A37525–550.
50.
StrazzeraEGeniusMScarpaRHutchinsonG, 2003a, “The effect of protest votes on the estimates of willingness to pay for use values of recreational sites”Environmental and Resource Economics25461–476.
51.
StrazzeraEScarpaRCaliaPGarrodGWillisK, 2003b, “Modelling zero values and protest response in contingent valuation surveys”Applied Economics35133–138.
52.
StrazzeraECherchiEFerriniS, 2008, “A choice modelling approach for assessment of use and quasi-option values in urban planning for areas of environmental interest”, WP 63.2008, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, http://www.feem.it/Feem/Pub/Publications/WPapers/default.htm.
53.
TrainK, 2003Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
54.
TrainKSonnierG, 2005, “Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths”, in Applications of Simulations Methods in Environmental Resource Economics Eds ScarpaRAlberiniA (Kluwer Academics, Dordrecht) pp 117–134.
55.
ViscusiW KHuberJBellJ, 2008, “Estimating discount rates for environmental quality from utility-based choice experiments”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty37199–220.
56.
WenCKoppelmanF, 2001, “The generalized nested logit model”Transportation Research B35627–641.
57.
WilliamsHCWL, 1977, “On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefit”Environment and Planning A9285–344.
58.
WillisK, 2006, “Assessing public preferences: The use of stated preference methods to assess the impact of varying planning conditions”Town Planning Review77485–505.
59.
ZhaoJKlingC L, 2004, “Willingness to pay, compensating variation, and the cost of commitment”Economic Inquiry42503–517.
