Advertisement

Who Wants More Open Space? Study of Willingness to Be Taxed to Preserve Open Space in an Urban Environment

  • Chunhua Wang
  • Jean-Claude ThillEmail author
  • Ross Meentemeyer
Chapter
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 24)

Abstract

The presence of open space is often regarded as one of the considerations that enhance the quality of the living experience of populations in urban regions and cities and that enhance the long-term sustainability of urban environments. However, the provision of open space comes at a price. This chapter examines people’s willingness to support tax increases for the preservation of open space in a fast-growing urban area where pressure to marketize land to its highest and best use is high. In particular, we study how a respondent’s socioeconomic characteristics influence their willingness to pay in the city of Charlotte, United States. We use and analyze detailed survey data at the household level collected from a phone interview survey conducted in the Charlotte, North Carolina, area. The econometric models allow us to identify a systematic response bias which arises from protest zeros and respondents’ tendency to underreport their willingness. Results show that a respondent’s willingness is affected by the respondent’s gender, age, ethnicity, and level of educational attainment. An individual is more willing to support if the individual is younger, Caucasian, and has reached a higher level of education. Individual behaviors are aggregated to obtain the regional level of willingness. Finally, results reveal that respondents have a well-marked tendency to underreport their willingness to support and report protest zeros in the survey.

Keywords

Open space Discrete choice Willingness Taxes Response bias 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI) of North Carolina and the United States NSF ULTRA-EX Program (Grant #0948181). Professor Thill's work has also been partially funded by the Knight Professorship in Public Policy at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

References

  1. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csaski F (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on information theory. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  2. Balsdon EM (2012) Property value capitalization and municipal open space referenda. Land Econ 88:201–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates LJ, Santerre RE (2001) The public demand for open space: the case of Connecticut communities. J Urban Econ 50:97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beasley S, Workman W, Williams N (1986) Estimating amenity values of urban fringe farmland: a contingent valuation approach. Growth Chang 17:70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergstrom J, Dillman B, Stoll J (1985) Public environmental amenity benefits of private land: the case of prime agricultural land. South J Agric Econ 17:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowker JM, Didychuk D (1994) Estimation of the nonmarket benefits of agricultural land retention in eastern Canada. Agric Resour Econ Rev 23:218–255Google Scholar
  7. Boyle KJ (2003) Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 111–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brander LM, Koetse MJ (2011) The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. J Environ Manage 92:2767–2773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breffle WS, Morey ER, Lodder TS (1998) Using contingent valuation to estimate a neighbourhood’s willingness to pay to preserve undeveloped urban land. Urban Stud 35:715–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brouwer R, Martín-Ortega J (2012) Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability. Ecol Econ 34:151–166Google Scholar
  11. Bullock CH (2008) Valuing urban green space: hypothetical alternatives and the status quo. J Environ Plan Manag 51:15–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cho SH, Poudyal NC, Roberts RK (2008) Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space. Ecol Econ 66:403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89:649–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalmau-Matarrodona E (2001) Alternative approaches to obtain optimal bid values in contingent valuation studies and to model protest zeros. Estimating the determinants of Individuals’ willingness to pay for home care services in day case surgery. Health Econ 10:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dziegielewska DA, Mendelsohn R (2007) Does ‘No’ mean ‘No’? A protest methodology. Environ Resour Econ 38:71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman AM (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Halstead JM (1984) Measuring the nonmarket value of Massachusetts agricultural land: a case study. J Northeast Agric Econ Counc 13:12–19Google Scholar
  18. Halstead JM, Luloff AE, Stevens T (1992) Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeast J Agric Resour Econ 21:160–169Google Scholar
  19. Harrison GW, Rutström EE (2008) Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In: Plott C, Smith VL (eds) Handbook of experimental economics results. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Howell-Moroney M (2004) Community characteristics, open space preservation and regionalism: is there a connection? J Urban Aff 26:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howie P, Murphy SM, Wicks J (2010) An application of a stated preference method to value urban amenities. Urban Stud 47:235–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hsiao C, Sun B-H (1999) Modeling response bias-with an analysis of the demand for an advanced electronic device. J Econom 89:15–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Irwin EG (2002) The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Econ 78:465–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston R, Opaluch J, Grigalunas T, Mazzotta M (2001) Estimating amenity benefits of coastal farmland. Growth Chang 32:305–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (2000) Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for storm water pollution abatement. Ecol Econ 33:251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahn ME, Matsusaka JG (1997) Demand for environmental goods: evidence from voting patterns on California initiatives. J Law Econ 40:137–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kang CD, Cervero R (2009) From elevated freeway to urban greenway: land value impacts of the CGC project in Seoul. Korea Urban Stud 46:2771–2794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kotchen MJ, Powers SM (2006) Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation. J Environ Econ Manag 52:373–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kotchen MJ, Reiling SD (2000) Environmental attitudes. Motivations, and contingent valuation of non-use values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecol Econ 32:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lant CL, Roberts RS (1990) Greenbelts in the cornbelt: riparian wetlands, intrinsic values and market failure. Environ Plan A 22:1375–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindsey G, Knaap G (1999) Willingness to pay for urban greenway projects. J Am Plann Assoc 65:297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McConnell V, Walls M (2005) The value of open space: evidence from studies of nonmarket benefits, working paper. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Maddala GS (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2006) Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecol Econ 57:583–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Panduro TE, Veie KL (2013) Classification and valuation of urban green spaces—a hedonic house price valuation. Landsc Urban Plan 120:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pate J, Loomis J (1997) The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol Econ 20:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Romero F, Liserio A (2002) Saving open spaces: determinants of 1998 and 1999 “Antisprawl” ballot measures. Soc Sci Q 83:341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt S, Paulsen K (2009) Is open space preservation a form of exclusionary zoning? The evolution of municipal open space policies in New Jersey. Urban Aff Rev 45:92–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Solecki WD, Mason RJ, Martin S (2004) The geography of support for open-space initiatives: a case study of New Jersey’s 1988 ballot measure. Soc Sci Q 85:624–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sun B-H (1995) Econometric analysis of survey response bias-with an application to the demand for an advanced electronic device, Ph.D Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  42. Strazzera E, Scarpa R, Calia P, Garrod GD, Willis KG (2003) Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys. Appl Econ 35:133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tienhaara A, Ahtiainen H, Pouta E (2015) Consumer and citizen roles and motives in the valuation of agricultural genetic resources in Finland. Ecol Econ 75:37–44Google Scholar
  44. Treiman T, Gartner J (2006) Are residents willing to pay for their community forests? Results of a contingent valuation survey in Missouri, USA. Urban Stud 43:1537–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tyrväinen L, Väänänen H (1998) The economic value of urban forest: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landsc Urban Plan 43:105–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Werner M (1999) Allowing for zeros in Dichotomous choice contingent valuation models. J Bus Econ Stat 17:479–486Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chunhua Wang
    • 1
  • Jean-Claude Thill
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ross Meentemeyer
    • 3
  1. 1.School of International Trade and EconomicsUniversity of International Business and EconomicsBeijingChina
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Earth SciencesUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  3. 3.Department of Forestry an Environmental ResourcesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations