Valuing forest biodiversity through a national survey in France: A dichotomous choice contingent valuation

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 84-97

  Garcia, Serge ^a,b   Harou, Patrice ^a,b,c   Montagné, Claire ^a,b   Stenger, Anne ^a,b  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

^b AGROPARISTECH   (France)

^c Pinchot Institute for Conservation   (United States)

Author keywords

Bivariate probit; Contingent valuation; Dichotomous choice; Forest biodiversity; National survey

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; BIOLOGICAL SURVEY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DICOTYLEDON; FIELD SURVEY; FOREST MANAGEMENT; NATIONAL PLANNING; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FRANCE;

EID: 84857280573     PISSN: 21513732     EISSN: 21513740     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2011.628338     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Amigues J-P, Desaigues B. 1999. L'évaluation d'une politique de protection de la biodiversité des forëts riveraines de la Garonne. In: Point P, editor. La valeur économique des hydrosystèmes. Méthodes et modèles d'évaluation des services délivrés. Paris (France): Economica. p. 37-62.
2. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. 1993. Report on the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist. 58(10):4602-4614.
3. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Joneslee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroglu E, et al. 2002. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar Publishing.
4. Baumgärtner S, Becker C, FaberM,Manstetten R. 2006. Relative and absolute scarcity of nature. Assessing the roles of economics and ecology for biodiversity conservation. Ecol Econ. 59(4):487-498.
5. Boman M. 2009. To pay or not to pay for biodiversity in forests - what scale determines responses to willingness to pay questions with uncertain response options? J For Econ. 15(1-2):79-91.
6. BomanM, Bostedt G. 1999. Valuing the wolf in Sweden. Are benefits contingent on the supply? In: Brännlund R, Kriström B, editors. Topics in environmental economics. Dordrecht (the Netherlands): Kluwer. p. 157-174.
7. Boman M, Norman J, Kindstrand C, Mattsson L. 2008. On the budget for national environmental objectives and willingness to pay for protection of forest land. Canadian J For Res. 38(1):40-51. (Pubitemid 351287676)
8. Bräuer I, Müssner R, Marsden K, Oosterhuis F, Rayment M, Miller C, Dodoková A. 2006. The use of market incentives to preserve biodiversity. Brussels (Belgium): EcoLogic; [cited 2011 Oct 20]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/mbi.pdf.
9. Broberg T, Brännlund R. 2008. On the value of preserving the four large predators in Sweden: a regional stratified contingent valuation analysis. J Environ Manage. 88:1066-1077. (Pubitemid 351984926)
10. Campos P, Caparros A, Oviedo JL. 2007. Comparing payment -vehicle effects in contingent valuation studies for recreational use in two protected Spanish forests. J Leisure Res. 39(1): 60-85. (Pubitemid 46358220)
11. Carson RT. 1997. Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. In: Kopp RJ, Pommerehne WW, Schwarz N, editors. Determining the value of nonmarketed goods: economic, psychological, and policy relevant aspects of contingent valuation methods. Boston (MA): Kluwer. p. 127-163.
12. Christie M, Hanley N, Warren J, Murphy K, Wright R, Hyde T. 2006. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol Econ. 58(2):304-317. (Pubitemid 43766820)
13. Crooker JR, Herriges JA. 2004. Parametric and seminonparametric estimation of willingness-to-pay in the dichotomous choice contingent valuation framework. Environ Resour Econ. 27(4):451-480. (Pubitemid 38439056)
14. Czajkowski M, Buszko-Briggs M, Hanley N. 2009. Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecol Econ. 68(12):2910-2917.
15. Durand S, Point P. 2000. Approche théorique et empirique de la valeur d'existence: applications aux espèces animales protégées. In: Bonnieux F, coordinator. Méthode d'évaluation contingente et décision publique, Contrat A 848. Rennes (France): INRA. p. 58-93.
16. Edwards D, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montagné C, Pearce A,Weib G. Forthcoming. Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecol Soc.
17. Elsasser P,Meyerhoff J,Montagné C, Stenger A. 2009. A bibliography and database on forest valuation studies from Austria, France, Germany and Switzerland - a possible base for a concerted European approach. J For Econ. 15:93-108.
18. Fredman P. 1995. Endangered species: benefit estimation and policy implications. Umea (Sweden): Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Report No. 109.
19. Garcia S, Jacob J. 2010. La valeur récréative de la forêt en France: une approche par les coûts de déplacement. Revue d'Etudes en Agric et Environ. 91(1):43-71.
20. Green D, Jacowitz KE, Kahneman D, McFadden D. 1998. Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resour Energy Econ. 20(2):85-116.
21. Haab TC, McConnell KE. 1997. Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solutions. J Environ Econ Manage. 32(2):251-270. (Pubitemid 27195396)
22. Hampicke U, Tampe K, Kiemstedt K, Horlitz H, Walters U, Timp D. 1992. The economic importance of preserving species and biotopes in the federal Republic of Germany, results cited in Romer AU, Pommerehne W. 1992. Germany and Switzerland in Pricing the European Environment. In: Navrud S, editor. Oslo (Norway): Scandinavian University Press.
23. Hanemann WM. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ. 66(3):332-341.
