Advertisement

Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges

  • Klaus GlenkEmail author
  • Robert J. Johnston
  • Jürgen Meyerhoff
  • Julian Sagebiel
Article
  • 105 Downloads

Abstract

An expanding literature addresses spatial dimensions related to the elicitation, estimation, interpretation and aggregation of stated preference (SP) welfare measures. Recognizing the relevance of spatial dimensions for SP welfare analysis and the breadth of associated scholarly work, this article reviews the primary methods, findings, controversies and frontiers in this important area of contemporary research. This review is grounded in a typology that characterizes analytical methods based on theoretical foundations and the type of statistical modelling applied. The resulting interpretive appraisal seeks to (1) summarize and contrast different theoretical arguments and points of departure within the spatial SP literature, (2) synthesize findings, insights and methods from the literature to promote a more holistic perspective on the treatment of spatial dimensions within SP welfare analysis, (3) evaluate and reconcile divergent approaches in terms of theoretical grounding, ability to identify relevant empirical effects, and relevance for SP valuation, and (4) discuss outstanding questions and research frontiers.

Keywords

Discrete choice experiments Contingent valuation Spatial heterogeneity Distance decay Spatial dependence Spatial autocorrelation Non-market goods Ecosystem services Willingness to pay Willingness to accept 

Abbreviations

SP

Stated preference

WTP

Willingness to pay

WTA

Willingness to accept

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jette Bredahl Jacobsen and Danny Campbell for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, and the participants of the 23rd annual conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists pre-conference workshop ‘Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preferences’ for contributions and discussions that inspired this article. Jürgen Meyerhoff acknowledges funding by the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (FKZ: FNR-22022614, project ReWaLe - Quantification and regionalisation of economic values of forest ecosystem services in Germany). Klaus Glenk acknowledges funding by the Scottish Government through the Rural Affairs and the Environment Portfolio Strategic Research Programme 2016–2021 (Theme 1: Natural Assets).

