Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea20/304623.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests

Author

Listed:
  • Atallah, Shadi S.
  • Huang, Ju-Chin
  • Leahy, Jessica
  • Bennett, Karen

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea20:304623
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.304623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/304623/files/19341.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.304623?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blamey, Russell K. & Gordon, Jenny & Chapman, Ross, 1999. "Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 43(3), pages 1-21, September.
    2. Fleischer, Aliza & Shafir, Sharoni & Mandelik, Yael, 2013. "A proactive approach for assessing alternative management programs for an invasive alien pollinator species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 126-132.
    3. Richard Cornes, 1993. "Dyke Maintenance and Other Stories: Some Neglected Types of Public Goods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(1), pages 259-271.
    4. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
    5. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    6. William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf, 2001. "Discrete Choice with Social Interactions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(2), pages 235-260.
    7. Costello, Christopher & Quérou, Nicolas & Tomini, Agnes, 2017. "Private eradication of mobile public bads," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 23-44.
    8. Opaluch James J. & Swallow Stephen K. & Weaver Thomas & Wessells Christopher W. & Wichelns Dennis, 1993. "Evaluating Impacts from Noxious Facilities: Including Public Preferences in Current Siting Mechanisms," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 41-59, January.
    9. Andrew A. Goett & Kathleen Hudson & Kenneth E. Train, 2000. "Customers' Choice Among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-28.
    10. Meldrum, James R. & Champ, Patricia A. & Bond, Craig A., 2013. "Heterogeneous nonmarket benefits of managing white pine bluster rust in high-elevation pine forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 61-77.
    11. Rebecca S. Epanchin-Niell & James E. Wilen, 2015. "Individual and Cooperative Management of Invasive Species in Human-mediated Landscapes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 180-198.
    12. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    13. Stoneman, P, 1981. "Intra-Firm Diffusion, Bayesian Learning and Profitability," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(362), pages 375-388, June.
    14. Oleg Sheremet & John R. Healey & Christopher P. Quine & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Public Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Forest Disease Control in the UK," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 781-800, September.
    15. Sims, Charles & Aadland, David & Finnoff, David, 2010. "A dynamic bioeconomic analysis of mountain pine beetle epidemics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 2407-2419, December.
    16. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    17. Burnett, Kimberly M., 2006. "Introductions of Invasive Species: Failure of the Weaker Link," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(1), pages 1-8, April.
    18. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    19. Manski, Charles F., 1993. "Dynamic choice in social settings : Learning from the experiences of others," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1-2), pages 121-136, July.
    20. Shady S. Atallah & Miguel I. Gómez & Jon M. Conrad, 2017. "Specification of Spatial-Dynamic Externalities and Implications for Strategic Behavior in Disease Control," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 209-229.
    21. Horie, Tetsuya & Haight, Robert G. & Homans, Frances R. & Venette, Robert C., 2013. "Optimal strategies for the surveillance and control of forest pathogens: A case study with oak wilt," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 78-85.
    22. Paulo Nunes & Jeroen van den Bergh, 2004. "Can People Value Protection against Invasive Marine Species? Evidence from a Joint TC–CV Survey in the Netherlands," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 517-532, August.
    23. Jack Hirshleifer, 1983. "From weakest-link to best-shot: The voluntary provision of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 371-386, January.
    24. Eli Fenichel & Timothy Richards & David Shanafelt, 2014. "The Control of Invasive Species on Private Property with Neighbor-to-Neighbor Spillovers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(2), pages 231-255, October.
    25. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    26. Moore, Christopher C. & Holmes, Thomas P. & Bell, Kathleen P., 2011. "An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 35-52, January.
    27. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    2. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    3. Costello, Christopher & Quérou, Nicolas & Tomini, Agnes, 2017. "Private eradication of mobile public bads," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 23-44.
    4. Yoo, Do-il, 2012. "Individual and Social Learning in Bio-technology Adoption: The Case of GM Corn in the U.S," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124975, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Walker, Joan & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2002. "Generalized random utility model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 303-343, July.
    6. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    7. Oleg Sheremet & John R. Healey & Christopher P. Quine & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Public Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Forest Disease Control in the UK," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 781-800, September.
    8. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    9. F. Reed Johnson & Melissa Ruby Banzhaf & William H. Desvousges, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple‐format, stated‐preference approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 295-317, June.
    10. Atallah, Shadi S., 2017. "The bio-economics of managing invasive plant externalities in forests with heterogeneous landowner preferences," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258540, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    12. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    13. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Weidenholzer, Simon, 2014. "Imitation and the role of information in overcoming coordination failures," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 397-411.
    14. Shady S. Atallah & Miguel I. Gómez & Jon M. Conrad, 2017. "Specification of Spatial-Dynamic Externalities and Implications for Strategic Behavior in Disease Control," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(2), pages 209-229.
    15. Eli Fenichel & Timothy Richards & David Shanafelt, 2014. "The Control of Invasive Species on Private Property with Neighbor-to-Neighbor Spillovers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(2), pages 231-255, October.
    16. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    17. Habtamu Tilahun Kassahun & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen & Joffre Swait & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2020. "Social Cooperation in the Context of Integrated Private and Common Land Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(1), pages 105-136, January.
    18. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    19. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    20. Asher A. Blass & Saul Lach & Charles F. Manski, 2010. "Using Elicited Choice Probabilities To Estimate Random Utility Models: Preferences For Electricity Reliability," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(2), pages 421-440, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource/Energy Economics and Policy; Community/Rural/Urban Development;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea20:304623. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.