Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments method?

Rambonilaza, Tina (2005): Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments method? Published in: Landscape and Urban Planning , Vol. 4, No. 83 : pp. 318-326.

Abstract

In this article we discuss the economic approach to evaluate landscape preferences for land-use planning. We then use the choice experiment method to examine public preferences for three landscape features – hedgerows, farm buildings and scrubland – in the Monts d’Arrée region (in Brittany, France), in the context of re-design of landscape conservation policy by the local environmental institute. Surveys were undertaken on two user groups, visitors and local residents. Our objective was to obtain empirical evidence of the difference between the preferences of tourists and residents, for landscape attributes. We then analysed the welfare changes of tourists and residents affected by different landscape programmes. Our results point out the strong divergence between the landscape preferences of the public and those of local public actors. The comparison of the estimated values of willingness to pay for single-attribute landscaping action shows some divergence between residents’ and tourists’ ranking of preferences for agricultural landscape areas.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: landscape preferences, attributes, choice experiment, welfare estimates
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q0 - General; D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D61 - Allocative Efficiency ; Cost-Benefit Analysis

References

Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M.,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. Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J.,Williams, M., 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of environmental economics and management, 26, 271-292. Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J.F., Canas-Madueno, J.A.,Ruiz-Aviles, P., 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, (1), 115-125. Bech, M.,Gyrd-Hansen, D., 2005. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Economics, 14, (10), 1079-1083. Bennett, J.,Blamey, R., 2001. The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Edward Edgar Publishing, Inc., Boxall, P., Adamowicz, W., Swait, J., Williams, M.,Louviere, J., 1996. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. ecological economics, 18, 243-253. Bullock, C.H.,Kay, J., 1997. Preservation and change in the upland landscape : the public benefits of grazing management. Journal of environmental planning and management, 40, 321-333. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W.G.,Scarpa, R., 2006. Lexicographic preferences in discrete choice experiments : consequences on individual-specific willingness to pay estimates, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, Working paper, 22 p. Cavailhès, J., Brossard, T., Foltête, J.-C., Hilal, M., Joly, D., Tourneux, F.-P., Tritz, C.,Wavresky, P., 2006. Seeing and being seen : a GIS-based hedonic price valuation of landscape, working paper , 27 p. Dachary-Bernard, J., 2004. Approche multi-attributs pour une évaluation économique du paysage. Thèse de Sciences économiques et sociales, Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV, sous la direction de P. Point. 290 p. Daniel, T.C., 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 25, 267-281. Daniel, T.C.,Vining, J., 1983. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality, in: I. Altman, Wohwill, J.F. (Eds.), Behaviour and the Natural Environment. Plenum Pressa, New York, pp. 39-83. Gonzalez, M.,Leon, C.J., 2003. Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes. ecological economics, 45, (2), 159-169. Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R.E., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parsisson, D.,Crabtree, B., 1998a. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally senstive areas in Scotland. Journal of agricultural economics, 49, (1), 1-15. Hanley, N., Mourato, S.,Wright, R.E., 2001. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of economic surveys, 15, (3), 435-462. Hanley, N., Wright, R.E.,Adamowicz, W., 1998b. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Design issues, current experience and future prospects. environmental and resource economics, 11, (3-4), 413-428. Hanley, N., Wright, R.E.,Koop, g., 2000. Modelling Recreation demand using choice experiments : climbing in Scotland, Economics department, University of Glasgow, Discussion paper, 28p p. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M.,Greene, W.H., 2005. Applied choice analysis. A primer, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Le Floch, S., 2000. Multifor program : final report on the qualitative survey. French case-study, area 1, Monts d'Arrée (Brittany region). Cemagref, Bordeaux, european research program final report, 66 p. Louviere, J., 1988. Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preferences : a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. Journal of transport economics and policy, 10, 93-119. Louviere, J., 1992. Experimental choice analysis : introduction and overview. Journal of business research, 24, 89-96. Louviere, J., Woodworth, G., 1983. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments : an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of marketing research, 20, 350-367. Luttik, J., 2000. The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, (3-4), 161-167. Mcfadden, D., 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour, in: P. Z. ed. (Eds.), Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp. 105-142. Nielsen, A.B., Olsen, S.B.,Lundhede, T., 2006. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, In Press. Santos, J.M.L., 1998. The economic valuation of landscape change, Edward Elgar - New horizons in environmental economics, Cheltenham. Swait, J.,Louviere, J., 1993. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of marketing research, 30, 305-314. Thurstone, L., 1927. A law of comparative judgement. Psychological review, 4, 273-286. Whitehead, J.C., 1995. Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Comparative Statics and Interpretation of Contingent Valuation Results. Land economics, 71, (2), 207-215. Willis, K.G.,Garrod, G.D., 1993. Valuing landscape : a contingent valuation approach. Journal of environmental Management, 37, 1-22. Zwerina, K., Huber, J.,Kuhfeld, W.F., 1996. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs, SAS Institute Inc, SAS Technical Support Documents - Statistical & Marketing Research n° TS-650D,