References

  1. Abildtrup J, Garcia S, Olsen SB, Stenger A (2013) Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol Econ 92:67–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamowicz W, Swait J, Boxall P et al (1997) Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 32:65–84.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albers HJ (1996) Modeling ecological constraints on tropical forest management: spatial interdependence, irreversibility, and uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 30:73–94.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albers HJ, Ando A, Shogren JF (2010) Introduction to spatial natural resource and environmental economics. Resour Energy Econ 32:93–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2009.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ando AW, Baylis K (2014) Spatial environmental and natural resource economics. In: Fischer M, Nijkamp P (eds) Handbook of regional science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1029–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S, Solow A (1998) Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:2126–2128.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5359.2126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anselin L (1996) The Moran scatterplot as an ESDA tool to assess local instability in spatial association. In: Fischer M, Scholten H, Unwin D (eds) Spatial analytical perspectives on GIS. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 111–125Google Scholar
  9. Anselin L (2001) Spatial effects in econometric practice in environmental and resource economics. Am J Agr Econ 83:705–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Anselin L (2002) Under the hood: issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models. Agric Econ 27:247–267.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5150(02)00077-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Anselin L (2010) Thirty years of spatial econometrics. Pap Reg Sci 89:3–25.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2010.00279.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Anselin L, Getis A (1992) Spatial statistical analysis and geographic information systems. Ann Reg Sci 26:19–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01581478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Anselin L, Le Gallo J (2006) Interpolation of air quality measures in hedonic house price models: spatial aspects. Spat Econ Anal 1:31–52.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17421770600661337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR et al (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent ValuationGoogle Scholar
  15. Baerenklau KA, González-Cabán A, Paez C, Chavez E (2010) Spatial allocation of forest recreation value. J For Econ 16:113–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2009.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bakhtiari F, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ et al (2018) Disentangling distance and country effects on the value of conservation across national borders. Ecol Econ 147:11–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bateman IJ (2009) Bringing the real world into economic analyses of land use value: incorporating spatial complexity. Land Use Policy 26:S30–S42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bateman IJ, Langford IH (1997) Non-users’ willingness to pay for a national park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Reg Stud 31:571–582.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409750131703 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Nishikawa N, Lake I (2000) The Axford debate revisited: a case study illustrating different approaches to the aggregation of benefits data. J Environ Plan Manag 43:291–302.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560010720 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bateman IJ, Jones AP, Lovett AA et al (2002) Applying geographical information systems (GIS) to environmental and resource economics. Environ Resource Econ 22:219–269.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015575214292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bateman IJ, Cooper P, Georgiou S et al (2005) Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquat Sci 67:274–291.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-004-0744-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60:450–460.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Jones AP, Jude S (2009) Reducing gain–loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J Environ Econ Manag 58:106–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2008.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Ferrini S et al (2011) Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environ Resource Econ 50:365–387.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9476-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bell KP, Bockstael NE (2000) Applying the generalized-moments estimation approach to spatial problems involving microlevel data. Rev Econ Stat 82:72–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Bergstrom JC, Taylor LO (2006) Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: theory and practice. Ecol Econ 60:351–360.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bhat CR, Sener IN (2009) A copula-based closed-form binary logit choice model for accommodating spatial correlation across observational units. J Geogr Syst 11:243–272.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-009-0077-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bivand RS, Pebesma E, Gómez-Rubio V (2013) Applied spatial data analysis with R. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Bockstael NE (1996) Modelling economics and ecology: the importance of a spatial perspective. Am J Agr Econ 78:1168–1180.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1243487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Broch SW, Strange N, Jacobsen JB, Wilson KA (2013) Farmers’ willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution. Ecol Econ 92:78–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Brouwer R, Martin-Ortega J, Berbel J (2010) Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Econ 86:552–568.  https://doi.org/10.3368/le.86.3.552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Brown T, Duffield J (1995) Testing part-whole valuation effects in contingent valuation of instream flow protection. Water Resour Res 31:2341–2351.  https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR01744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Budziński W, Campbell D, Czajkowski M et al (2017) Using geographically weighted choice models to account for the spatial heterogeneity of preferences. J Agric Econ.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Bulte E, Gerking S, List JA, de Zeeuw A (2005) The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. J Environ Econ Manag 49:330–342.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2004.