Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 335-348

  Biénabe, Estelle ^a   Hearne, Robert R ^b  

^a CIRAD   (France)

^b NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Choice experiments; Costa Rica; Forest policy; Payments for environmental services; Scenic beauty

Indexed keywords

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; FOREST POLICY; PAYMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES; SCENIC BEAUTY;

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FORESTRY; PUBLIC POLICY;

BIODIVERSITY;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS; FORESTRY;

EID: 33751114157     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2005.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., and Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (1998) 64-75
2. Andréoni J. Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy 97 (1989) 1447-1458
3. Blamey R., Bennett J., Louviere J., Morrison M., and Rolfe J. A test of policy labels in environmental choice modeling studies. Ecological Economics 32 (2000) 269-286
4. Campos Arce J., Camacho Calvo M., Villalobos Soto R., Rodríguez M., and Gómez Flores M. La tala ilegal en Costa Rica-Un análisis para la discusión. CATIE report, Turrialba, Dec. 2001. (2001)
5. Collins A., Rosenberger R., and Fletcher J. The economic value of stream restoration. Water Resources Research 41 (2005) W02017 10.1029/2004WR003353
6. De Camino R., Segura O., Guillermo Arias L., and Perez I. Costa Rica Forest Strategy and the Evolution of Land Use. Evaluation Country Case Study Series (2000), World Bank, Washington D.C.
7. Diamond P., and Hausman J. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (1994) 45-64
8. FONAFIFO. The Development of the Forestry Environmental Services Payment Program in Costa Rica. FONAFIFO. San José, Costa Rica (2000)
9. FONAFIFO, 2000b. Estudio de cobertura boscosa tropical de Costa Rica con imágenes Landsat TM para el año 2001. CCT, San José, Costa Rica.
10. Garrod G.D., and Willis K.G. The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: a contingent ranking study. Ecological Economics 21 (1997) 45-61
11. Greene W. LIMDEP Version 8.0 (2002), Econometric Software, Plainview, NY
12. Greene W. Econometric Analysis (2003), Prentice Hall, Saddle River
13. Haltia O., and Keipi K. Financing Forest Investments in Latin America: the Issue of Incentives, IDB Report No ENV-113 (1997), InterAmerican Development Bank, Washington D.C.
14. Hanley N., MacMillan D., Wright R., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., and Crabtree B. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 49 (1998) 1-15
15. Jimenez M. Estado de la diversidad biológica de las árboles y bosques en Costa Rica. Working paper FAO FGR/46S, Sept. 2003. (2003)
16. Kaimowitz D. Livestock and Deforestation in Central America in the 1980's and 1990's: a Policy Perspective, EPTD Discussion Paper (1995), IFPRI, Washington DC
17. Kahneman D., and Knetsch J. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 (1992) 57-70
18. Kling C., and Thomson C. The implication of model specification for welfare estimation in nested logit models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78 (1996) 103-114
19. Krueger R. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (1994), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
20. Kuhfeld F. Multinomial logit, discrete choice modelling-an introduction to designing choice experiments, and collecting, processing, and analysing choice data with the SAS System, Technical support document, SAS Institute Inc. Available at (2000). http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~balemi/Choice.pdf consulted March 2005
21. Louviere J., Hensher D., and Swait J. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
22. McNeely J. Economic incentives for conserving biodiversity: lessons from Africa. Ambio 22 (1993) 2-3
23. MINAE, 2002. El éxito forestal de Costa Rica en cinco casos. MINAE, SINAC, OBF, PNUD, San José, Costa Rica.
24. OECD. Préserver la diversité biologique. Les incitations économiques (1996), OECD, Paris
25. Pearce D., and Özdemiroglu E. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques-Summary Guide. Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, London, March 2002 (2002)
26. Perrings C., Barbier E., Brown G., Dalmazzone S., Folke C., Gadgil M., Hanley N., Holling C., Lesser W.H., Mäler K.G., Mason P., Panayotou T., Turner R.K., and Wells M. The economic value of biodiversity. In: Heywood V.H., and Watson R. (Eds). Global Biodiversity Assessment, published for the United Nations Environment Programme (1995), Cambridge University Press, Great Britain 823-914
27. Swait J., and Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and the comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 30 (1993) 305-314
28. Zwerina K., Huber J., and Kuhfed. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. Technical support document, SAS Institute Inc (1996). http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/ts722e.pdf Available at http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/ts722e.pdf. Consulted March, 2005.