20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis

Journal of Forest Economics

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 251-277

  Lindhjem, Henrik ^a,b  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^b ECON   (Norway)

Author keywords

Finland; Meta analysis; Non timber forest benefits; Norway; Stated preferences; Sweden

Indexed keywords

REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOCIAL ASPECTS; SURVEYS;

META-REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NON-TIMBER FOREST BENEFITS; STATED PREFERENCE SURVEYS;

FORESTRY;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; META-ANALYSIS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FORESTRY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOCIOLOGY; SURVEYS;

EURASIA; EUROPE; FINLAND; NORTHERN EUROPE; NORWAY; SCANDINAVIA; SWEDEN;

EID: 33845899667     PISSN: 11046899     EISSN: 16181530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2006.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. Arrow K.J., Solow R., Leamer E., Portney P., Radner R., and Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58 (1993) 4601-4614
2. Bateman I.J., and Jones A.P. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. Land Economics 79 2 (2003) 235-258
3. Bateman, I., Munro, A., 2005. Household vs. Individual Valuation: What's the Difference? European Association of Environmental and Resource Economics, Bremen.
4. Bijmolt T.H.A., and Pieters R.G.M. Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters 12 2 (2001) 157-169
5. Bojö, J., 1985. Kostnadsnyttoanalys av fjällnära skogar: Fallet Vålådalen (Cost-benefit analysis of mountainous forests: the Vala Valley Case). Research Report, The Economic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics.
6. Boman M. Estimating costs and genetic benefits of various sizes of predator populations: the case of Bear, Wolf, Wolverine and Lynx in Sweden. Journal of Environmental Management 43 4 (1995) 349-357
7. Bostedt, G., 1997. Public goods in Swedish forests: essays on nonmarket valuation and environmental policy. Ph.D. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.
8. Bostedt, G., Mattson, L., 1991. Skogens betydelse för turismen: En samhällsekonomisk pilotstudie (The importance of forests for tourism: a pilot cost-benefit analysis). Arbetsrapport 141, Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.
9. Bostedt G., and Mattsson L. The value of forests for tourism in Sweden. Annals of Tourism Research 22 3 (1995) 671-680
10. Boyle K.J. Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ P.A., Boyle K.J., and Brown T.C. (Eds). A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (2003), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
11. Brouwer R., Langford I.H., Bateman I., and Turner R.K. A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change 1 1 (1999) 47-57
12. Button K. What can meta-analysis tell us about transport?. Regional Studies 29 (1995) 507-517
13. Cameron T.A., Poe G.L., Ethier R.G., and Schulze W.D. Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 3 (2002) 391-425
14. Carson R.T. Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History (2004), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK
15. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Martin K.M., and Wright J.L. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 72 1 (1996) 80-99
16. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., and Meade N.F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 19 2 (2001) 173-210
17. Desvousges W.H., Johnson F.R., and Banzhaf H.S. Environmental Policy Analysis with Limited Information: Principles and Applications of the Transfer Method (1998), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
18. Eiswerth M., and Shaw W. Adjusting benefits transfer values for inflation. Water Resources Research 33 10 (1997) 2381-2385
19. Florax R.J.G.M., Nijkamp P., and Willis K.G. Comparative Environmental Economic Assessment (2002), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
20. Framstad E., Økland B., Bendiksen E., Bakkestuen V., Blom H., and Branderud T.E. Evaluering av barskogvernet i Norge (Evaluation of the conservation of coniferous forests in Norway). NINA Fagrapport 54 (2002)
21. Fredman P. The existence of existence value: a study of the economic benefits of an endangered species. Journal of Forest Economics 1 3 (1995) 307-327
22. Fredman P., and Emmelin L. Wilderness purism, willingness to pay and management preferences: a study of Swedish mountain tourists. Tourism Economics 7 1 (2001) 5-20
23. Garnes, A.S., Winther, G., 1991. Holdninger til og betalingsvillighet for flersidig skogbruk og barskogvern i Norge (Attitudes and WTO for multiple use forestry and forest preservation in Norway). Master Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
