[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare14/165888.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuation framing and attribute scope variation in a choice experiment to asses the impacts of changing land use from agriculture to mining

Author

Listed:
  • Windle, Jill
  • Rolfe, John
Abstract
Evaluating land use change in economic frameworks often requires non-market values to be assessed. However non-market valuation experiments can be sensitive to the way the trade offs are framed. The aim of the research reported in this paper was to examine the influence of varying the valuation scope and combination of attributes in a split sample choice experiment focused on assessing the impacts of increased mining activity (coal and coal seam gas) in the Surat Basin in southern Queensland, Australia. The region had traditionally been dominated by the agricultural sector. The survey was designed to assess the largely, but not exclusively, non-use values of a distant population (Brisbane (capital city) residents) for tradeoffs between positive and negative impacts, which incorporated economic, social and environmental issues. Four impact attributes were identified: A)local jobs in the mining sector; B) house prices in the non-mining sector; C) wage rates in the non-mining sector and, D) inspections and independent monitoring activity at coal seam gas mining sites (a proxy to address environmental concerns). The results indicate that varying the combination of attributes had a significant influence on preferences and welfare estimates, which varied across attributes and valuation formats,

Suggested Citation

  • Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2014. "Valuation framing and attribute scope variation in a choice experiment to asses the impacts of changing land use from agriculture to mining," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165888, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare14:165888
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.165888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/165888/files/Windle%20CP.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.165888?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gillespie, Rob & Kragt, Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    2. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    3. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & van Bueren, Martin & Whitten, Stuart M., 2004. "Estimating society's willingness to pay to maintain viable rural communities," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-26.
    4. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Javier Calatrava‐Requena, 2005. "Designing Policy for Reducing the Off‐farm Effects of Soil Erosion Using Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 81-95, March.
    5. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
    6. David Hensher, 2006. "Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 7-44, May.
    7. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Louviere, Jordan, 1997. "Stated values and reminders of substitute goods: Testing for framing effects with choice modelling," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(1), pages 1-20.
    8. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    9. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1140-1148, February.
    10. Minjuan Zhao & Robert Johnston & Eric Schultz, 2013. "What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 3-25, September.
    11. Solomon, Fiona & Katz, Evie & Lovel, Roy, 2008. "Social dimensions of mining: Research, policy and practice challenges for the minerals industry in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 142-149, September.
    12. Burton, Michael & Jasmine Zahedi, Shegufa & White, Ben, 2012. "Public preferences for timeliness and quality of mine site rehabilitation. The case of bauxite mining in Western Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-9.
    13. Fleming, David A. & Measham, Thomas G., 2015. "Local economic impacts of an unconventional energy boom: the coal seam gas industry in Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(1), January.
    14. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2012. "Restricted versus Unrestricted Choice in Labeled Choice Experiments: Exploring the Trade‐Offs of Expanding Choice Dimensions," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 60(1), pages 53-70, March.
    15. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    16. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    17. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff & Louviere, Jordan, 2000. "Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 289-302, November.
    18. 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.
    19. Ivanova, Galina & Rolfe, John, 2011. "Assessing development options in mining communities using stated preference techniques," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 255-264, September.
    20. Rolfe, John, 2013. "Predicting the economic and demographic impacts of long distance commuting in the resources sector: A Surat basin case study," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 723-732.
    21. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa, 2010. "Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The Case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 528-538, January.
    22. Juutinen, Artti & Mitani, Yohei & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Shoji, Yasushi & Siikamäki, Pirkko & Svento, Rauli, 2011. "Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1231-1239, April.
    23. Hajkowicz, Stefan A. & Heyenga, Sonja & Moffat, Kieren, 2011. "The relationship between mining and socio-economic well being in Australia's regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 30-38, March.
    24. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2013. "Including Management Policy Options in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Case Study of the Great Barrier Reef," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 61(2), pages 197-215, June.
    25. John Rolfe & Daniel Gregg & Galina Ivanova & Reuben Lawrence & David Rynne, 2011. "The Economic Contribution of the Resources Sector by Regional Areas in Queensland," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 15-36, March.
    26. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2009. "Valuing multi-attribute marine water quality," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 201-206, March.
    27. Andrew F. Reeson & Thomas G. Measham & Karin Hosking, 2012. "Mining activity, income inequality and gender in regional Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(2), pages 302-313, April.
    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. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2014. "Assessing the trade-offs of increased mining activity in the Surat Basin, Queensland: preferences of Brisbane residents using nonmarket valuation techniques," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(1), January.
    2. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2012. "Testing benefit transfer of reef protection values between local case studies: The Great Barrier Reef in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 60-69.
    3. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark D. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C. & Rose, John, 2021. "Effects of the number of alternatives in public good discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    4. Hangjian Wu & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Marije Schaafsma, 2022. "Exploring Different Assumptions about Outcome-Related Risk Perceptions in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 531-572, March.
    5. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2010. "Restricted versus unrestricted choice in labelled choice experiments: exploring the tradeoffs of expanding choice dimensions," Research Reports 95072, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    6. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    7. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Malte Oehlmann & Priska Weller, 2015. "The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 385-407, July.
    9. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 193-208.
    10. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C., 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in choice experiment questions," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259179, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    12. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1140-1148, February.
    13. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2010. "Valuing environmental improvements in the Great Barrier Reef: Ecological and preference heterogeneity in local area case studies," Research Reports 95052, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    14. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin & Boxall, Peter, 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in a choice experiment with an application to the Macquarie Marshes, AU," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252836, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Johnston, Robert J. & Börger, Tobias & Hanley, Nick & Meginnis, Keila & Ndebele, Tom & Siyal, Ghamz E. Ali & Beaumont, Nicola & de Vries, Frans P., 2024. "Consequences of omitting non-lethal wildlife impacts from stated preference scenarios," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    16. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    17. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    18. MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Rose, John M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Bark, Rosalind H. & Pritchard, Jodie, 2019. "Managing groundwater in a mining region: an opportunity to compare best-worst and referendum data," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    19. David A. Fleming & Thomas G. Measham & Dusan Paredes, 2015. "Understanding the resource curse (or blessing) across national and regional scales: Theory, empirical challenges and an application," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(4), pages 624-639, October.
    20. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development; Land Economics/Use;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aare14:165888. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.