54 resultados para agricultural economics
Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models
Resumo:
This paper reports the findings from a discrete-choice experiment designed to estimate the economic benefits associated with rural landscape improvements in Ireland. Using a mixed logit model, the panel nature of the dataset is exploited to retrieve willingness-to-pay values for every individual in the sample. This departs from customary approaches in which the willingness-to-pay estimates are normally expressed as measures of central tendency of an a priori distribution. Random-effects models for panel data are subsequently used to identify the determinants of the individual-specific willingness-to-pay estimates. In comparison with the standard methods used to incorporate individual-specific variables into the analysis of discrete-choice experiments, the analytical approach outlined in this paper is shown to add considerable explanatory power to the welfare estimates.
Resumo:
Non-market effects of agriculture are often estimated using discrete choice models from stated preference surveys. In this context we propose two ways of modelling attribute non-attendance. The first involves constraining coefficients to zero in a latent class framework, whereas the second is based on stochastic attribute selection and grounded in Bayesian estimation. Their implications are explored in the context of a stated preference survey designed to value landscapes in Ireland. Taking account of attribute non-attendance with these data improves fit and tends to involve two attributes one of which is likely to be cost, thereby leading to substantive changes in derived welfare estimates.
Resumo:
In this study we show that forest areas contribute significantly to the estimated benefits from om outdoor recreation in Northern Ireland. Secondly we provide empirical evidence of the gains in the statistical efficiency of both benefit and parameter estimates obtained by analysing follow-up responses with Double Bounded interval data analysis. As these gains are considerable, it is clearly worth considering this method in CVM survey design even when moderately large sample sizes are used. Finally we demonstrate that estimates of means and medians of WTP distributions for access to forest recreation show plausible magnitude, are consistent with previous UK studies, and converge across parametric and non-parametic methods of estimation.
Resumo:
Different economic valuation methodologies can be used to value the non-market benefits of an agri-environmental scheme. In particular, the non-market value can be examined by assessing the public's willingness to pay for the policy outputs as a whole or by modelling the preferences of society for the component attributes of the rural landscape that result from the implementation of the policy. In this article we examine whether the welfare values estimated for an agri-environmental policy are significantly different between an holistic valuation methodology (using contingent valuation) and an attribute-based valuation methodology (choice experiment). It is argued that the valuation methodology chosen should be based on whether or not the overall objective is the valuation of the agri-environment policy package in its entirety or the valuation of each of the policy's distinct environmental outputs.
Resumo:
In many environmental valuation applications standard sample sizes for choice modelling surveys are impractical to achieve. One can improve data quality using more in-depth surveys administered to fewer respondents. We report on a study using high quality rank-ordered data elicited with the best-worst approach. The resulting "exploded logit" choice model, estimated on 64 responses per person, was used to study the willingness to pay for external benefits by visitors for policies which maintain the cultural heritage of alpine grazing commons. We find evidence supporting this approach and reasonable estimates of mean WTP, which appear theoretically valid and policy informative. © The Author (2011).