Repeating discrete choice experiments to estimate public preferences in a case of costal land use policy

Titolo Rivista ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Autori/Curatori Marta Meleddu
Anno di pubblicazione 2017 Fascicolo 2016/1
Lingua Inglese Numero pagine 26 P. 47-72 Dimensione file 966 KB
DOI 10.3280/EFE2016-001003
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Using the discrete choice experiment (DCE) approach, this study estimates the public preferences for a public policy with the primary goal of protecting the environment. The policy under investigation is a ban issued by the Italian region of Sardinia that aimed to preserve the island’s land, landscape and coastal environment. Two waves of surveys were undertaken with separate random samples in 2006 and 2010, which allowed for operationally capturing and estimating the temporal stability of welfare measures regarding the environmental public policy. Overall, the results suggest that the preferences for the environmental protection are not stable over time, and signal increasing public concern for future generations and the satisfaction derived from preserving the natural environment. This study brings to light the importance of truly understanding and monitoring over time how citizens perceive the potential impacts of environmental and land development policies.

Keywords:Land, coastline, discrete choice experiment, public preference, sustainable development, Mediterranean

  1. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M. and Louviere J. (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1): 64-75. DOI: 10.2307/3180269
  2. Alriksson S. and Oberg T. (2008). Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation a review of methods and applications. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 15(3): 244-257.
  3. Ayala de A., Hoyos D. and Mariel P. (2015). Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention. Journal of Forest Economics, 21: 79-96.
  4. Bateman I.J. and Langford I.H. (1997). Non-users willingness to pay for a national park: an application of the contingent valuation method. Regional Studies, 31: 571-582. DOI: 10.1080/00343409750131703
  5. Benoit G. and Comeau A. (2005). A Sustainable Future for the Mediterranean: The Blue Plan’s Environment and Development Outlook. London: Earthscan.
  6. Bliem M., Getzner M. and Rodiga-Laßnig P. (2012). Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Management, 103: 65-73.
  7. Brouwer R. and Bateman I. (2005). Temporal stability and transferability of models of willingness to pay for flood control and wetland conservation. Water Resources Research 41(3) W03017. DOI: 10.1029/2004WR003466
  8. Carson R., Hanemann W.M., Kopp R.J., Krosnick J.A., Mitchell R.C., Presser S., Ruud P.A., Smith V.K., Conaway M. and Martin K. (1997). Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation. Land Economics, 73: 151-163.
  9. Concu G. and Atzeni G. (2012). Conflicting preferences among tourists and residents. Tourism Management, 33: 1293-1300.
  10. CRENoS (2013). Economia della Sardegna 19° Rapporto 2012. Cuec Editrice, Cagliari.
  11. Deidda M. (2015). Insularity and economic development: a survey. International Review of Economics.
  12. Freeman A.M. (2003). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Measurement. 2nd ed. Resources for the Future Press, Washington.
  13. Fyhri A., Jacobsen J.K.S. and Tømmervik H. (2009). Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(4): 202-211.
  14. Gloersen E., Michelet J.F., Corbineau C., Giraut F., Price M.F., Borowski D. and Schuiling R. (2012). GEOSPECS European perspectives on specific types of territories. ESPON programme.
  15. Greene W.H. and Hensher D.A. (2003). The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice. Transportation, 30: 133-176.
  16. Hanley N.S., Mourato S. and Wright R.E. (2001). Choice Modelling Approaches: a Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation? Journal of Economics Surveys, 153: 435-462. DOI: 10.1111/1467-6419.00145
  17. Hammond P.J. (1997). Rationality in economics. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali CV: 247-288.
  18. Hoyos D. (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 69(8): 1595-1603.
  19. Istat (2011). Data warehouse – Employment Rates --[Available at http://datiistatit/].