24. Hanemann W.M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 4 (1994) 19-43
25. Hanley N., Wright R.E., and Adamowicz V. Using choice experiments to value the environment: design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environmental and Resource Economics 11 3-4 (1998) 413-428
26. Hoen, H.F., Veisten, K., 1994. En undersøkelse blant brukere av Oslomarka: synspunkter på skogtilstand og skogbehandling (A survey of the users of Oslomarka: attitudes towards forest scenary and forestry practices). Skogforsk 6/94.
27. Hoen H.F., and Winther G. Multiple-use forestry and preservation of coniferous forests in Norway: a study of attitudes and Willingness-to-pay. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8 2 (1993) 266-280
28. Holgen P., Mattsson L., and Li C.Z. Recreation values of boreal forest stand types and landscapes resulting from different silvicultural systems: an economic analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 60 2 (2000) 173-180
29. Horne P., Boxall P.C., and Adamowicz W.L. Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 207 1-2 (2005) 189-199
30. Horowitz J.K., and McConnell K.E. Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 51 4 (2003) 537-545
31. Hökby S., and Söderqvist T. Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environmental and Resource Economics 26 3 (2003) 361-383
32. Jakus P.M., Stephens B., and Fly J.M. Temporal reliability in contingent valuation (with a restrictive research budget). In: Alberini A., and Kahn J.R. (Eds). Handbook on Contingent Valuation (2006), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK 249-262
33. Johansson P.O. Valuing public goods in a risky world: an experiment. In: Folmer H., and van Ierland E.C. (Eds). Evaluation Methods and Policy Making in Environmental Economics (1989), North-Holland, Amsterdam 39-48
34. Johansson P.-O., and Zavisic S. Svenska folkets miljöbudget. Ekonomisk Debatt 6 (1989) 472-474
35. Johansson P.O., Kriström B., and Mattson L. How is the willingness to pay for Moose hunting affected by the stock of Moose? An empirical study of Moose-hunters in the county of Västerbotten. Journal of Environmental Management 26 (1988) 163-171
36. Johnston R.J., Besedin E.Y., and Wardwell R.F. Modeling relationships between use and nonuse values for surface water quality: a meta-analysis. Water Resources Research 39 12 (2003)
37. Johnston R.J., Besedin E.Y., Iovanna R., Miller C.J., Wardwell R.F., and Ranson M.H. Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 53 2-3 (2005) 221-248
38. Kahneman D., and Knetsch J.L. Valuing public-goods - the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 1 (1992) 57-70
39. In: Kahneman D., and Tversky A. (Eds). Choices, Values and Frames (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
40. Kniivilä, M., 2004. Contingent valuation and cost-benefit analysis of nature conservation: a case study in North Karelia, Finland. D.Sc. (Agriculture and Forestry) Thesis, University of Joensuu.
41. Kniivilä M., Ovaskainen V., and Saastamoinen O. Costs and benefits of forest conservation: regional and local comparisons in Eastern Finland. Journal of Forest Economics 8 2 (2002) 131-150
42. Kriström B. On the benefits of preserving virgin forests in Sweden. Scandinavian Forest Economics 30 (1989) 141-166
43. Kriström B. A nonparametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Economics 66 2 (1990) 135-139
44. Kriström, B., 1990b. Valuing environmental benefits using the contingent valuation method - an econometric analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Umeå University.
45. Laitila T., and Paulrud A. A multi-attribute extension of discrete-choice contingent valuation for valuation of angling site characteristics. Journal of Leisure Research 38 2 (2006)
46. Lehtonen E., Kuuluvainen J., Pouta E., Rekola M., and Li C.Z. Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science and Policy 6 3 (2003) 195-204
47. Lehtonen, E., Kuuluvainen, J., Li, C.-Z., Pouta, E., Rekola, M., 2005a. Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of forest conservation in southern Finland, University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Economics.
48. Lehtonen, E., Kuuluvainen, J., Ovaskainen, V., Pouta, E., Rekola, M., 2005b. Influence of Logit Model Assumptions on Estimated Willingness to Pay for Forest Conservation in Southern Finland, University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Economics.
49. Leidal, K., 1996. Verdsetting av et bynært rekreasjonsområde: en betinget verdsettingsundersøkelse av området rundt Eigevannet i Kristiansand kommune (Valuation of an urban recreation area: a contingent valuation study of the Eige Lake area in Kristiansand municipality). Master Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
