![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081107104021im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
1999 Progress Report: Stated Preference Valuation Using Real Money for Real Forested Wetlands
EPA Grant Number: R825307Title: Stated Preference Valuation Using Real Money for Real Forested Wetlands
Investigators: Swallow, Stephen K.
Institution: University of Rhode Island
EPA Project Officer: Clark, Matthew
Project Period: October 15, 1996 through October 14, 1998 (Extended to December 31, 2001)
Project Period Covered by this Report: October 15, 1998 through October 14, 1999
Project Amount: $165,081
RFA: Decision Making and Valuation for Environmental Policy (1996)
Research Category: Economics and Decision Sciences
Description:
Objective:The project's objectives are to: (1) identify critical ecosystem attributes, of forested wetlands, that contribute to ecological quality and to the quality of life; (2) develop a model of public preferences for alternative attributes of wetlands in southern New England, using Rhode Island as a case study; and (3) estimate money-measures of value for wetland ecosystem attributes by a survey method which calibrates hypothetical-dollar values to real-dollar values. Progress Summary:
To date, wetland attributes identified as important to public preferences for wetland conservation included: acreage of a wetland; type of land uses surrounding the wetland (wooded, residential, or farm); role of a wetland parcel in a conservation policy (relative to its role in expanding an existing conservation area, connecting two conservation areas, or creating a new but separate conservation area); expectation of the qualitative level of wildlife diversity likely supported by the parcel (low, medium, high); sustainability of the wildlife habitat; location relative to roads; potential for public access; and monetary cost, to a resident's household, necessary to implement a conservation agreement with the landowner.
The research design calls for the conduct of a two basic types of surveys. Both types of surveys will ask respondents to review descriptions of two wetland parcels, labeled Parcel A and Parcel B. Then respondents will be asked to state their willingness to pay for conservation on one of the parcels or to state that they are unwilling to pay specified costs for conservation of either parcel. In one version of the survey, respondents provide only their statement concerning their willingness or unwillingness to pay for conservation of a parcel. In the second version of the survey, respondents are asked to back up their stated willingness to pay with a real check or money order for the specified cost of conservation on any Parcel they choose (if they choose to a Parcel). In this second survey, all parcels descriptions will be matched with actual wetland parcels for which the landowner has agreed to enter a contract to forego their development rights if the group of survey respondents pay a specified amount (pre-determined by the researchers). Two landowners in Rhode Island have agreed to allow their wetland parcels to be used in this research.
The outcome of this project will allow a comparison of differences between estimated willingness to pay for wetland conservation (development-rights contracts) based on the two types of surveys (one involving only stated willingness to pay, and the second involving a request to actually pay the amount stated). This research will generally add to literature identifying differences between stated willingness to pay and actual dollar payments. In addition, the research will allow an investigation of differences in willingness to pay for different attributes of wetland parcels, allowing an evaluation of tradeoffs among parcel attributes. Also, alternative versions of the two surveys will allow a comparison of effects associated with how the willingness to pay questions are presented. These comparisons will contribute to understanding the potential strengths and weaknesses of stated preference valuation for policy decisions. Furthermore, the demonstration of the two-survey method (stated preference versus real-money) can illustrate the potential for surveys in which statistical modeling can establish a means to adjust "hypothetical" (or stated) willingness to pay to a lower bound willingness to pay established by the real-money component of the survey. This real-money estimate is a lower bound because it is unlikely that real-money surveys can mitigate for all strategic reasons that respondents might have for understating their willingness to pay when real money is required.
Future Activities:During the forthcoming reporting period, year 2000, the investigators expect to complete the survey development (formatting and printing), implement the mail survey as described above, collect and code responses, and develop appropriate statistical analyses. Preliminary statistical results are anticipated for fall, 2000, with completion of the project currently scheduled for December 2000.
Journal Articles on this Report: 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
| Other project views: | All 14 publications | 3 publications in selected types | All 3 journal articles |
| Type | Citation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Spencer MA, Swallow SK, Miller CJ. Valuing water auality monitoring: a contingent valuation experiment involving hypothetical and real payments. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 1998;27(1):28-42. |
R825307 (1999) R825307 (Final) |
not available |
contingent valuation, nonmarket valuation, choice experiments, contingent choice/valuation, real environmental goods, hypothetical choices, real choices, calibration. , Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, Scientific Discipline, RFA, Social Science, decision-making, Economics & Decision Making, Ecology and Ecosystems, Environmental Monitoring, Economics, stakeholder, ecosystem valuation, policy analysis, preference formation, psychological attitudes, public policy, forested wetlands, decision analysis, landscape ecology, willingness to pay, conservation, cost effectiveness, stated preference, valuing environmental quality, community involvement, biodiversity option values, public values, social psychology, surveys, compensation, environmental assets, contingent valuation, economic incentives, environmental values
Progress and Final Reports:
1997 Progress Report
Original Abstract
Final Report