150th eaae seminar: the spatial dimension in analysing the linkages between agriculture, rural...
TRANSCRIPT
150th EAAE Seminar:The spatial dimension in analysing the linkages between
agriculture, rural development and the environment
Edinburgh, 22 Oct 2015Julian Sagebiel
IÖW – Institute for Ecological Economy Reseach, Berlin
A simple method to account for spatially-different preferences in discrete choice experiments
Julian Sagebiel, Klaus Glenk, Jürgen Meyerhoff
Aim of this presentation
– Present an easy approach to attain spatially different willingness to pay from discrete choice experiments
– Exemplify it with data from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) on local land use changes
– Focus is on forest as alternative to agriculture
– Establish willingness to pay function to predict values on different spatial units
– Function depends on spatial variables
– Related to Benefit Transfer methods (Rolfe et al. 2015)
– Map WTP for German counties
2
3
Introduction: Need for valuation
– Land use conflicts and need for land use changes
– Interaction with climate change
– New political perspective on nature conversation
– E.g. Convention on Biological Diversity, European Water Framework Directive
– Sustainable land use requires incorporation of all costs and benefits
– On farm level
– Climate effects
– Societal effects e.g. landscape, aesthetic value
4
Introduction: Discrete choice experiments
– DCEs to inform policy decisions
– Several studies on land use conducted in Europe (van Zanten et al. 2014)
– Can be integrated into cost-benefit analysis
– Method to elicit willingness to pay (WTP) for non-market goods
– Survey based
– Respondents choose among alternative land use scenarios
– Alternatives vary in their attributes
5
Introduction: Willingness to pay in space
– Willingness to pay varies in space
– People have different preferences
– People have different reference points
– Several attempts to integrate space in WTP estimates
– Kriging (Campbell 2009, Czajkowski 2015)
– Global and Local Hotspots (Campbell 2008, Johnston & Ramachandran 2013, Meyerhoff 2013)
The survey
– March/April 2013
– About 1,400 randomly sampled respondents all over Germany
– Online questionnaire of about 30 minutes
– Socio-demographics
– Land use and climate change: attitudes, perceptions, knowledge
– Recreational activities
– Each respondent revealed his place of residence on a map (WGS84)
6
Spatial distribution of sample
7
The discrete choice experiment
– Local land use changes
– Within 15 kilometre radius of place of residence
– Each respondent has a unique status quo situation
– 27 choice sets in three blocks
– D-efficient design for multinomial logit model
– Minimize willingness to pay standard error
– Three alternatives of which one is status quo (“as today”)
– Six land-use related attributes
8
Attributes and levels
9
Attribute Levels
Share of forest (ShFor) As today, decrease by 10%, increase by 10%
Field size (FiSiz) As today, half the size, twice the size
Biodiversity in agrarian landscapes (Biodiv)
As today, slight increase (85 points), considerable increase (105 points)
Share of maize on arable land (ShMai)
As today, max. 30% of fields, max. 70% of fields
Share of grassland on agricultural fields (ShGra)
As today, 25%, 50%
Annual contribution to fund (Price)
0, 10, 25, 50, 80, 110, 160 €
The approach in a nutshell
10
A
B
C
D
Step A: Data preparation
11
A
B
C
D
Step A: Data preparation
– Calculate within the 15 km radius the status quo of all relevant attributes (here forest share)
– Any GIS software (ArcGIS, QGIS)
– Requires land use data
– Incorporate status quo of respondent e.g. by substituting attribute level "as today" with the status quo situation
12
Attribute level Original Coding SQ Modification
Status quo is 25% 85% 25% 85%
As today 0 0 25 85
10% less 1 1 15 75
10% more 2 2 35 95
Step A: Data preparation
13
Attribute level Original Coding SQ Modification
Status quo is 25% 85% 25% 85%
As today 0 0 25 85
10% less 1 1 15 75
10% more 2 2 35 95
Step B: Model estimation
14
A
B
C
D
Step B: Model estimation
15
Estimation Results: Coefficients
16
Coefficient Standard error
ASCsq 0.18* 0.049
ShFor 0.073* 0.0040
ShForSquared -0.00064* 0.000084
FiSiz: Half -0.24* 0.044
FiSiz: Double -0.21* 0.038
Biodiv 0.18* 0.020
ShMai 0.0080* 0.0030
ShMaiSquared -0.00020* 0.000037
ShGra 0.017* 0.0038
ShGraSquared -0.00033* 0.000067
Price -0.0067* 0.00040
* p < 0.01
Step B: Model estimation
17
Quadratic Utility Function
18
Marginal willingness to pay
19
Step C: WTP prediction
20
A
B
C
D
Step C: WTP prediction
– For each county, calculate a (discrete) distribution of forest share for the population
– Requires high resolution data on population
– Here 250x250m raster data
– Similar to step A, calculate for each raster cell the share of forest
– For each county, draw a distribution of forest share
21
Example Distribution of Forest Share
22
Step C: WTP prediction
23
Step C: WTP estimation
24
Step C: Value mapping
25
A
B
C
D
Step D: Value mapping
26
– Map the average MWTP values
– Multiply the willingness to pay with the number of eligible inhabitants and create a map with these aggregate values
– Map further statistics, e.g. the standard deviation of willingness to pay in each county
Share of forest and marginal willingness to pay
27
Results
– In general, higher MWTP where forest share is low
– But: Population density is very important
– MWTP hotspots are in the north of Germany
– Eastern Midlands are already equipped with large forests
28
Discussion
Advantages
– Straightforward estimation
– Prediction on arbitrary scales
– Inclusion of several exogenous variables possible
– Flexible utility functions possible
Limitations
– Data requirement
– Unobserved heterogeneity
– Accuracy?
29
References
– Campbell D, Scarpa R, Hutchinson W. Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences 2008;1:117–26. doi:10.1007/s12076-008-0012-6.
– Campbell D, Hutchinson WG, Scarpa R. Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements. Environment and Planning - Part A 2009;41:97–111. doi:10.1068/a4038.
– Czajkowski M, Budziński W, Campbell D, Giergiczny M, Hanley N, others. Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management. 2015.
– Johnston RJ, Ramachandran M. Modeling Spatial Patchiness and Hot Spots in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay. Environ Resource Econ 2013;59:363–87. doi:10.1007/s10640-013-9731-2.
– Meyerhoff J. Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents’ residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation? Journal of Choice Modelling 2013;7:58–71. doi:10.1016/j.jocm.2013.04.010.
– Rolfe J, Windle J, Bennett J. Benefit Transfer: Insights from Choice Experiments. In: Johnston RJ, Rolfe J, Rosenberger RS, Brouwer R, editors. Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values, Springer Netherlands; 2015, p. 191–208.
– van Zanten, B. T., Verburg, P. H., Koetse, M. J., and van Beukering, P. J. H. 2014. Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: A meta-analysis of case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132: 89–101.
30
Thank you for your time and attention
Julian SagebielIÖW – Institute for Ecological
Economy Research, [email protected]
Klaus GlenkSRUC, Edinburgh
Jürgen MeyerhoffTechnical University Berlin
Estimation Results: Statistics
32
Observations 33291
Pseudo R2 0.103
AIC 21890.5
BIC 21983.1
Chi Squared 2514.1
Lok-Lik. (Null) -12191.3
Log-Lik. -10934.3