50. Li C.Z. Semiparametric estimation of the binary choice model for contingent valuation. Land Economics 72 4 (1996) 462-473
51. Li C.Z., and Mattsson L. Discrete-choice under preference uncertainty - an improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 2 (1995) 256-269
52. Li C.Z., Kuuluvainen J., Pouta E., Rekola M., and Tahvonen O. Using choice experiments to value the Natura 2000 Nature conservation programs in Finland. Environmental and Resource Economics 29 3 (2004) 361-374
53. List J.A., and Gallet C.A. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 20 3 (2001) 241-254
54. Loomis J.B., and White D.S. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 18 3 (1996) 197-206
55. Mattsson L., and Li C.Z. The non-timber value of Northern Swedish forests - an economic-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8 3 (1993) 426-434
56. Mattsson L., and Li C.Z. How do different forest management-practices affect the non-timber value of forests - an economic-analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 41 1 (1994) 79-88
57. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
58. Murphy J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., and Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30 (2005) 313-325
59. Mäntymaa, E., Mönkkönen, M., Siikamäki, J., Svento, R., 2002. Estimating the demand for biodiversity - vagueness band and open-ended questions. In: van Ierland, E.C., Weikard, H.P., Wesseler, J. (Eds.), Proceedings: Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental and Resource Economics.
60. Navrud S. Pricing the European Environment (1992), Scandinavian University Press, Oslo
61. In: Navrud S., and Ready R. (Eds). Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods (2006), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
62. Olsson, C., 1993. Linbanan i Norsjö - En skogsinriktad turistattraktion. En undersökning av betalningsvilja för att uppleva skog och natur (The cable car in Norsjö - a forest based tourist attraction). Master, Handelshögskolan i Umeå.
63. Ovaskainen V., and Kniivilä M. Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 49 4 (2005) 379-394
64. Pattanayak, S.K., Wing, J.M., Depro, B.M., van Houtven, G., de Civita, P., Stieb, D.M., Hubbel, B., 2002. International Health Benefits Transfer Application Tool: The Use of PPP and inflation indices. Prepared for Economic Analysis and Evaluation Division, Health Canada.
65. Pouta, E., 2003. Attitude-behavior framework in contingent valuation of forest conservation. Ph.D., University of Helsinki.
66. Pouta E. Attitude and belief questions as a source of context effect in a contingent valuation survey. Journal of Economic Psychology 25 (2004) 229-242
67. Pouta E. Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 539-550
68. Pouta, E., Rekola, M., 2005. Meta analysis of forest valuation studies. Working paper (In Finnish).
69. Pouta E., Rekola M., Kuuluvainen J., Tahvonen O., and Li C.Z. Contingent valuation of the Natura 2000 nature conservation programme in Finland. Forestry 73 2 (2000) 119-128
70. Pouta E., Rekola M., Kuuluvainen J., Li C.Z., and Tahvonen I. Willingness to pay in different policy-planning methods: insights into respondents' decision-making processes. Ecological Economics 40 2 (2002) 295-311
71. Quiggin J. Individual and household willingness to pay for public goods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (1998) 58-63
72. Rabin M. Psychology and Economics. Journal of Economic Literature XXXVI (1998) 11-46
73. Rekola M., and Pouta E. Public preferences for uncertain regeneration cuttings: a contingent valuation experiment involving Finnish private forests. Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 635-649
74. Rekola M., Pouta E., Kuuluvainen J., Tahvonen O., and Li C.Z. Incommensurable preferences in contingent valuation: the case of Natura 2000 Network in Finland. Environmental Conservation 27 3 (2000) 260-268
75. Rosenberger R.S., and Loomis J.B. Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: in-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resources Research 36 4 (2000) 1097-1107
76. Rosenberger R., and Loomis J. Panel stratification in meta-analysis of economic studies: an investigation of its effects in the recreation valuation literature. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32 1 (2000) 131-149
77. Sandsbråten, L., 1997. Verdsetting av miljøgoder i Oslomarka: en betinget verdsettingsundersøkelse i privat og kommunal skog i Indre Oslomarka (Valuation of environmental goods in Oslomarka: a contingent valuation survey of private and municipality owned forest in inner Oslomarka). Master Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
78. Sayman S., and Öncüler A. Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA-WTP disparity: a meta analytical framework. Journal of Economic Psychology 26 2 (2005) 289-312
