1 / 8

Utilizing Stated Preferences in Assessing Policy Cost-Effectiveness

Explore the benefits of using Stated Preference methods to evaluate policies targeting homeowners, small businesses, and more. Learn from experts about Contingent Valuation and Conjoint Choice Experiments in assessing housing and recreational values. Discover the potential of incorporating RP-SP methods for Bay users and commercial fishermen.

ruby
Download Presentation

Utilizing Stated Preferences in Assessing Policy Cost-Effectiveness

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Stated Preferences:Comments Anna Alberini University of Maryland

  2. What Should We Use SP for? • Presentations are focused on the benefits of TMDL requirements • …but they could also be used to assess potential and cost-effectiveness of policies, esp. those aimed at homeowners, small businesses, numerous entities • E.g. rain gardens, rain barrels • See ERS-USDA researchers present at this workshop

  3. Stated Preference Methods • Contingent valuation • would you pay $X for…? • gets non-use values • Protest responses • Contingent behavior • Would you still go to…/how many times would you go to… [under new conditions]? • Well suited with recreational users • Conjoint choice experiments • Private goods [e.g., recreational trips] or policy packages • Attribute-based • Non-use values?

  4. Moore presentation • Combined RP-SP • recreational users/uses • Can do within the same questionnaire in original survey • Likely to work well for Bay recreational users and commercial fishermen • Housing values • Earlier work has produced mixed results • No data on non-fishing recreation/other places in watershed • Not difficult to develop new data: • Marinas, state registration lists for boaters, etc.

  5. Moore presentation (2) • Concerns about double counting • Select your categories of users/not users carefully • Concerns about time horizons re: credibility of questionnaire • People probably understand that it took a long time to mess up the Bay and that it will take a long time to fix it up • Payment vehicle • People may have preferences over the payment vehicle • E.g., I am willing to pay for improved storm water mgmt. but not for farmers to improve their practices (even if they affected the CB to the same extent) • Split-sample treatments to test? • “distance traveled for choice experiment” (slide 4)?

  6. Boyd-Krupnick Acres of wetlands Home production function of ecological services of wetlands Ecological services of wetlands Take home message: U=U(Acres, h(Acres), g(h(Acres))

  7. Earlier SP research has found that people are generally willing to pay more for more acres, more species abundance, etc. • Scope  but not WTP not strictly proportional to acres, species, etc.

  8. Both presentations • “Iconic” value of the CB  prefer to say “historic/cultural heritage site” • Why worry about “warm glow?”  perfectly legitimate component of WTP for the Bay, esp. non-users • Concur that surveys should not focus on jobs, watermen, Amish, …

More Related