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Burrough PA, McDonnell RA (1998) Creating continuous surfaces from point data. In: Burrough PA, McDonnell RA (eds) Principles of geographic information systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  36. Cameron TA (2006) Directional heterogeneity in distance profiles in hedonic property value models. J Environ Econ Manag 51:26–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2005.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Cameron TA, DeShazo JR, Johnson EH (2011) Scenario adjustment in stated preference research. J Choice Model 4:9–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70017-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Campbell D, Scarpa R, Hutchinson W (2008) Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Lett Spat Resour Sci 1:117–126.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-008-0012-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Campbell D, Hutchinson WG, Scarpa R (2009) Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environ Plan Part A 41:97–111.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a4038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Carson RT (2012) Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren’t available. J Econ Perspect 26:27–42.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Carson R, Flores NE, Hanemann WM (1998) Sequencing and valuing public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 36:314–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Case AC (1991) Spatial patterns in household demand. Econometrica 59:953–965.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2938168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Concu GB (2007) Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 51:175–194.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00381.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Concu GB (2009) Measuring environmental externality spillovers through choice modelling. Environ Plan A 41:199–212.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a39266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Cornes R, Sandler T (1996) The theory of externalities, public goods, and club goods, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Cummings R, Harrison G (1995) The measurement and decomposition of nonuse values: a critical review. Environ Resourc Econ 5:225–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Czajkowski M, Budziński W, Campbell D et al (2016) Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management. Environ Resource Econ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0044-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Dallimer M, Jacobsen JB, Lundhede TH et al (2015) Patriotic values for public goods: transnational trade-offs for biodiversity and ecosystem services? Bioscience 65:33–42.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. De Valck J, Rolfe J (2018) Spatial heterogeneity in stated preference valuation: Status, challenges and road ahead. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 11:355–422.  https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. de Valck J, Broekx S, Liekens I et al (2017) Testing the influence of substitute sites in nature valuation by using spatial discounting factors. Environ Resource Econ 66:17–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9930-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Duke JM, Dundas SJ, Johnston RJ, Messer KD (2015) The effect of spatial interdependencies on prioritization and payments for environmental services. Land Use Policy 48:341–350.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Fernandez L, Cutter B, Sharma R, Scott T (2018) Land preservation policy effect or neighborhood dynamics: a repeat sales hedonic matching approach. J Environ Econ Manag 88:311–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2018.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Fischer MM, Getis A (eds) (2010) Handbook of applied spatial analysis: software tools, methods and applications. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  54. Fischer MM, Wang J (2011) Spatial data analysis: models, methods and techniques. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  55. Fleming MM (2004) Techniques for estimating spatially dependent discrete choice models. Advances in Spatial Econometrics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 145–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Franceschinis C, Scarpa R, Thiene M et al (2016) Exploring the spatial heterogeneity of individual preferences for ambient heating systems. Energies 9:407.  https://doi.org/10.3390/en9060407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Geoghegan J, Wainger LA, Bockstael NE (1997) Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecol Econ 23:251–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00583-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Glenk K (2011) Using local knowledge to model asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay for environmental services. J Environ Manag 92:531–541.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Glenk K, Martin-Ortega J (2018) The economics of peatland restoration. J Environ Econ Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2018.1434562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Guo JY, Bhat CR (2007) Operationalizing the concept of neighborhood: application to residential location choice analysis. J Transp Geogr 15:31–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2005.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Haab TC, MacConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Haab TC, Interis MG, Petrolia DR, Whitehead JC (2013) From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “dubious to hopeless” critique of contingent valuation. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 35:593–612.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hailu A, Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC (2000) Complements, substitutes, budget constraints and valuation. Environ Resource Econ 16:51–68.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008328920083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hanley N, Schläpfer F, Spurgeon J (2003) Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J Environ Manag 68:297–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00084-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Heberlein TA, Wilson MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer NC (2005) Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 50:1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2004.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hoehn JP (1991) Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy: theory and methods. Am J Agr Econ 73:289–299.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1242713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hoehn JP, Loomis JB (1993) Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs. J Environ Econ Manag 25:56–75.