Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualisation techniques: A Portuguese case study

Journal of Forest Economics

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 399-414

  Madureira, Lívia ^a   Nunes, Luis C ^b   Borges, José G ^c   Falcão, André O ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRÁS OS MONTES AND ALTO DOURO   (Portugal)

^b NOVA SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS   (Portugal)

^c INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DE AGRONOMIA   (Portugal)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LISBON   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Forest management; Forest valuation; Protest responses; Visualisation techniques

Indexed keywords

DATA ACQUISITION; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; SPECIFICATIONS; VISUALIZATION;

ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; FOREST VALUATIONS; MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES; MODEL SPECIFICATIONS; PROTEST RESPONSES; VISUAL INFORMATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FORESTRY;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECONOMETRICS; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; FOREST MANAGEMENT; LANDOWNERSHIP; LANDSCAPE; VISUALIZATION;

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY; SPECIFICATIONS;

PORTUGAL;

EID: 80054789382     PISSN: 11046899     EISSN: 16181530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2011.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Alberini A. Testing willingness-to-pay models of discrete choice contingent valuation survey data. Land Economics 1995, 71:83-95.
2. An, M.Y., Ayala, R.A., 1996. A Mixture Model of Willingness to Pay Distributions. Working Paper. Duke University, Department of Economics.
3. Ayer M., Brunk H., Ewing G., Reid W., Silverman E. An empirical distribution function for sampling with incomplete information. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1995, 26:641-647.
4. Bergland O. NonParametric CVM: A Nonparametric Maximum Likelihood Estimator for the Analysis of Referendum Style CVM Data 2001, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway.
5. Calia P., Strazzera E. A sample selection model for protest responses in contingent valuation analyses. Statistica 2001, 61(3):473-485.
6. Cameron T. Interval estimates of non-market resource values from referendum contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics 1991, 67:413-421.
7. Cunha-e-Sá, M.A., Madureira, L., Nunes, L.C., Otrachshenko, V., 2010. Protesting or Justifying? A Latent Class Model for Contingent Valuation with Attitudinal Data, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Economia. Working Paper No. 547.
8. Davis L.S., Johnson K.N., Howard T., Bettinger P. Forest Management to Sustain Ecological, Economic and Social Values 2001, McGraw Hill Publishing Company, New York. 4th ed.
9. Dziegielewska A., Mendelsohn R. Does "No" mean "No" ? A protest methodology. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 38:71-87.
10. Falcão A., Borges J.G. Designing decision support tools for Mediterranean forest ecosystems management: a case study in Portugal. Annals of Forest Science 2005, 62:751-760.
11. Falcão A.O., Próspero dos Santos M., Borges J.G. A real-time visualization tool for forest ecosystem management decision support. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture 2006, 53:3-12.
12. Haab, T.C., 1995. The distributional impact of indifference on dichotomopus choice contingent valuation. Working Paper. Department of Economics, East Carolina University.
13. Haab T.C., McConnell K.E. Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solutions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 32:251-270.
14. Haab T.C., McConnell K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics on Non-market Valuation 2002, Edward Elgar.
15. Halstead J.M., Luloff A.E., Stevens T.H. Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1992, 21(2). 126-134, 160-169.
16. Hanemann M., Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. Valuing Environmental Preferences. Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries 1999, 302-441. Oxford University Press, Oxford. I. Bateman, K.J. Willis (Eds.).
17. Holgén P., Mattsson L., Li C.Z. Recreation values of boreal forest stand types and landscapes resulting from different silvicultural systems: an economic analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 2000, 60:173-180.
18. Jones N., Sophoulis C.M., Malesios C. Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: a case study in Mitilini, Greece. The Journal of Socio-Economics 2008, 37(6):2478-2491.
19. Jorgensen B.S., Syme G.J. Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecological Economics 2000, 33(2):251-265.
20. Jorgensen B.S., Syme G.J., Bishop B.J., Nancarrow B.E. Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 1999, 14:131-150.
21. Kanninen B. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 28:114-125.
22. Karjalainen E., Tyrväinen L. Visualisation in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002, 59:13-28.
23. Kristöm B. Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1997, 79:1013-1023.
24. Lindsey G. Market models, protest bids, and outliers in contingent valuation. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 1994, 120:121-129.
25. Loomis J.B., González-Cabán A. Comparing the economic value of reducing fire risk to spotted owl habitat in California and Oregon. Forest Science 1997, 43:473-482.
26. Luymes D. The rhetoric of visual simulations in forest design: some research directions. Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology Sustainability and Aesthetics 2001, 191-204. Cabi Publishing, Wallingford. S. Sheppard, H. Harshaw (Eds.).
27. McFadden D. Contingent valuation and Social Choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1994, 76:689-708.
28. Merlo M., Croitoru L. Valuing Mediterranean Forests: Towards Total Economic Value 2005, Cabi Publishing, Wallingford.
29. Meyerhoff J., Liebe L. Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecological Economics 2006, 57(3):583-594.
30. Mitchell R., Carson R. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method 1989, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
31. Murphy J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30:313-325.
32. Ready R., Buzby J., Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economics 1996, 72:397-411.
33. Reiser B., Shechter M. Incorporating zero values in the economic evaluation of environmental program benefits. Environmetrics 1999, 10:87-101.
34. Riera P., Mogas J. Evaluation of a risk reduction in forest fires in a Mediterranean region. Forest Policy and Economics 2004, 6:521-528.
35. Söderqvist T., Soutukorva A. On how to assess the quality of environmental valuation studies. Journal of Forest Economics 2009, 15:15-36.
36. Strazzera E., Scarpa R., Calia P., Garrod D.G., Willis G.K. Modeling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys. Applied Economics 2003, 35:133-138.
37. Turnbull B. The empirical distribution function with arbitrary grouped, censored, and truncated data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 1976, 38:290-295.
38. van Kooten G.C., Folmer H. Land and Forest Economics 2004, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
39. Werner M. Allowing for zeros in dichotomous-choice contingent-valuation models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 1999, 17(4):479-486.
40. Wilson J.S., McGaughey R.J. Presenting landscape-scale forest information: what is sufficient and what is appropriate?. Journal of Forestry 2000, 98:21-27.
41. Yoo S.-H., Kwak S.-Y. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Energy Policy 2009, 37(12):5408-5416.