Using Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept to Value Farmland Preservation under Ambiguous Property Rights and Preference Uncertainty

References

1. ↵
   1. Androkovich Robert,
   2. Desjardins Ivan,
   3. Tarzwell Gordon,
   4. Tsigari Peter

   . 2008. “Land Preservation in British Columbia: An Empirical Analysis of the Factors Underlying Public Support and Willingness to Pay.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40 (3): 999–1013.

   OpenUrl
2. ↵
   1. Arrow Kenneth,
   2. Solow Robert,
   3. Portney Paul R.,
   4. Leamer Edward E.,
   5. Radner Roy,
   6. Schuman Howard

   . 1993. “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58 (10): 4601–14.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Bateman Ian J.,
   2. Carson R. T.,
   3. Day Brett,
   4. Hanemann Michael,
   5. Hanley Nick,
   6. Hett Tannis,
   7. Jones-Lee Michael

   , et al. 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
4. ↵
   1. Bergstrom John C.,
   2. Ready Richard C.

   . 2009. “What Have We Learned from over 20 Years of Farmland Amenity Valuation Research in North America?” Review of Agricultural Economics 31 (1): 21–49.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
5. ↵
   1. Boas Taylor C.,
   2. Christenson Dino P.,
   3. Glick David M.

   . 2020. “Recruiting Large Online Samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics.” Political Science Research and Methods 8 (2): 232–50.

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   1. Carson Richard T.,
   2. Groves Theodore

   . 2007. “Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (1): 181–210.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
7. ↵
   1. Champ Patricia,
   2. Bishop Richard C.

   . 2001. “Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias.” Environmental and Resource Economics 19 (4): 383–402.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
8. ↵
   1. Duke Joshua M.,
   2. Borchers Allison M.,
   3. Johnston Robert J.,
   4. Absetz Sarah

   . 2012. “Sustainable Agricultural Management Contracts: Using Choice Experiments to Estimate the Benefits of Land Preservation and Preservation Practices.” Ecological Economics 74: 95–103.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
9. ↵
   1. Groothuis Peter A.,
   2. Whitehead John C.

   . 2002. “Does Don’t Know Mean No? Analysis of ‘Don’t Know’ Responses in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions.” Applied Economics 34 (15): 1935–40.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. ↵
    1. Haarsma Darren,
    2. Qiu Feng

    . 2017. “Assessing Neighbor and Population Growth Influences on Agricultural Land Conversion.” Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy 10 (1): 21–41.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Hanemann W. Michael

    . 1978. “A Methodological and Empirical Study of the Recreation Benefits from Water Quality Improvement.” Working paper. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California.
12. ↵
    1. Hanemann W. Michael

    . 1984. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (3): 332–41.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
13. ↵
    1. Hanemann W. Michael

    . 1991. “Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?” American Economic Review 81 (3): 635–47.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
14. ↵
    1. Hensher David,
    2. Shore Nina,
    3. Train Kenneth

    . 2005. “Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes.” Environmental and Resource Economics 32(4): 509–31.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Herriges Joseph,
    2. Kling Catherine,
    3. Liu Chih-Chen,
    4. Tobias Justin

    . 2010. “What Are the Consequences of Consequentiality?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59 (1): 67–81.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
16. 1. Horowitz John K.,
    2. McConnell Kenneth E.

    . 2002. “A Review of WTA/WTP Studies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (3): 426–47.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
17. ↵
    1. Johnston Robert J.,
    2. Boyle Kenneth J.,
    3. Adamowicz Wiktor,
    4. Bennett Jeff,
    5. Brouwer Roy,
    6. Cameron Trudy Ann,
    7. Hanemann W. Michael

    , et al. 2017. “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4 (2): 319–405.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
18. ↵
    1. Kaplinsky Eran,
    2. Percy David

    . 2014. A Guide to Property Rights in Alberta. Alberta Land Institute. Available at https://www.albertalandinstitute.ca/public/download/documents/10432.
19. ↵
    1. Kim Younjun,
    2. Kling Catherine L.,
    3. Zhao Jinhua

    . 2015. “Understanding Behavioral Explanations of the WTP-WTA Divergence through a Neoclassical Lens: Implications for Environmental Policy.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 7 (1): 169–87.

    OpenUrl
20. ↵
    1. Kline Jeffrey,
    2. Wichelns Dennis

    . 1994. “Using Referendum Data to Characterize Public Support for Purchasing Development Rights to Farmland.” Land Economics 70 (2): 223–33.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
21. ↵
    1. Kline Jeffrey,
    2. Wichelns Dennis

    . 1998. “Measuring Heterogeneous Preferences for Preserving Farmland and Open Space.” Ecological Economics 26 (2): 211–24.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
22. ↵
    1. Knetsch Jack L.

    2007. “Biased Valuations, Damage Assessments, and Policy Choices: The Choice of Measure Matters.” Ecological Economics 63 (4): 684–89.

    OpenUrl
23. ↵
    1. Knetsch Jack L.

    2020. “Behavioural Economics, Benefit-Cost Analysis, and the WTP versus WTA Choice.” International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 14 (2-3): 153–96.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Li Chuan-Zhong,
    2. Kuuluvainen Jari,
    3. Pouta Eija,
    4. Rekola Mika,
    5. Tahvonen Olli

    . 2004. “Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland.” Environmental and Resource Economics 29 (3): 361–74.

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. Lloyd-Smith Patrick,
    2. Adamowicz Wiktor

    . 2018. “Can Stated Measures of Willingness-to-Accept Be Valid? Evidence from Laboratory Experiments.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 91: 133–49.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Loomis John B.

    2014. “2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39 (1): 34–46.

    OpenUrl
27. ↵
    1. Lopez-Becerra Erasmo,
    2. Alcon Francisco

    . 2021. “Social Desirability Bias in the Environmental Economic Valuation: An Inferred Valuation Approach.” Ecological Economics 184: 106988.

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. McFadden Daniel

    . 1974. “The Measurement of Urban Travel Demand.” Journal of Public Economics 3 (4): 303–28.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
29. ↵
    1. Ready Richard,
    2. Champ Patricia A.,
    3. Lawton Jennifer L.

    . 2010. “Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment.” Land Economics 86 (2): 363–81.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
30. ↵
    1. Rose John M.,
    2. Bliemer Michiel C. J.,
    3. Hensher David A.,
    4. Collins Andrew T.

    . 2008. “Designing Efficient Stated Choice Experiments in the Presence of Reference Alternatives.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 42 (4): 395–406.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    Statistics Canada. n.d. “Table 32-10-0153-01: Total Area of Farms and Use of Farm Land, Historical Data.” https://doi.org/10.25318/3210015301-eng.
32. ↵
    1. Tunçel Tuba,
    2. Hammitt James K.

    . 2014. “A New Meta-analysis on the WTP/WTA Disparity.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 68 (1): 175–87.

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Tversky A.,
    2. Kahneman D.

    . 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263–91.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
34. ↵
    1. Vossler Christian A.,
    2. Doyon Maurice,
    3. Rondeau Daniel

    . 2012. “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4 (4): 145–71.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
35. ↵
    1. Wang Haoluan,
    2. Swallow Brent M.

    . 2016. “Optimizing Expenditures for Agricultural Land Conservation: Spatially-Explicit Estimation of Benefits, Budgets, Costs and Targets.” Land Use Policy 59: 272–83.

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Willis Ken

    . 1982. “Green Belts: An Economic Appraisal of a Physical Planning Policy.” Planning Outlook 25 (2): 62–69.

    OpenUrlCrossRef