Potential demand for certified wood products in the United Kingdom and Norway

Forest Science

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 767-778

  Veisten, Knut ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Eco labeling; Random utility model; Sustainable forestry; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

FURNITURE MANUFACTURE; TELEPHONE; WOOD PRODUCTS;

WOODEN FURNITURE;

FORESTRY;

EID: 0036845161     PISSN: 0015749X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Adamowics, W., J. Louviere, and J. Swait. 1998. Introduction to Attribute-based Stated Choice Methods. Final report to Resource Valuation Branch, Damage Assessment Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. Advanis, Edmonton, Canada. 44 p.
2. Arrow, K.J., R. Solow, E. Leamer, P. Portney, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58:4601-4614.
3. Bateman, I.J., and K.G. Willis (eds.). 1999. Valuing Environmental Preferences: The Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 668 p.
4. Bishop, R.C., and T.A. Heberlein. 1979. Measuring values of extramarket goods: Are indirect measures biased? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 61:926-930.
5. Blumenschein K., M. Johannesson, G.C. Blomquist, B. Liljas, and R.M. O'Conor. 1998. Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. South. Econ. J. 65:169-177.
6. Bourke, I.J. 1995. International trade in forest products and the environment. Unasylva 183(46):11-17.
7. Brown, T.C., P.A. Champ, R.C. Bishop, and D.W. McCollum. 1996. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Econ. 72(2):152-166.
8. Carson, R.T., J. Louviere, D. Anderson, P. Arabie, D.S. Bunch, D. Hensher, R.M. Johnson, W.F. Kuhfeld, D. Steinberg, J. Swait, H. Timmermans, and J.B. Wiley. 1994a. Experimental analysis of choice. Market. Lett. 5(4):351-368.
9. Carson, R.T., L. Wilks, and D. Imber. 1994b. Valuing the preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone. Oxford Econ. Pap. 46:727-749.
10. Carson, R.T., T. Groves, and M.J. Machina. 2000. Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions. Draft February 2000. Dep. of Econ. Univ. of California, San Diego. 47 p.
11. Champ, P.A., R.C. Bishop, T.C. Brown, and D.W. McCollum. 1997. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 33:151-162.
12. Cummings, R.G., G.W. Harrison, and E.E. Rutström. 1995. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible? Am. Econ. Rev. 85:260-266.
13. Demoskop. 1997. Nordic Forestry: The Public Opinion in Holland, Germany and Great Britain. Rep. 7093rp01, Demoskop AB, Stockholm, Sweden. 15 p.
14. Gronroos, J.C.M., and J.L. Bowyer. 1999. Assessment of the market potential for environmentally certified wood products in new homes in Minneapolis/St. Paul and Chicago. For. Prod. J.49(6):28-34.
15. Hanemann, W.M. 1984. Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66:332-341.
16. Hanemann, W.M., and B.J. Kanninen. 1999. Statistical considerations in CVM. P. 302-441 in Valuing Environmental Preferences: The Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries, Bateman, I.J., and K.G. Willis (eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
17. Hansen, E. 1997. Forest certification and its role in marketing strategy. For. Prod. J. 47(3):16-22.
18. Hoehn, J.P., and A. Randall. 1987. A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 14:226-247.
19. Johannesson, M., B. Liljas, and P.-O. Johansson. 1998. An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation and real purchase decisions. Appl. Econ. 30:643-647.
20. Kealy, M.J., M. Montgomery, and J.F. Dovido. 1990. Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: Does the nature of the good matter? J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 19:244-263.
21. Kriström, B. 1990. A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Econ. 66(2):135-139.
22. Kriström, B. 1997. Spike models in contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 79(3):1013-1023.
23. Krueger, R.A., and M.A. Casey. 2000. Focus groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Ed. 3. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, California. 280 p.
24. Lancaster, K.J. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74:132-157.
25. Lindström, T., E. Hansen, and H. Juslin. 1999. Forest certification: The view from Europe's NIPFs (nonindustrial private forest landowners). J. For. 97(3):25-30.
26. Lober, D.J., and M.D. Eisen. 1995. The greening of retailing: Certification and the home improvement industry. J. For. 93(4):38-41.
27. Louviere, J. 1992. Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview. J. Bus. Res. 24(2):89-96.
28. Lyke, J. 1996. Forest product certification revisited: An update. J. For. 94:16-20.
29. Mater, J. 1995. Certified forest products: Building tomorrow's market today. J. For. 93(4):36-37.
30. McFadden, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics, Zarembka, P. (ed.). Academic Press, New York.
31. McFadden, D. 1986. The choice theory approach to market research. Market. Sci. 5(4):275-297.
32. Mitchell, R.C., and R.D. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the future, Washington DC. 488 p.
33. MMI. 1997. Holdninger til Skog, Skogbruk og Skogprodukter. (In Norwegian) Report, May 26 1997, Markeds- og Mediainstituttet as (MMI). Norway. 63 p.
34. Ozanne, L.K., and R.P. Vlosky. 1996. Wood products environmental certification: The United States perspective. For. Chron. 72(2):157-165.
35. Ozanne, L.K., and R.P. Vlosky. 1997. Willingness to pay for environmentally certified wood products: A consumer perspective. For. Prod. J. 47(6):39-48.
36. Ozanne, L.K., and P.M. Smith. 1996. Consumer segments for environmentally marketed wooden household furniture. Wood Fiber Sci. 28(4):461-477.
37. Pajari, B., T. Peck, and E. Rametsteiner. 1999. Potential markets for certified forest products in Europe. EFI Proc. No. 25, Eur. For. Inst. Finland. 352 p.
38. Randall, A. 1987. Resource Economics: An Economic Approach to Natural Resource and Environmental Policy. Ed. 2. Wiley, New York. 448 p.
39. Rametsteiner, E., P. Schwarzbauer, H. Juslin, J. Kärnä, R. Cooper, J. Samuel, M. Becker, and T. Kühn. 1998. Potential Markets for Certified Forest Products in Europe. Discussion Pap. No. 2, Eur. For. Inst. Finland. 24 p.
40. Ready, R.C., S. Navrud, and W.R. Dubourg. 2001. How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions? Land Econ. 77:315-326.
41. Research International. 1997. Qualitative Research: For. Rep. 4740, June 13 1997, Res. Internat., United Kingdom.
42. Rosen, S. 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. J. Polit.Econ. 82:34-55.
43. SAS 1997. SAS/STAT (R) User's Guide - Version 6. 4th Edition. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina. 1848 p.
44. SHAZAM 1997. Shazam User's Reference Manual, Version 8.0. McGraw-Hill, New York. 224 p.
45. Varian, H.R. 1992. Microeconomic Analysis. Ed. 3. Norton & Company, New York.
46. Vlosky, R.P., and L.K. Ozanne. 1997. Forest products certification: The business customer perspective. Wood Fiber Sci. 29(2):195-208.