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1993.1026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Holland BM, Johnston RJ (2017) Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity. J Environ Econ Manag 85:110–129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2017.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Horne P, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2005) Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. For Ecol Manage 207:189–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Interis MG, Petrolia DR (2016) Location, location, habitat: how the value of ecosystem services varies across location and by habitat. Land Econ 92:292–307.  https://doi.org/10.3368/le.92.2.292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Irwin EG, Geoghegan J (2001) Theory, data, methods: developing spatially explicit economic models of land use change. Agr Ecosyst Environ 85:7–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00200-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2010) Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks. Ecol Econ 69:1532–1544.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Johnston RJ, Opaluch JJ, Magnusson G, Mazzotta MJ (2005) Who are resource nonusers and what can they tell us about nonuse values? Decomposing user and nonuser willingness to pay for coastal wetland restoration. Water Resour Res 41(7): W07017.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Johnston RJ, Abdulrahman AS (2017) Systematic non-response in discrete choice experiments: implications for the valuation of climate risk reductions. J Environ Econ Policy 6:246–267.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2017.1284695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Johnston RJ, Duke JM (2009) Willingness to pay for land preservation across states and jurisdictional scale: implications for benefit transfer. Land Econ 85:217–237.  https://doi.org/10.3368/le.85.2.217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Johnston RJ, Ramachandran M (2014) Modeling spatial patchiness and hot spots in stated preference willingness to pay. Environ Resource Econ 59:363–387.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9731-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Johnston RJ, Swallow SK, Bauer DM (2002) Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods: considerations for rural land use. Land Econ 78:481–500.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3146848 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Johnston RJ, Schultz ET, Segerson K et al (2012) Enhancing the content validity of stated preference valuation: the structure and function of ecological indicators. Land Econ 88:102–120.  https://doi.org/10.3368/le.88.1.102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Johnston RJ, Jarvis D, Wallmo K, Lew DK (2015) Multiscale spatial pattern in nonuse willingness to pay: applications to threatened and endangered marine species. Land Econ 91:739–761.  https://doi.org/10.3368/le.91.4.739 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Johnston RJ, Holland BM, Yao L (2016) Individualized geocoding in stated preference questionnaires: implications for survey design and welfare estimation. Land Econ 92:737–759.  https://doi.org/10.3368/le.92.4.737 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Stapler R (2017a) Enhanced geospatial validity for meta-analysis and environmental benefit transfer: an application to water quality improvements. Environ Resource Econ 68:343–375.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0021-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W et al (2017b) Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 4:319–405.  https://doi.org/10.1086/691697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Holland BM (2018) Modeling distance decay within valuation meta-analysis. Environ Resource Econ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-018-0218-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Jørgensen SL, Olsen SB, Ladenburg J et al (2013) Spatially induced disparities in users’ and non-users’ WTP for water quality improvements—testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecol Econ 92:58–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Klaiber AH, Phaneuf DJ (2010) Valuing open space in a residential sorting model of the Twin Cities. J Environ Econ Manag 60:57–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Klier T, McMillen DP (2008) Clustering of auto supplier plants in the United States: generalized method of moments spatial logit for large samples. J Bus Econ Stat 26:460–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Knapp L, Ladenburg J (2015) How spatial relationships influence economic preferences for wind power—a review. Energies 8:6177–6201.  https://doi.org/10.3390/en8066177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kuminoff NV, Pope JC (2014) Do “capitalization effects” for public goods reveal the public’s willingness to pay? Int Econ Rev 55:1227–1250.  https://doi.org/10.1111/iere.12088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ladenburg J, Dubgaard A (2007) Willingness to pay for reduced visual disamenities from offshore wind farms in Denmark. Energy Policy 35:4059–4071.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.01.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lanz B, Provins A (2013) Valuing local environmental amenity with discrete choice experiments: spatial scope sensitivity and heterogeneous marginal utility of income. Environ Resource Econ 56:105–130.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9648-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. León CJ, Araña JE, de León J, González MM (2016) The economic benefits of reducing the environmental effects of landfills: heterogeneous distance decay effects. Environ Resource Econ 63:193–218.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9874-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. LeSage JP, Pace RK (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Liekens I, Schaafsma M, De Nocker L et al (2013) Developing a value function for nature development and land use policy in Flanders, Belgium. Land Use Policy 30:549–559.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Lienhoop N, Brouwer R (2015) Agri-environmental policy valuation: Farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes. Land Use Policy 42:568–577.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Lizin S, Brouwer R, Liekens I, Broeckx S (2016) Accounting for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in a labelled choice experiment. J Environ Manag 181:289–297.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Logar I, Brouwer R (2018) Substitution effects and spatial preference heterogeneity in single- and multiple-site choice experiments. Land Econ 94:302–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Loomis JB (1996) How large is the extent of the market for public goods: evidence from a nationwide contingent valuation survey. Appl Econ 28:779–782.  