79. Schläpfer F. Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 57 3 (2006) 415-429
80. Shrestha R.K., and Loomis J.B. Testing a meta-analysis model for benefit transfer in international outdoor recreation. Ecological Economics 39 1 (2001) 67-83
81. Shrestha R.K., and Loomis J.B. Meta-analytic benefit transfer of outdoor recreation economic values: testing out-of-sample convergent validity. Environmental & Resource Economics 25 (2003) 79-100
82. Siikamäki, J., Layton, D., in press. Discrete choice survey experiments: a comparison using flexible methods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, forthcoming.
83. Simensen, K., Wind, M., 1990. Holdninger til og betalingsvillighet for ulike skogbehandlinger i fjellskog: En empirisk undersøkelse av hirkjølen statsallmenning (attitudes and wtp for different forestry practices in mountainous forests: a survey of the hirkjolen common). Master Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
84. Skagestad, E., 1996. Friluftsliv og Skogbruk - En spørreundersøkelse blant turgjengere i ytre Oslomarka, Romeriksåsen, på vinterstid (Recreation and forestry - a survey of hikers in the outer Oslomarka, Romeriksåsen, in the winter time). Master Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
85. Smith V.K., and Kaoru Y. Signals or noise - explaining the variation in recreation benefit estimates. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72 2 (1990) 419-433
86. Smith V.K., and Osborne L.L. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a ''scope'' test? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31 3 (1996) 287-301
87. Smith V.K., and Pattanayak S.K. Is meta-analysis a Noah's Ark for non-market valuation?. Environmental and Resource Economics 22 (2002) 271-296
88. Stanley T.D. Wheat from chaff: meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15 3 (2001) 131-150
89. Stanley T.D., and Jarrel S.D. Meta-regression analysis: a quantitative method of literature surveys. Journal of Economic Surveys 19 3 (2005) 299-308
90. Strand J. Individual and household values of mortality reductions with intrahousehold bargaining. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 31 2 (2005) 217-236
91. Strand, J., Wahl, T.S., 1997. Verdsetting av kommunale friområder i Oslo: en betinget verdsettingsstudie (Valuation of Municipality Recreation Areas in Oslo: A Contingent Valuation Study). SNF Report 82/97.
92. Sundberg, S., Söderqvist, T., 2004. The economic value of environmental change in Sweden: a survey of studies. Report 5360, Naturvårdsverket.
93. Tyrväinen L. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 62 1 (2001) 75-92
94. Tyrväinen L., and Väänänen H. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning 43 1-3 (1998) 105-118
95. Vatn, A., Framstad, E., Solberg, B., 2005. Tiltak og virkemidler for vern av biodiversitet i skog og våtmarker. Rapport TemaNord 2005, Nordisk Ministerråd, København.
96. Veisten, K., 1993. Samfunnsøkonomisk verdsetting av å oppretthalde artsmangfaldet i norske skogar: med testing for feilkilder ved betinga verdsetting (Social valuation of the preserving biodiversity in Norwegian forests: with multiple bias testing). Master Thesis, University of Oslo.
97. Veisten, K., Hoen, H.F., 1994. Om haldningar til - og betalingsvilje for endringar i skogbehandlinga i Noreg: resultat frå to nasjonale undersøkingar (On attitudes and WTP for changes in forest practices in Norway: results from two national surveys). Skogforsk 4/94, Skogforsk.
98. Veisten K., and Navrud S. Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats. Applied Economics 38 7 (2006) 735-756
99. Veisten, K., Hoen, H.F., Navrud, S., Strand, J., 1993. Valuing biodiversity in Norwegian forests: a contingent valuation study with multiple bias testing. Memo No. 7, Department of Economics, University of Oslo.
100. Veisten K., Hoen H.F., Navrud S., and Strand J. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Management 73 4 (2004) 317-331
101. Veisten K., Hoen H.F., and Strand J. Sequencing and the adding-up property in contingent valuation of endangered species: are contingent non-use values economic values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 29 4 (2004) 419-433
102. Walsh R.G., Johnson D.M., and McKean J.R. Issues in non-market valuation and policy application: a retrospective glance. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 1 (1989) 178-188
103. Walsh R.G., Johnson D.M., and McKean J.R. Nonmarket values from two decades of research on recreation demand. In: Link A., and Smith V.K. (Eds). Advances in Applied Micro-Economics vol. 5 (1990), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT 167-193
104. Woodward R.T., and Wui Y.-S. The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 37 (2001) 257-270