Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 539-550

  Pouta, Eija ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Beliefs; Forest attributes; Regeneration cuttings

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION; FOREST REGENERATION; LOGIT MODELS; UNEMPLOYMENT;

EMPLOYMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PUBLIC POLICY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

FORESTRY;

EMPLOYMENT; FORESTRY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SENSITIVITY;

EID: 13444256581     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2003.09.002     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Ajzen I., Fishbein M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. 1980;Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
2. Arrow K., Solow R., Leamer E., Portney P., Randner R., Schuman H. Natural resource damage assessment under the oil pollution act of 1990. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel. Federal Register. 58:1993;4601-4614
3. Carson R.T. Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. Kopp R.J., Pommerehne W.W., Schwarz N. Determining the Value of Non-marketed Goods: Economics, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods. 1997;127-163 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, MA, USA
4. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. The issue of the scope in contingent valuation studies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 75:1993;1263-1267
5. Carson R., Mitchell R. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 28:1995;155-173
6. Daniel T., Brown T., King D., Righards M., Stewart W. Perceived scenic beauty and contingent valuation of forest campgrounds. Forest Science. 35:1989;76-90
7. Desvouges W.H., Johnson F.R., Dinford R.W., Boyle K.J., Hudson S.P., Wilson K.N. Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: test of validity and reliability. Hausman J.A. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. 1993;91-159 North-Holland Publishers, Amsterdam
8. Diamond P.A., Hausman J.A., Leonard G.K., Denning M.A. Does contingent valuation measure preferences. Hausman J.A. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. 1993;41-85 North-Holland Publishers, Amsterdam
9. Fischhoff B., Furby L. Measuring values: a conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1:1988;147-184
10. Frederick S., Fischhoff B. Scope (in)sensitivity in elicited valuations. Risk Decision and Policy. 3:1998;109-123
11. Giraud K.L., Loomis J.B., Johnson R.L. Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. Journal of Environmental Management. 56:1999;221-229
12. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 66:1984;332-341
13. Hellström, E., 2001. Conflict cultures - qualitative comparative analysis of environmental conflicts in forestry. Silva Fennica, Monographs 2, 109
14. Hovenagel R. The validity of the contingent valuation method: perfect and regular embedding. Environmental and Resource Economics. 7:1996;57-78
15. Kahneman D., Knetsch J. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 22:1992;57-70
16. Li, C.-Z., Kuuluvainen, J., Pouta, E., Rekola, M., Tahvonen, O., 2001. Using choice experiments to value Natura 2000 nature conservation program in Finland. Helsingin yliopisto - University of Helsinki, Metsäekonomian laitos - Department of Forest Economics, Tutkimusraportteja - Reports 18, p. 18
17. Loomis J., Lockwood M., DeLacy T. Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 24:1993;45-55
18. Mattsson L., Li C.-Z. How do different forest management practices affect the non-timber value of forest? An economic analysis. Journal of Environmental Management. 41:1994;79-88
19. Pouta, E. Attitude and belief questions as a source of context effect in a contingent valuation survey. Journal of Economic Psychology, in press
20. Pouta E., Rekola M. The theory of planned behavior in predicting willingness to pay for abatement of forest regeneration. Society and Natural Resources. 14:2001;93-106
21. Pouta, E., Sievänen, T., 2001. Luonnon virkistyskäytön kysyntätutkimuksen tulokset - Kuinka suomalaiset ulkoilevat? Results of the demand study. In: Sievänen, T. (Eds.), Luonnon virkistyskäyttö 2000. Summary: Outdoor recreation 2000. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja, 802, pp. 32-76, 195-196
22. Schkade D.A., Payne J.W. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 26:1994;88-109
23. Smith V.K., Osborne L.L. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a 'scope' test? A Meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 31:1996;287-301
24. Smith V.K., Zhang X., Palmquist R.B. Marine debris, beach quality, and non-market values. Environmental and Resource Economics. 10:1997;223-247
25. Svedsäter H. Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: test of perfect and regular embedding. Journal of Economic Psychology. 21:2000;605-623
26. Walsh R.G., Ward F.A., Olienyk J.P. Recreational demand for trees in National Forests. Journal of Environmental Management. 28:1989;255-268
27. Walsh R.D., Bjonback R.D., Aiken R.A., Rosenthal D.H. Estimating the public benefits of protecting forest quality. Journal of Environmental Management. 30:1990;175-189