  20. Liebe U., Meyerhoff J. and Hartje V. (2012). Test-retest Reliability of Choice Experiments in Environmental Valuation. Environmental and Resources Economics, 53: 389-407.
  21. Liekens I., Schaafsma M., De Nocker L., Broekx S., Staes J. and Aertsens J. (2013). Developing a value function for nature development and land use policy in Flanders, Belgium. Land Use Policy, 30: 549-559.
  22. Liu X., Vedlitz A. and Shi L. (2014). Examining the determinants of public environmental concern: Evidence from national public surveys. Environmental Science & Policy, 39: 77-94.
  23. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A. and Swait J.D. (2000). Stated Choice Methods, Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  24. Maguire G.S., Miller K.K., Weston M.A. and Young K. (2011). Being beside the seaside: beach use and preferences among coastal residents of south-eastern Australia. Ocean and Coastal Management, 54: 781-788.
  26. Willis K. (2006). Assessing public preferences: The use of stated-preference experiments to assess the impact of varying planning conditions. Town Planning Review, 77: 485-505.
  27. Whitehead J.C. and Hoban T.J. (1999). Testing for Temporal Reliability in Contingent Valuation with Time for Changes in Factors Affecting Demand. Land Economics, 75(3): 453-465. DOI: 10.2307/3147190
  28. Wattage P. and Mardle S. (2008). Total economic value of wetland conservation in Sri Lanka: identifying use and nonuse value. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 16: 359-369.
  29. Teisl M., Boyle K.J., McCollum D. and Reiling S.D. (1995). Test-Retest Reliability of Contingent Valuation with Independent Sample Pretest and Posttest Control Groups. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77: 613-619. DOI: 10.2307/1243229
  30. Solinas G.A. (1997). Il turismo ad Alghero negli anni 1955-1985, in Ruju S. (ed.). Un’isola di vacanze, per una storia critica del turismo in Sardegna, Sassari, EDES.
  31. Swait J. and Louviere J.J. (1993). The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research: 30(3): 305-314. DOI: 10.2307/3172883
  32. Stern P.C., Dietz T. and Kalof L. (1993). Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5): 322-348. DOI: 10.1177/0013916593255002
  33. Schaafsma M., Brouwer R., Liekens I. and De Noecker L. (2014). Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: a test-retest. Resource and Energy Economics, 38: 243-260.
  34. Sarkhel P., Banerjee S. and Banerjee S. (2015). Willingness to pay before and after program implementation: the case of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Bally Municipality, India. Environment, Development and Sustainability.
  35. Reimann M., Ehrlich Ü. and Tonisson H. (2012). Public demand for shores in natural condition: a contingent valuation study in Estonia. International Journal of Geology, 6(1): 36-43.
  36. Reiling S.D., Boyle K.J., Phillips M.L and Anderson M. (1990). Temporal Reliability of Contingent Values. Land Economics, 66: 128-134. DOI: 10.2307/3146362
  37. Rambonilaza M. and Dachary-Bernard J. (2007). Land-use planning and public preferences: what can we learn from choice experiment method? Landscape and Urban Planning, 83: 318-326.
  38. Pulina M. and Cortés-Jiménez I. (2010). Have Low-Cost Carriers Influenced Tourism Demand and Supply? The Case of Alghero, Italy. Tourism Analysis, 15: 617-635.
  39. Prati G., Albanesi C., Pietrantoni L. and Airoldi L. (2016). Public perceptions of beach nourishment and conflict management strategies: A case study of Portonovo Bay in the Adriatic Italian Coast. Land Use Policy, 50: 422-428.
  40. Prasetya G.S. (2006). Protection from Coastal Erosion, Proceeding of the regional technical workshop on coastal protection in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Thailand, 28-31 August 2006.
  41. Meleddu M. (2014). Tourism, Residents’ Welfare and Economic Choice: a Literature Review. Journal of Economics Surveys, 28(2): 376-399.
  42. McCright A.M. and Xiao C. (2014). Gender and Environmental Concern: Insights from Recent Work and for Future Research. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 27(10): 1109-1113. DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2014.918235

Marta Meleddu, Repeating discrete choice experiments to estimate public preferences in a case of costal land use policy in "ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT" 1/2016, pp 47-72, DOI: 10.3280/EFE2016-001003