Evaluating approaches to predict recreation values of new forest sites

Journal of Forest Economics

Volumn 13, Issue 2-3, 2007, Pages 103-128

  Zandersen, Marianne ^a,b   Termansen, Mette ^c   Jensen, Frank S ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^b INTERNATIONAL MAX PLANCK RESEARCH SCHOOL ON EARTH SYSTEM MODELLING   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^d DANISH FOREST LANDSCAPE RES INST   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Benefits transfers; Discrete choice modelling; Forest recreation

Indexed keywords

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; RANDOM PROCESSES; SAMPLING;

BENEFITS TRANSFERS; DISCRETE CHOICE MODELLING; FOREST RECREATION; FOREST SITES; RANDOM UTILITY MODELS;

FORESTRY;

DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; FOREST; MODELING;

FORESTRY; FORESTS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; RANDOM PROCESSES; RECREATION; SAMPLING; SURVEYS;

EID: 34447251050     PISSN: 11046899     EISSN: 16181530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2007.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Aarhus Kommune. De nye Aarhus skove [The new Forests around Aarhus] (2005), Aarhus Kommunes Naturforvaltning, Aarhus, DK pp. 1-20
2. Bergland O., Magnussen K., and Navrud S. Benefits transfer: testing for accuracy and reliability. Comparative Environmental Economic Assessment (2002), Elgar, Cheltenham, UK 117-132
3. Bockstael N.E., Hanemann W.M., and Kling C.L. Estimating the value of water quality improvements in a recreational demand framework. Water Resources Research 23 (1987) 951-960
4. Boyle K.J., and Bergstrom J.C. Benefit Transfer Studies: Myths, Pragmatism, and Idealism. Water Resources Research 28 (1992) 657-663
5. Brookshire D.S., and Neill H.R. Benefit Transfers: Conceptual and Empirical Issues. Water Resources Research 28 3 (1992) 651-655
6. Brouwer R. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecological Economics 32 (2000) 137-152
7. Colombo S., Hanley N., and Calatrave-Requeno J. Testing choice experiments for benefits transfer with preference heterogeneity. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89 1 (2007) 135-151
8. Creel M.D., and Loomis J.B. Recreation value of water to wetlands in the San Joaquin Valley: Linked multinomial logit and count data trip frequency models. Water Resources Research 28 (1992) 2597-2606
9. Danish Forest and Nature Agency, 1977. Danish Forest Archive. Danish Ministry of Environment, Copenhagen, DK.
10. Danish Forest and Nature Agency. Danish forest inventory, GSR registry (1997), Danish Ministry of Environment, Copenhagen, DK
11. Downing M., and Ozuna T. Testing the reliability of the benefit function transfer approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996) 316-322
12. Feather P., and Hellerstein D. Calibrating benefit function transfer to assess the conservation reserve program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 (1997) 151-162
13. Haab T.C., and McConnell K.E. Count data models and the problem of zeros in recreation demand analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78 (1996) 89-102
14. Haab, T.C., McConnell, K.E., 2002. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources. The econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Northampton, MA, USA.
15. Hanley N., Oglethorpe D., and Hussain S. Estimating the Value of Environmental Features: The ELF Benefits Transfer Model (1999), MAFF, London, UK
16. Hanley N., Wright R.E., and Alvarez-Farizo B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using experiments: an application to the water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management 78 2 (2006) 183-193
17. Jensen, F.S., 2003. Friluftsliv i 592 skove og andre naturområder. [Recreation in 592 Forests and other Nature Areas] Skovbrugsserien nr. 32-2003, Forskningscentret for Skov & Landskab, Hørsholm, DK.
18. Jensen, F.S., Koch, N.E., 1997. Friluftsliv i skovene 1976/77-1993/94 [Recreation in forests 1976/77-1993/94]. Forskningsserien nr. 20-1997, Forskningscentret for Skov & Landskab, Hørsholm, DK.
19. Kaoru Y., Smith V.K., and Liu J.L. Using random utility models to estimate the recreational value of estuarine resources. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77 (1995) 141-151
20. Kirchhoff S., Colby B.G., and LaFrance J.T. Evaluating the performance of benefit transfer: an empirical inquiry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33 (1997) 75-93
21. Koch N.E. Skovenes friluftsfunktion i Danmark. I. Del. Befolkningens anvendelse af landets skove. [Forest Recreation in Denmark. Part I: The Use of the Country's Forests by the Population]. Det forstlige Forsøgsvæsen i Danmark 35 (1978) 285-451
22. Koch N.E. Skovenens Friluftsfunktion i Danmark. II. Del Anvendelsen af skovene regionalt betragtet. [Forest Recreation in Denmark. Part II: The Use of the Forests Considered Regionally]. Det forstlige Forsøgsvæsen i Danmark 37 (1980) 73-383
23. Koch N.E., and Jensen F.S. Skovenens Friluftsfunktion i Danmark. IV. Del. Befolkningens ønsker til skovenes og det åbne land udforming. [Forest Recreation in Denmark. Part IV: The Preferences of the Population]. Det forstlige Forsøgsvæsen i Danmark 41 (1988) 243-516
24. Kort & Matrikelstyrelsen/Vejdirektoratet. VejnetDK [Danish Road Network] (1995), Kort-og Matrikelstyrelsen, Copenhagen, DK
25. Long J.S. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables (1997), Sage Publications, California, USA
26. Loomis J.B. Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: a comparison of general population and visitor responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (1989) 76-84
27. Loomis J.B. The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: benefit function transfer. Water Resources Research 28 (1992) 701-705
28. Loomis J.B., Roach B., Ward F.A., and Ready R. Testing transferability of recreation demand models across regions: a study of Corps of Engineer reservoirs. Water Resources Research 31 (1995) 721-730
29. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P. (Ed). Frontiers in Econometrics (1974), Academic Press, New York, UK 105-142
30. Miljø og Energiministeriet, Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser. Areal Informations Systemet [Land cover map] (2000), Miljø og Energiministeriet/Danmarks Miljøundersøgelse, Copenhagen, DK
31. Miljøministeriet. Danmarks Nationale Skovprogram [National Forest Programme of Denmark] (2002), Skov og Naturstyrelsen, Copenhagen, DK
32. Miljøministeriet. Skov og natur i tal 2003 [Statistics of Forest and Nature 2003] (2003), Skov og Naturstyrelsen, Copenhagen, DK
33. Miljøministeriet. Skov og natur i tal 2005 [Statistics of Forest and Nature 2005] (2005), Skov og Naturstyrelsen, Copenhagen, DK
34. Parsons G.R., and Kealy M.J. Benefits transfer in a random utility model of recreation. Water Resources Research 30 (1994) 2477-2484
35. Parsons G.R., Jakus P.M., and Tomasi T. A comparison of welfare estimates from four models for linking seasonal recreational trips to multinomial logit models of site choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38 (1999) 143-157
36. Rosenberger, R.S., Loomis, J.B., 2001. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use values. A technical document supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collin, CO, USA.
37. Shannon C.E., and Weaver W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication (1949), The University of Illinois Press, Urbana
38. Skov-Petersen H. GIS, Accessibility, and Physical Planning. Exemplified by Models of Recreational Activities (2002), University of Copenhagen, DK
39. Skovreguleringen, 1974. Vestskoven. Driftsplan 1972-92 [Management plan for Vestskoven 1972-1992].
40. Skovreguleringen, 1980. Driftsplan for Vestskoven 1980-1992. Bilag til driftsplanen for Københavns distrikt [Management plan for Vestskoven 1980-1992]. pp. 1-34.
41. Smith V.K. On separating defensible benefit transfers from 'smoke and mirrors'. Water Resources Research 28 (1992) 685-694
42. Statistics Denmark. Population 1 January by region, age, sex, marital status (1971-2002) (2003), BEF1, Copenhagen, DK
43. Statistics Denmark. Gross income by region, income interval, age and sex (1983-2003). [IF221] (2004), Stat Bank Denmark, Copenhagen, DK
44. Termansen, M., McClean, C.J., Scarpa, R., 2004a. Economic valuation of Danish forest recreation combining mixed logit models and GIS. [Paper presented at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Conference in Budapest, June 25-28], pp. 1-25.
45. Termansen M., McClean C.J., and Skov-Petersen H. Recreational site choice modelling using high resolution spatial data. Environment and Planning A 36 (2004) 1085-1099
46. Train K.E. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 74 (1998) 230-239
47. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. first ed (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
48. Truelsen E. Dyre Spor: Bilens driftsøkonomi 1977 [Expensive Tracks: The car's economy 1977]. Motor 2 (1977) 44-49
49. Vejdirektoratet, 2001. Trafikøkonomiske enhedspriser-prisniveau 1997 [Transport economic unit prices-1997pricelevel]. Copenhagen, DK.
50. WATECO Working Group 2.6, 2003. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No 1, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 1-274.
51. Yen S.T., and Adamowicz W.L. Participation, trip frequency and site choice: a multi-nomial-poisson hurdle model of recreation demand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 42 (1994) 65-76
52. Zandersen, M., Termansen, M., Jensen, F.S., (forthcoming). Testing benefits transfer of forest recreation values over a 20 year-time horizon. Land Economics.