Valuing rivers and wetlands: A meta analysis of CM values
Roy Brouwer and John Rolfe
Outline of this talk
• Benefits transfer & meta-analysis
• Database
• Statistical results
Benefit transfer
• The transfer of values from one case study to another policy situation
• Attractive because of cost and time advantages over the separate conduct of non-market valuation experiments
• Can be complex because source and target sites may not be identical – Benefit transfer may involve some adjustment of values– BT may be associated with increased uncertainty about
values
Three main approaches to BT
• ‘The Prospector’ – searches for suitable previous studies and transfers results across to target site
• ‘The Systematic’ – designs a database of values suitable for benefit transfer
• ‘The Bayesian’ – combines both a review of previous studies with potential data gathering
5
Survey site:
Values = αs + βs1Xs1 + βs2Xs2
Policy site:
Valuep = αs + βs1Xp1 + βs2Xp2
How a benefit transfer function works
X1 : site and good characteristicsX2 : population characteristics
Stages in BT process
# Stage Notes 1 Assess target situation 2 Identify source studies available and select
benefit transfer type Transfer type largely dependent on source studies available
3 Assess site differences (a) identify if BT possible (b) identify basis for BT adjustment
4 Assess population differences (a) identify if BT possible (b) identify basis for BT adjustment
5 Assess scale of change in both cases (a) identify if BT possible (b) identify basis for BT adjustment
6 Assess framing issues (scope, scale, instrument, payment vehicle, payment length, willingness-to-pay or willingness-to-accept format used, use versus non-use)
(a) test if source study is appropriate for BT
(b) Identify any basis for BT adjustment
7 Assess statistical modelling issues (a) identify appropriateness of model in source study
(b) Identify any basis for BT adjustment
8 Perform benefit transfer process
Key mechanisms for benefit transfer
• Point – total value – Total value from a previous study
• Point – marginal value – Value per unit transferred
• Benefit function transfer– Function allows adjustments for site and
population differences
• Integrations across multiple studies– Meta analysis – Bayesian methods
Meta analysis
• Meta-analysis for use in benefit transfer involves the summarizing of results for several existing source studies in a regression function,
• This function is then used to predict value estimates for a target site
• Often difficult to do in practice because of methodological and framing differences between studies
9
Survey sites:
Values = αs + βs1Xs1 + βs2Xs2+ βs3Xs3
Policy sites:
Valuep = αs + βs1Xp1 + βs2Xp2+ βs3Xp3
Meta-analysis
X1 : site and good characteristicsX2 : population characteristicsX3 : study characteristics
10
Meta-analysis• Statistical analysis of the summary findings of
empirical studies
• Helpful tool to summarize and explain differences in outcomes
• Advantages:
- transparant structure to understand underlying patterns of assumptions, relations and causalities
- avoids selective inclusion of studies and weighting of findings
11
Main objective of this study
• Meta-analysis of Australian water valuation studies
• Different studies, different values
• Policy need for more structured overview of existing values and their usefulness in policy analysis
• Comparability of results and insight in transfer errors
12
When to apply Benefits Transfer?
• = When to apply monetary economic valuation?
• Never as good as original valuation study!
• Consider a priori what is acceptable transfer error
• Use meta-analysis if possible
• Build databases (EVRI)
• Strict reporting requirements (wider applicability of results) more emphasis on meaning, interpretability and potential use of results in different policy contexts
• Often BT remains matter of expert judgement
13
Overview (1)• 8 discrete choice studies related to rivers in Australia1. Blamey, R., Gordon, J., Chapman, R. (1999). Choice modelling: assessing the environmental
values of water supply options. AJARE, 43(3): 337-357.2. Rolfe, J., Loch, A., Bennett, J. (2002). Tests of benefits transfer across sites and population in
the Fitzroy basin. Valuing floodplain development in the Fitzroy basin Research Report no.4.3. Windle, J. and Rolfe, J. (2004). Assessing values for estuary protection with choice modelling
using different payment mechanisms. Valuing floodplain development in the Fitzroy basin Research Report no.10.
4. Van Bueren, M. and Bennett, J. (2004). Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes. AJARE, 48(1): 1-32.
5. Morrison, M. and Benett, J. (2004). Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefits transfer. AJARE, 48(4): 591-611.
6. Rolfe, J. and Windle, J. (2005). Valuing options for reserve water in the Fitzroy basin. AJARE, 49: 91-114.
7. Windle, J. and Rolfe, J. (2006). Non market values for improved NRM outcomes in Queensland. Research report 2 in the non-market valuation component of AGSIP project # 13.
