1 / 22

Jeffrey Englin Arizona State University Mesa, AZ USA Kevin House University of Nevada, Reno

The Valuation of Environmental Amenities Across Broad Geographic Regions : An Empirical Application of the Hedonic Travel Cost Methodology to the Forests of the Sierra Nevada Wilderness. Jeffrey Englin Arizona State University Mesa, AZ USA Kevin House University of Nevada, Reno Reno, NV USE.

sanam
Download Presentation

Jeffrey Englin Arizona State University Mesa, AZ USA Kevin House University of Nevada, Reno

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. The Valuation of Environmental Amenities Across Broad Geographic Regions:An Empirical Application of the Hedonic Travel Cost Methodology to the Forests of the Sierra Nevada Wilderness Jeffrey Englin Arizona State University Mesa, AZ USA Kevin House University of Nevada, Reno Reno, NV USE

  2. Overview • Historical context of the hedonic travel cost model • Hedonic travel cost model intuition • Theory • Implementation Issues • Data • Results • Conclusions and speculations

  3. Historical context of the hedonic travel cost model • Proposed by Brown and Mendelsohn in 1984 • At the same time RUM models were becoming tractable • US Environmental Protection Agency ran a large proposal competition and chose the RUM to develop • US Environmental Protection Agency focus was on site remediation • Hedonic travel cost models have been applied sporadically (about a dozen times) since 1984

  4. Why refocus now? • Hedonic travel cost models produce regional (national) welfare measures • Suitable for regional (national) regulations and development objectives • Forms a utility theoretic alternative to meta analysis • Pendleton and Mendelsohn (2000) show theoretical equivalence with RUM Models • Can often be applied where insufficient studies exist for a meta analysis • Quantitative possibilities have grown enormously since 1984 – many new tools are available! • GIS • Econometric tools

  5. Hedonic Travel Cost Model Intuition • Follows traditional hedonic theory • Consumers choose best bundle of attributes given the prices they face • In a this setting the cost is the price they face • The precise prices consumers face depends on where they live – or which market they purchase trips in • Cost may be out-of-pocket travel cost, time travel cost etc. It is the opportunity cost of the trip. • The site chosen is the best bundle of attributes given the travel costs

  6. Theory • Model follows classic two-stage hedonic models • Stage 1 is to realize that people in different markets probably face different prices • In Nancy, Metz, etc look at all the hiking trails residents of each town chose and regress travel costs on the attributes of the trail • Stage 2 is to take the different quantities purchased at the individual level prices and regress them on the quantities bought • Pool individuals across Nancy, Metz etc and regress the quantities of attributes they purchased on the marginal hedonic prices estimated in stage

  7. Implementation Issues • Can be either a survey or visitation count method • Surveys need to elicit places visited and cost • Visitation counts (common in North America) • Develop mean marginal and total willingness to pay measures for site attributes by the population • Covers broad geographic areas • Values can be aggregated up by total visitation to a place

  8. Data • Uses permit data from US Forest Service for • Ansel Adams, Golden Trout and John Muir Wilderness Areas • Total users total 25,363 • There are 57 sites (trails) in the data • Data includes 1991, 1992, and 1993 users

  9. Detail of the Study Area

  10. Study area of population

  11. To put population study area in perspective

  12. Site attributes • Ecosystem attributes • Lodgepole pine • Other conifers • Riparian meadows • Development attributes • Trailhead campgrounds • Nearby campgrounds • Dirt roads

  13. Analysis • Two methods have been used to estimate marginal prices, both are applied here • Marginal prices and demand are estimated for the attributes of interest • Both marginal and total welfare measures are calculated

  14. Econometric and Welfare Results • Present Summary of Econometric Price Regression/LP Results • Summarize 155 regression marginal price regression estimates • uses only sites chosen • Summarize 186 LP marginal price estimates • uses all possible sites • Summarize marginal welfare implications • Present Summary Hedonic Demand Systems • Seven attributes for each method • Summarize total welfare implications (consumer surplus measures)

  15. Summary of the Hedonic Price Estimates

  16. On the issue of insignificant and negative marginal prices

  17. Total Marginal Social Value of Site Attributes for an Example Trail in the Ansel Adams Wilderness

  18. Hedonic Price Regression Demand Results

  19. Mean Demand System Welfare Results

  20. Conclusions and speculations • Provides a tool to answer large scale questions • Can be implemented much more easily with modern tools • GIS for attributes, costs • Statistical tools easily handle data • May work well in European context • Can be implemented in countries with few empirical studies • No more costly than other surveys (if needed) • Less demanding of analyst than RUMs or choice modeling • Based solely on observed choices – no stated preference biases

More Related