An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 80, Issue 1-2, 2007, Pages 63-71

  Nielsen, Anders Busse ^a   Olsen, Søren Bøye ^b   Lundhede, Thomas ^a  

^a DANISH FOREST LANDSCAPE RES INST   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Conversion; Forest preferences; Silviculture; Stated preference methods

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; ECOLOGY;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; FOREST PREFERENCES; STATED PREFERENCE METHODS;

FORESTRY;

COMMUNITY COMPOSITION; DECIDUOUS FOREST; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; FOREST MANAGEMENT; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; PLANT COMMUNITY; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RECREATIONAL MANAGEMENT; SILVICULTURE; STAND DYNAMICS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CONVERSION; DATA; ECOLOGY; FORESTRY; SILVICULTURE;

CONIFEROPHYTA;

EID: 33847033750     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.003     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Adamowicz W.L., Louviere J., and Swait J. Introduction to Attribute-based Stated Choice Methods (1998), NOAA-National Oceanic Athmospheric Administration, Washington, USA
2. Adobe, 2002. Photoshop 7.0.1. http://www.adobe.com.
3. Anon. The Danish National Forest Programme in an International Perspective (2002), Ministry of the Environment, Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Copenhagen
4. Anon., 2004. GFK Danmark A/S, August 13, 2004. http://www.gfk.dk/repository.php/841/GFK-omnibus.pdf.
5. Axelsson-Lindgren C., and Sorte G. Public response to differences between visually distinguishable forest stands in a recreation area. Landsc. Urban Plan 14 (1987) 211-217
6. Bateman I., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Özdemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., and Swanson J. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques-A Manual (2002), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
7. Bell, S., 2001a. Can a fresh look at the psychology of perception and the philosophy of aesthetics contribute to the better management of forest landscapes? In: Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W. (Eds.), Forest and Landscapes. Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CAB International, Oxon, UK, pp. 125-148.
8. Bell S. Landscape, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landsc. Urban Plan 54 (2001) 201-211
9. Bell S., Blom D., Rautamäki M., Castel-Branco C., Simson A., and Olsen I.A. Design of urban forests. In: Konijnendijk C.C., Nilsson K., Randrup T.B., and Schipperijn J. (Eds). Urban Forests and Trees (2005), Springer, Berlin 149-186
10. Ben-Akiva M., and Lerman S.R. Discrete Choice Analysis. Theory and Application to Travel Demand. (1985), The MIT Press, Cambridge
11. Bennett J., and Adamowicz W.L. Some fundamentals of environmental choice modelling. In: Bennett J., and Blamey R. (Eds). The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation (2001), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK 37-73
12. Bjørner, T.B., Russell, C., Dubgaard, A., Damgaard, C., Andersen, L.M., 2000. Public and Private Preferences for Environmental Quality in Denmark. SØM Publication No. 29. AKF-forlaget, Copenhagen.
13. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L., Swait J., Williams M., and Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 18 (1996) 243-253
14. Carlson, A., 2001. Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes: seeing and knowing. In: Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W. (Eds.), Forest and Landscapes. Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CAB International, Oxon, UK, pp. 31-41.
15. Carson R.T., Louviere J., Anderson D.A., Arabie P., Bunch D.S., Hensher D.A., Johnson R.M., Kuhfeld W., Steinberg D., Swait J., Timmermans H., and Wiley J.B. Experimental analysis of choice. Market Lett. 5 (1994) 351-368
16. Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., 2003. Are Actual Donations to the Provision of a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format? U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, July 24, 2004. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/value/docs/public good donations elicitation effects.pdf.
17. Daniel, T.D., 2001. Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. In: Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W. (Eds.), Forest and Landscapes. Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CAB International, Oxon, UK, pp. 15-29.
18. Dillman D.A. Mail and Telephone Surveys. The Total Design Method (1978), John Wiley & Sons, New York
19. Dubgaard A. Economic valuation of recreational benefits from Danish forests. In: Dabbert S., Dubgaard A., Slangen L., and Whitby M. (Eds). The Economics of Landscape and Wildlife Conservation (1998), CAB International, Wallingford 53-64
20. Emborg J., Christensen M., and Heilmann-Clausen J. The structural dynamics of Suserup Skov, a near-natural temperate deciduous forest in Denmark. For. Ecol. Manage. 126 (2000) 173-189
21. FAO, 1988. Forestry policies in Europe-An analysis. FAO Forestry Paper 86, FAO, Rome.
22. Gamborg C., and Larsen J.B. Back to nature-a sustainable future for forestry?. For. Ecol. Manage. 179 (2003) 559-571
23. Garrod G.D., and Willis K.G. Economic valuation of the environment-methods and case studies (1999), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
24. Gobster P.H. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landsc. J. 18 (1999) 54-64
25. Gustavsson R., Hermy M., Konijnendijk C.C., and Steide-Schwahn A. Management of urban woodland and parks-searching for creative and sustainable concepts. In: Konijnendijk C.C., Nilsson K., Randrup T.B., and Schipperijn J. (Eds). Urban Forests and Trees (2005), Springer, Berlin 369-397
26. Hanley N., Wright R.E., and Adamowicz W.L. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 11 (1998) 413-428
27. Hanley N., Mourato S., and Wright R.E. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. J. Econ. Surveys 15 (2001) 435-462
28. Hirokazu, O., Fukamachi, K., in press. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landsc. Urban Plan 75, 34-42.
29. Hummel F.C. Aspects of forest recreation in Western Europe. Forestry 65 (1992) 237-251
30. Jensen F.S. Landscape managers' and politicians' perception of the forest and landscape preferences of the population. For. Landsc. Res. 1 (1993) 79-93
31. Jensen, F.S., 1999. Forest recreation in Denmark from the 1970s to the 1990s. The Research Series, vol. 26. Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Hoersholm.
32. Jensen F.S. The effects of information on Danish forest visitors' acceptance of various management actions. Forestry 73 (2000) 165-172
33. Kaplan R., and Kaplan S. The experience of nature. A psychological perspective (1989), Cambridge University Press, Ottawa, Canada
34. Karjalainen E., and Tyrväinen L. Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan 59 (2002) 13-28
35. Kuhfeld, W., 2004. Marketing Research Methods in SAS. Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint and Graphical Techniques. SAS Institute Inc., July 24, 2004. http://www.support.sas.com/technote/ts694.pdf.
36. Lancaster K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74 (1966) 132-157
37. Larsen, J.B., Danish Forest and Nature Agency, 2005. Katalog over skovudviklingstyper i Danmark (in Danish).
38. Leopold A. A Sand County Almanac (1949), Oxford University Press, Inc.
39. Lindhagen, A., 1996. Forest recreation in Sweden. Four case studies using quantitative and qualitative methods. Dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Environmental Forestry, Uppsala.
40. Louviere J., Hensher D.A., and Swait J. Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Applications (2000), University Press, Cambridge
41. Mattsson L., and Li C.Z. How do different forest management practices affect the non-timber value of forests? An economic analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 41 (1994) 79-88
42. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P. (Ed). Frontiers in Econometrics (1974), Academic Press, New York
43. Mitchell R.C., and Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method (1989), Resources for the Future, Washington D.C.
44. Misgav A. Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landsc. Urban Plan 48 (2000) 143-159
45. Parsons R., and Daniel T.C. Good looking. In defence of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan 60 (2002) 43-56
46. Ribe R.G. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us?. J. Environ. Manage. 13 (1989) 55-74
47. Ribe R.G. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views. The interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landsc. Urban Plan 73 (2005) 277-293
48. Roovers P., Merny M., and Gulinck H. Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium. Landsc. Urban Plan 59 (2002) 129-145
49. Rydberg J., and Falck J. Urban forestry in Sweden from a silvicultural perspective: a review. Landsc. Urban Plan 47 (2000) 1-18
50. Schaaf, K.A., Ross-Davis, A.L., Broussard, S.R., in press. Exploring the dimensionality and social bases of the public's timber harvesting attitudes. Landscape Urban Plan. http://www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan.
51. Sheppard S.R.J. Guidance for the crystal ball bazers: developing a code of ethics for landscape visualisation. Landsc. Urban Plan 54 (2001) 183-199
52. Silvennoinen H., Alho J., Kolemainen O., and Pukkala T. Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landsc. Urban Plan 56 (2001) 11-20
53. Tahvanainen L., Tyrväinen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N., and Kolehmainen O. Forest management and public perceptions-visual versus verbal information. Landsc. Urban Plan 53 (2001) 53-70
54. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
55. Tyrväinen L., and Väänänen H. The economic values of urban forest amenity: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landsc. Urban Plan 43 (1998) 105-118
56. Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H., and Kolehmainen O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For. Urban Green 1 (2003) 135-149