8. Kragt, M., Bennett, J., Lloyd, C., Dumsday. R. (2007). Comparing choice models of river health improvement for the Goulburn River. Paper presented at 51st AARES conference.
14
Overview (2)• 4 journal papers (AJARE)• 3 research reports• 1 conference paper• WTP for improvement in river flows, waterway
restoration, healthy rivers, water dependent wildlife, water quality (recreational use)
• 93 observations in total (implicit prices)• 12 observations per study on average• Range of observations per study: 1-36• Author bias: Bennett & Rolfe both in 4 studies
15
Time coverage : 1997-2006Spatial coverage: see Fig
16
Overview (3)
17
Overview (4)
18
Overview (5)
19
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Observation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Imp
licit
pri
ce (
WT
P)
StudyBueren-Bennett
Morrison-Bennett
Blamey et al.
Rolfe et al.
WindleRolfe(2004)
RolfeWindle(2005)
WindleRolfe(2006)
Kragt et al.
Response variable
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Kragt et al. (2007)
Windle & Rolfe (2006)
Rolfe and Windle (2005)
Van Bueren & Bennett (2004)
Morrison & Bennett (2004)
Windle & Rolfe (2004)
Rolfe et al. (2002)
Blamey et al. (1999)
Response variable
Influences on the precision of implicit prices
• Variation coefficients calculated from confidence intervals and cross tabulated with study characteristics
• Mann-Whitney tests used to calculate differences– No difference between annual and regular payments
– Sample size correlated with precision• Sample of less than 200 generate low levels of precision
– Mail more precise than drop-off&collect
– Nested logit more precise than conditional logit
Study characteristic Mean 95% CI n MW-Z p <
Periodicity
Annual payments 43.4 24.5-62.2 51
One-time-off payments 29.9 24.9-34.9 61 -0.772 0.440
Sample size
200 48.7 29.6-67.8 49
201-300 29.6 21.4-37.8 27 -2.709 0.0071
301-500 28.3 14.2-42.3 15 -0.714 0.4752
>500 18.7 12.2-25.1 16 -1.791 0.0733
Survey method
Mail 26.7 21.7-31.8 64
Drop off - pickup 49.2 28.8-69.6 46 -4.014 0.001
Payment vehicle
Water rate 28.0 21.4-34.5 46 -0.229 0.819a
Local tax 25.6 19.9-31.4 29 -1.645 0.100b
Environmental levy 29.9 23.8-36.1 9 -1.223 0.221c
Trust fund 37.3 32.4-42.2 16 -1.868 0.062d
Statistical model
Conditional logit 45.2 28.7-61.7 57
Nested logit 28.2 22.0-34.4 50 -3.317 0.001
Multivariate analysis
• Responses combined in a random effects Tobit regression model– Random effects captures heteroscedasticity
• Implicit prices regressed against a number of potential explanatory factors
Fixed effects
Tobit model
Random effects
Tobit model
Covariate Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error
Good and site characteristics
Water quality 0.939* 0.513 1.177** 0.514
Healthy wetlands -1.943*** 0.523 -2.102*** 0.469
Native vegetation -1.455*** 0.517 -1.211** 0.506
Native fish species -1.222** 0.513 -0.878* 0.495
Water birds -1.401*** 0.459 -1.074** 0.435
Option value 1.517*** 0.334 1.307*** 0.328
Fitzroy catchment -0.771*** 0.294 -0.955*** 0.289
Study characteristics
Study carried out before 2000 2.765*** 0.600 - -
Study carried out after 2000 -0.439** 0.200 - -
Sample size -0.002*** 0.0004 -0.003*** 0.0004
Mail survey 2.624*** 0.512 2.318*** 0.481
Number of cards shown = 6 1.909*** 0.322 2.042*** 0.326
Number of cards shown > 6 0.562* 0.328 1.080*** 0.242
Payment vehicle = local tax 0.629** 0.293 0.440 0.287
Accuracy (standard error) 0.019*** 0.006 0.020*** 0.006
Significant design effects
• Year of study
• Sample size
• Mail survey
• Number of choice sets
• Payment vehicle
• Accuracy
26
Challenges• Low number of observations
• Wide variety of attributes
• Different measurement units (some imprecise)
• Small number of people doing the research >> researcher bias (advantage: easy to contact)
• Meaningfulness of attributes to policy & lay public?