24. Hanley N, Ruffel R. 1993. The contingent valuation of forest characteristics: two experiments. J Agric Econ. 44(2): 218-229. (Pubitemid 24384389)
25. Hanley N, Spash S, Walker L. 1995. Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity conservation. Environ Resour Econ. 5:249-272. (Pubitemid 26430387)
26. Horne P, Petajisto L. 2003. Preferences for alternative moose management regimes among Finnish landowners: a choice experiment approach. Land Econ. 79(4):472-482. (Pubitemid 38135796)
27. Ivehammar P. 2009. The payment vehicle used in CV studies of environmental goods does matter. J Agric Resour Econ. 34(3):450-463.
28. Johansson P-O. 1989. Valuing public goods in a risky world: an experiment. In: Folmer H, Van Lerland E, editors. Valuation methods and policy making in environmental economics. Amsterdam (the Netherlands): Elsevier.
29. Johansson P-O. 1990. Willingness to pay measures and expectations. Appl Econ. 22(3):313-329.
30. Juutinen A, Mitani Y, Mäntymaa E, Shoji Y, Siikamäki P, Svento R. 2011. Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: a choice experiment application. Ecol Econ. 70:1231-1239.
31. Kahnemann D, Knetsch J. 1992. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manage. 21(1):57-70.
32. Kettunen M, ten Brink P. 2006. Value of biodiversity -Documenting EU examples where biodiversity loss has led to the loss of ecosystem services. Brussels (Belgium): Institute for European Environmental Policy. Final Report for the European Commission. Report No. ENV.G.1/FRA/2004/0081.
33. Kniivilä M, Ovaskainen V, Saastamoinen O. 2002. Costs and benefits of forest conservation: regional and local comparisons in Eastern Finland. J For Econ. 8(2):131-150. (Pubitemid 35389766)
34. Kriström B. 1990. Valuing environmental benefits using the contingent valuation method: an econometric analysis [Doctoral thesis]. Umea Economic Studies No. 219. [Umeå (Sweden)]: Umea University.
35. Lehtonen E, Kuuluvainen J, Pouta E, Rekola M, Li C-Z. 2003. Non-market benefits of forest conservation in Southern Finland. Environ Sci Policy. 6(3):195-204. (Pubitemid 36564865)
36. Lindhjem H, Navrud S. 2011. Are internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation? Ecol Econ. 70(9):1628-1637
37. Madureira L, Nunes LC, Borges JG, Falcão AO. 2011. Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualisation techniques: a Portuguese case study. J For Econ 17(4):399-414.
38. Matsson L. 1990. Moose management and the economic value of hunting: towards bioeconomic analysis. Scand J For Econ. 5(1-4):575-581.
39. Matsson L, Kriström B. 1987. The economic value of the moose as a hunting object. Scand J For Econom. 29:27-37.
40. McFadden D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers econometrics. New York (NY): Academic Press. p. 105-142.
41. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U. 2006. Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecol Econ. 57(4):583-594. (Pubitemid 44262046)
42. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U, Hartje V. 2009. Benefits of biodiversity enhancement due to nature-oriented silviculture: evidence from two choice experiments in Germany. J For Econ. 15(1-2):37-58.
43. Mill GA, van Rensburg TM, Hynes S, Dooley C. 2007. Preferences for multiple use forest management in Ireland: citizen and consumer perspectives. Ecol Econ. 60(3): 642-653. (Pubitemid 44960683)
44. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment ecosystems and human wellbeing: Burrent State and trends. Washington (DC): Island Press.
45. Morrison MD, Blamey RK, Bennett JW. 2000. Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ Resour Econ. 16(4):407-422. (Pubitemid 30647821)
46. Nunes PALD, Van Den Bergh JCJM, Nijkamp P. 2003. The ecological economics of biodiversity: methods and policy applications. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing.
47. Pearce DW, Pearce CGT. 2001. The value of forest ecosystems. Montreal (QC): SCBD. Report to the Secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD Technical Series No. 4.
48. Peyron J-L, Harou P, Niedzwiedz A, Stenger A. 2002. National survey on demand for recreation in French forests. Nancy (France): Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiére. Report for EUROSTAT.
49. Pouta E, Rekola M, Kuuluvainen J, Tahvonen O, Li. C-Z. 2000. Contingent valuation of the natura 2000 conservation program in Finland. Forestry. 73(2):119-128. (Pubitemid 30308537)
50. Schläpfer F, Bräuer I. 2007. Theoretical incentive properties of contingent valuation questions: do they matter in the field? Ecol Econ. 62(3-4):451-460. (Pubitemid 46670707)
51. Spash CL, Hanley N. 1995. Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol Econ. 12(3):191-208.
52. Stithou M. 2009. Respondent certainty and payment vehicle effect in contingent valuation: an empirical study for the conservation of two endangered species in Zakynthos island, Greece. Stirling (UK): Division of Economics, University of Stirling. Stirling Economics Discussion Paper. 2009-21.
53. United Nations Environment Programme. 1992. Convention on biological diversity. Nairobi (Kenya): United Nations Environment Programme.
54. Veisten K, Hoen HF, Navrud S, Strand J. 2004. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J Environ Manage. 73(4):317-331. (Pubitemid 39451838)
55. Veisten K, Navrud S. 2006. Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats. Applied Econ. 38(7):735-756. (Pubitemid 43670123)
56. White PCL, Bennett AC, Hayes EJV. 2001. The use of willingness-to-pay approaches in mammal conservation. Mamm Rev. 31(2):151-167. (Pubitemid 32667970)
57. Wiser RH. 2007. Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecol Econ. 62(3-4): 419-432. (Pubitemid 46670705)