The effects of personal experience on choice-based preferences for wildfire protection programs

被引:21
作者
Holmes, Thomas P. [1 ]
Gonzalez-Caban, Armando [2 ]
Loomis, John [3 ]
Sanchez, Jose [2 ]
机构
[1] USDA, Southern Res Stn, Forest Serv, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27709 USA
[2] USDA, Pacific Southwest Res Stn, Forest Serv, Riverside, CA 92507 USA
[3] Colorado State Univ, Dept Agr & Resource Econ, Ft Collins, CO 80526 USA
关键词
expected utility; heuristics; natural disasters; prospect theory; risk aversion; risk seeking; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DECISION RULES; INSURANCE; UTILITY; MODELS; HEALTH;
D O I
10.1071/WF11182
中图分类号
S7 [林业];
学科分类号
0829 ; 0907 ;
摘要
In this paper, we investigate homeowner preferences and willingness to pay for wildfire protection programs using a choice experiment with three attributes: risk, loss and cost. Preference heterogeneity among survey respondents was examined using three econometric models and risk preferences were evaluated by comparing willingness to pay for wildfire protection programs against expected monetary losses. The results showed that while nearly all respondents had risk seeking preferences, a small segment of respondents were risk neutral or risk averse. Only respondents who had personal experience with the effects of wildfire consistently made trade-offs among risk, loss and cost and these respondents were willing to pay more for wildfire protection programs than were respondents without prior experience of the effects of wildfire. The degree to which people with prior experience with the effects of wildfire can effectively articulate an economic rationale for investing in wildfire protection to other members of their own or other communities facing the threat of wildfires may influence the overall success of wildfire protection programs.
引用
收藏
页码:234 / 245
页数:12
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]   Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: An analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods [J].
Adamowicz, Wiktor ;
Dupont, Diane ;
Krupnick, Alan ;
Zhang, Jing .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2011, 61 (02) :213-226
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2002, DISCRETE CHOICE METH
[3]   Emotions and decision rules in discrete choice experiments for valuing health care programmes for the elderly [J].
Arana, Jorge E. ;
Leon, Carmelo J. ;
Hanemann, Michael W. .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2008, 27 (03) :753-769
[4]   Understanding the use of non-compensatory decision rules in discrete choice experiments: The role of emotions [J].
Arana, Jorge E. ;
Leon, Carmelo J. .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2009, 68 (8-9) :2316-2326
[5]  
Arrow K., 1993, Federal Register, V58, P4601
[6]  
Bennett J, 2001, NEW HOR ENV ECO, P37
[7]   Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: A latent class approach [J].
Boxall, PC ;
Adamowicz, WL .
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2002, 23 (04) :421-446
[8]  
Boyle K.J., 2003, PRIMER NONMARKET VAL, P111, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6_5
[9]   The demand for flood insurance: Empirical evidence [J].
Browne, MJ ;
Hoyt, RE .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2000, 20 (03) :291-306
[10]   DECISION-PROCESSES FOR LOW PROBABILITY EVENTS - POLICY IMPLICATIONS [J].
CAMERER, CF ;
KUNREUTHER, H .
JOURNAL OF POLICY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT, 1989, 8 (04) :565-592