https://doi.org/10.1080/000368496328209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Loomis JB (2000) Vertically summing public good demand curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Econ 76:312–321.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3147231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Loomis JB, Rosenberger RS (2006) Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: needed improvements in primary study design and reporting. Ecol Econ 60:343–350.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Loomis JB, Lockwood M, Delacy T (1994) Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. J Environ Econ Manag 25:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Luisetti T, Turner RK, Bateman IJ et al (2011) Coastal and marine ecosystem services valuation for policy and management: managed realignment case studies in England. Ocean Coast Manag 54:212–224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Martin-Ortega J, Brouwer R, Ojea E, Berbel J (2012) Benefit transfer and spatial heterogeneity of preferences for water quality improvements. J Environ Manag 106:22–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Matthews Y, Scarpa R, Marsh D (2017) Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: a case study about coastal erosion management. J Environ Econ Manag 81:193–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. McMillen DP (1992) Probit with spatial autocorrelation. J Reg Sci 32:335–348.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1992.tb00190.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Meyerhoff J (2013) Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents’ residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation? J Choice Model 7:58–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2013.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Meyerhoff J, Ohl C, Hartje V (2010) Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 38:82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Meyerhoff J, Boeri M, Hartje V (2014) The value of water quality improvements in the region Berlin-Brandenburg as a function of distance and state residency. Water Resour Econ 5:49–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2014.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Moeltner K, Blinn CE, Holmes TP (2017) Forest pests and home values: the importance of accuracy in damage assessment and geocoding of properties. J Forest Econ 26:46–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Moore R, Provencher B, Bishop RC (2011) Valuing a spatially variable environmental resource: reducing non-point-source pollution in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Land Econ 87:45–59.  https://doi.org/10.3368/le.87.1.45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Morrison M (2002) Aggregation biases in stated preference studies. Aust Econ Pap 39:215–230.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8454.00087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Morrison M, Bennett J (2004) Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 48:591–611.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2004.00263.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R, Louviere J (2002) Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. Am J Agr Econ 84:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Nielsen ASE, Lundhede TH, Jacobsen JB (2016) Local consequences of national policies - A spatial analysis of preferences for forest access reduction. For Policy Econ 73:68–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Parsons GR, Hauber AB (1998) Spatial boundaries and choice set definition in a random utility model of recreation demand. Land Econ 74:32–48.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3147211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Pate J, Loomis J (1997) The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol Econ 20:199–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00080-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Paterson RW, Boyle KJ (2002) Out of sight, out of mind? Using GIS to incorporate visibility in hedonic property value models. Land Econ 78:417–425.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3146899 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Payne JW, Schkade DA, Desvousges WH, Aultman C (2000) Valuation of multiple environmental programs. J Risk Uncertain 21:95–115.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026573527618 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Peters T, Adamowicz W, Boxall PC (1995) Influence of choice set considerations in modeling the benefits from improved water quality. Water Resour Res 31:1781–1787.  https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR00975 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Pinkse J, Slade ME (1998) Contracting in space: an application of spatial statistics to discrete-choice models. J Econ 85:125–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(97)00097-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Robinson TP, Metternicht G (2006) Testing the performance of spatial interpolation techniques for mapping soil properties. Comput Electron Agric 50:97–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2005.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Roe B, Irwin EG, Morrow-Jones HA (2004) The effects of farmland, farmland preservation, and other neighborhood amenities on housing values and residential growth. Land Econ 80:55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Rolfe J, Bennett J (2002) Assessing rainforest conservation demands. Econ Anal Policy 32:51–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(02)50018-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Rolfe J, Windle J (2012) Distance decay functions for iconic assets: assessing national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Environ Resource Econ 53:347–365.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9565-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J (2002) Stated values and reminders of substitute goods: testing for framing effects with choice modelling. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 46:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.00164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Sagebiel J, Glenk K, Meyerhoff J (2017) Spatially explicit demand for afforestation. For Policy Econ 78:190–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Sanchirico JN, Wilen JE (1999) Bioeconomics of spatial exploitation in a patchy environment. J Environ Econ Manag 37:129–150.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Sanchirico JN, Wilen JE (2001) A bioeconomic model of marine reserve creation. J Environ Econ Manag 42:257–276.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2000.1162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Schaafsma M (2015) Spatial and geographical aspects of benefit transfer. In: Johnston R, Rolfe J, Rosenberger R, Brouwer R (eds) Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 421–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Schaafsma M, Brouwer R (2013) Testing geographical framing and substitution effects in spatial choice experiments. J Choice Model 8:32–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2013.04.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Schaafsma M, Brouwer R, Rose J (2012) Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 79:21–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Schaafsma M, Brouwer R, Gilbert A et al (2013) Estimation of distance-decay functions to account for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in stated preference research. Land Econ 89:514–537.  https://doi.org/10.3368/le.89.3.514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Sener IN, Pendyala RM, Bhat CR (2011) Accommodating spatial correlation across choice alternatives in discrete choice models: an application to modeling residential location choice behavior. J Transp Geogr 19:294–303.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Smirnov OA (2010) Modeling spatial discrete choice. Reg Sci Urban Econ 40:292–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2009.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Smith VK (1993) Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretive appraisal. Land Econ 69:1–26.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3146275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Smith MD, Wilen JE (2003) Economic impacts of marine reserves: the importance of spatial behavior. J Environ Econ Manag 46:183–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00024-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Söderberg M, Barton DN (2014) Marginal WTP and distance decay: the role of ‘protest’ and ‘true zero’ responses in the economic valuation of recreational water quality. Environ Resource Econ 59:389–405.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9735-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Spencer-Cotton A, Kragt ME, Burton M (2018) Spatial and scope effects: valuations of coastal management practices. J Agri Econ 69:833–851.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Sutherland RJ, Walsh RG (1985) Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Econ 61:281–291.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3145843 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Swait J, Franceschinis C, Thiene M (2018) Antecedent Volition and spatial effects: can multiple goal pursuit mitigate distance decay? Environmental and Resource Economics SI Spatial Dimensions of Stated PreferencesGoogle Scholar
  140. Swallow SK, Wear DN (1993) Spatial interactions in multiple-use forestry and substitution and wealth effects for the single stand. J Environ Econ Manag 25:103–120.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1993.1036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Tait P, Baskaran R, Cullen R, Bicknell K (2012) Nonmarket valuation of water quality: addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model. Ecol Econ 75:15–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Termansen M, McClean CJ, Jensen FS (2013) Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services. Ecol Econ 92:48–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Timmins C, Murdock J (2007) A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models. J Environ Econ Manag 53:230–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2006.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Timmins C, Schlenker W (2009) Reduced-form versus structural modeling in environmental and resource economics. Annu Rev Resour Econ 1:351–380.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Tobler WR (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region. Econ Geogr 46:234–240.  https://doi.org/10.2307/143141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Train KE (2008) Discrete choice methods with simulation, repr. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  147. Tu G, Abildtrup J, Garcia S (2016) Preferences for urban green spaces and peri-urban forests: an analysis of stated residential choices. Landsc Urban Plan 148:120–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Van Bueren M, Bennett J (2004) Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 48:1–32.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2004.t01-1-00228.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Varela E, Verheyen K, Valdés A et al (2018) Promoting biodiversity values of small forest patches in agricultural landscapes: Ecological drivers and social demand. Sci Total Environ 619–620:1319–1329.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Vedel SE, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2015) Forest owners’ willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality. Ecol Econ 113:15–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Wang Y, Kockelman K, Wang X (2011) Anticipation of land use change through use of geographically weighted regression models for discrete response. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2245:111–123.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2245-14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Wang J-F, Stein A, Gao B-B, Ge Y (2012) A review of spatial sampling. Spat Stat 2:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spasta.2012.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Wang J-F, Jiang C-S, Hu M-G et al (2013) Design-based spatial sampling: theory and implementation. Environ Model Softw 40:280–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Whitehead JC (2016) Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 128:17–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Whitehead JC, Blomquist GC (1999) Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Reply to another comment. Land Econ 75:483–484.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3147193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Wilen JE (2007) Economics of spatial-dynamic processes. Am J Agr Econ 89:1134–1144.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01074.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Yao RT, Scarpa R, Turner JA et al (2014) Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand’s planted forests: socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay. Ecol Econ 98:90–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Zimmerman D, Pavlik C, Ruggles A, Armstrong MP (1999) An experimental comparison of ordinary and universal kriging and inverse distance weighting. Math Geol 31:375–390.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007586507433 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Glenk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert J. Johnston
    • 2
  • Jürgen Meyerhoff
    • 3
  • Julian Sagebiel
    • 3
  1. 1.Land Economy, Environment and Society GroupScotland’s Rural College (SRUC)EdinburghUK
  2. 2.Clark UniversityWorcesterUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Landscape and Environmental PlanningTechnische UniversitätBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations