Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: The case of Poland

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 10, Issue 7-8, 2008, Pages 467-472

  Bartczak, Anna ^a   Lindhjem, Henrik ^b,c   Navrud, Ståle ^b   Zandersen, Marianne ^c,d   Zylicz, Tomasz ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^c ECON   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Forest; Recreation; Transition economy; Valuation

Indexed keywords

CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE; CONSUMER SURPLUS; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECONOMIC VALUES; FOREST; FOREST AREAS; FOREST POLICIES; FOREST RECREATION; IN TRANSITIONS; MULTI-FUNCTIONAL; NATIONAL LEVELS; RECREATION; TRANSITION ECONOMIES; TRANSITION ECONOMY; VALUATION; WESTERN EUROPE;

ECONOMICS; ESTIMATION; RISK PERCEPTION; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

FORESTRY;

ECONOMICS; ESTIMATION; FORESTRY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 50649107939     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.04.002     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Alberini A., and Longo A. Combining the travel cost and contingent behavior methods to value cultural heritage sites in a transition economy. Evidence from Armenia. Journal of Cultural Economics 30 4 (2006) 287-304
2. Bartczak A. Recreational value of forests in Poland (In Polish). Ekonomia i środowisko 30 (2006) 23-41
3. Bartczak A., and Giergiczny M. Forest non-market valuation studies in Czech Republic (2006), Warsaw University, Economics Department, Hungary and Poland
4. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann W.M., Hanley N., Hett T., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Mourato S., Ozdemiroglu E., Pearce D.W., Sugden R., and Swanson T. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual (2002), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham 480pp.
5. Brainard J., Bateman I., and Lovett A. Modelling demand for recreation in English woodlands. Forestry 74 5 (2001) 423-438
6. 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
7. 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
8. Cesario F. A generalized trip distribution model. Journal of Regional Science 13 2 (1973)
9. Croitoru L. How much are Mediterranean forests worth?. Forest Policy and Economics 9 (2007) 536-545
10. Cubbage F., Harou P., and Sills E. Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 9 (2007) 833-851
11. Dubgaard A. Economic value for 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
12. Gomez I.A., and Ozuna T. Testing for overdispersion in truncated count data recreation demand function. Journal of Environmental Management 37 (1993) 117-125
13. Grogger J.T., and Carson R.T. Models for truncated counts. Journal of Applied Econometrics 6 (1991) 225-238
14. Grossman G., and Kruger A. Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 353-377 (1995)
15. Hynes S., and Hanley N. Preservation versus development on Irish rivers: Whitewater kayaking and hydro power in Ireland (2006), Kyoto, Japan
16. 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
17. Haab T.C., and McConnell K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The econometrics of non-market valuation (2002), Edward Elgar
18. Jensen F.S., and Koch N.E. Friluftsliv i skovene 1976/77-1993/94 [Recreation in forests 1976/77 - 1993/94]. 1-215. Forskningsserien nr. 20, Forskningscentret for Skov and Landskab, Hørsholm, DK (1997)
19. Kriström B. Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 3 (1997) 1013-1023
20. Kriström B., and Riera P. Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?. Environmental and Resource Economics 7 (1996) 45-55
21. Krupnick A., Harrison K., Nickell E., and Toman M. The value of health benefits from ambient air quality improvements in Central and Eastern Europe: an exercise in benefits transfer. Environmental and Resource Economics 7 4 (1996) 307-332
22. Lindhjem H. 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. Journal of Forest Economics 12 (2007) 251-277
23. Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., in press. How Reliable are Meta-Analyses for International Benefit Transfer? Ecological Economics.
24. Markowska A., and Żylicz T. Costing an international public good: the case of the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics 30 (1999) 301-316
25. Moons, E., Loomis, J.B., Proost, S., Eggermont, K., Hermy, M.,, 2001. Travel cost and time measurement in travel cost models. Working Paper Series no 2001-22, Katolieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculty of Economics and applied economic sciences.
26. Parsons G.R., and Wilson A. Incidental and joint consumption in recreation demand. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24 (1997) 1-6
27. Randall A. A difficulty with the travel cost method. Land Economics 70 1 (1994) 88-96
28. Ready R., and Navrud S. International benefit transfer: methods and validity tests. Ecological Economics 60 (2006) 429-434
29. Scarpa R., Chilton S.M., Hutchinson W.G., and Buongiorno J. Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests. Ecological Economics 33 2 (2000) 237-250
30. SEPA. An instrument for assessing the quality of environmental valuation studies (2006), Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
31. Shaw W.D., and Feather P. Possibilities for including the opportunity cost of time in recreation demand systems. Land Economics 75 (1999) 592-602
32. Tyrväinen L. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 62 1 (2001) 75-92
33. UNECE/FAO. European Forest Sector Outlook Study. 1960 - 2000 - 2020 (2005), Main report, Geneva
34. Ward F.A., and Beal D. Valuing nature with travel cost models: A Manual (2003), Edward Elgar
35. Willis K.G. The recreational value of the forestry commission estate in Great Britain: a Clawson-Knetsch travel cost analysis. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 38 (1991) 58-75
36. Willis K.G., and Benson J.F. Recreational values of forests. Forestry 62 (1989) 93-110
37. Willis K.G., Garrod G., Scarpa R., Powe N.A., Lovett A., Bateman I.J., Hanley N., and MacMillan D. The social and environmental benfits of forests in Great Britain. Social & Environmental Benefits of Forestry Phase 2 (2003), Report to Forestry Commission, Edinburgh
38. Zandersen M. Valuing Forest Recreation in Europe: Time and Spatial Considerations (2005), PhD, Hamburg University
39. Zandersen M., Termansen M., and Jensen F.S. Testing benefits transfer of forest recreation values over a 20-year time. Horizon Land Economics 83 3 (2007) 412-440
40. Zandersen, M., Tol, R.S.J., in press. A Meta-Analysis of Forest Recreation Values in Europe. Journal of Forest Economics.
41. Żylicz T. Costing Nature in a Transition Economy. Case Studies in Poland (2000), Edward Elgar, Chelthenham