Forest owners' willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach

Journal of Forest Economics

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 290-302

  Lindhjem, Henrik ^a   Mitani, Yohei ^b  

^a NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Compensation; Contingent valuation; Forest; Voluntary conservation; Willingness to accept

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; COMPENSATION (PERSONNEL); CONSERVATION;

BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTIC; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; FOREST; FOREST CONSERVATION; FOREST HOLDING; NON-INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE FOREST OWNERS; VOLUNTARY CONSERVATIONS; WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT;

FORESTRY;

BIODIVERSITY; COMPENSATION SYSTEM; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONTINGENT VALUATION; FOREST MANAGEMENT; LANDOWNER; PRIVATE SECTOR; VOLUNTARY APPROACH;

BIODIVERSITY; COMPENSATION; CONSERVATION; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; FORESTS;

EID: 84867397466     PISSN: 11046899     EISSN: 16181530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2012.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Amacher G., Conway M.C., Sullivan J. Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: is there anything left to study?. Journal of Forest Economics 2003, 9:137-164.
2. Amigues J.P., Boulatoff C., Desaigues B., Gauthier C., Keith J.E. The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecological Economics 2002, 43(1):17-31.
3. Bateman I.J., Diamond E., Langford I.H., Jones A. Household willingness to pay and farmers' willingness to accept compensation for establishing a recreational woodland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1996, 39:21-43.
4. Beach R.H., Pattanayak S.K., Yang J.C., Murray B.C., Abt R.C. Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: a review and synthesis. Forest Policy Economics 2005, 7(3):261-281.
5. Buckley C., Hynes S., van Rensburg T.M., Doherty E. Walking in the Irish countryside: landowner preferences and attitudes to improved public access provision. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2009, 52(8):1053-1070.
6. Cameron T.A., Huppert D.D. Ols versus Ml estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1989, 17(3):230-246.
7. Conway, C.M., Amacher, G., Haight, R., 2004. Willingness of Michigan NIPF landowners to harvest aspen: a stated preference approach. Research Report.
8. Fischer A.P., Bliss J., Ingemarson F., Lidestav G., Lonnstedt L. From the small woodland problem to ecosocial systems: the evolution of social research on small-scale forestry in Sweden and the USA. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2010, 25(4):390-398.
9. Framstad, E., Økland, B., Bendiksen, E., Bakkestuen, V., Blom, H., Branderud, T.E., 2002. Evaluering av barskogvernet i Norge. NINA Fagrapport 54.
10. Gadaud J., Rambonilaza M. Amenity values and payment schemes for free recreation services from non-industrial private forest properties: a French case study. Journal of Forest Economics 2010, 16:297-311.
11. Gasson R. Goals and values of farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1973, 24:521-542.
12. Horne P. Forest owners' acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation-a choice experiment based approach. Silva Fennica 2006, 40(1):169-178.
13. Kilgore M.A., Snyder S.A., Schertz J., Taff S.J. What does it take to get family forest owners to enroll in a forest stewardship-type program?. Forest Policy and Economics 2008, 10(7-8):507-514.
14. Kline J.D., Alig R.J., Johnson R.L. Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat. Ecological Economics 2000, 33(1):29-43.
15. Kurttila M., Pykalainen J., Leskinen P. Defining the forest landowner's utility-loss compensative subsidy level for a biodiversity object. European Journal of Forest Research 2006, 125:67-78.
16. Kuuluvainen J., Karppinen H., Ovaskainen V. Landowner objectives and non-industrial private timber supply. Forest Science 1996, 42(3):300-309.
17. Langpap C. Conservation incentives programs for endangered species: an analysis of landowner participation. Land Economics 2004, 80(3):375-388.
18. Layton D.F., Siikamaki J. Payments for ecosystem services programs: predicting landowner enrollment and opportunity cost using a Beta-Binomial Model. Environmental & Resource Economics 2009, 44(3):415-439.
19. Matta J.R., Alavalapati J.R.R., Mercer D.E. Incentives for biodiversity conservation beyond the best management practices: are forestland owners interested?. Land Economics 2009, 85(1):132-143.
20. Mäntymaa E., Juutinen A., Monkkönen M., Svento R. Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest conservation: a case of privately owned forests in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 2009, 11(7):498-507.
21. Nybakk E., Crespell P., Hansen E., Lunnan A. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: an investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 2009, 257(2):608-618.
22. Raunikar R., Buongiorno J. Willingness to pay for forest amenities: the case of non-industrial owners in the south central United States. Ecological Economics 2006, 1(1):132-143.
23. Siikamäki J., Layton D. Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Incentive Payment Programs for the Protection of Non-Industrial Private Forests. Land Economics 2007, 83(4):539-560.
24. Sorice M.G., Haider W., Conner J.R., Ditton R.B. Incentive structure of and private landowner participation in an endangered species conservation program. Conservation Biology 2011, 25(3):587-596.
25. Sullivan J., Amacher G., Chapman S. Forest banking and forest landowners forgoing management rights for guaranteed financial returns. Forest Policy and Economics 2005, 7:381-392.
26. Suter J.F., Poe G.L., Bills N.L. Do landowners respond to land retirement incentives? Evidence from the conservation reserve enhancement program. Land Economics 2008, 84(1):17-30.
27. Vokoun M., Amacher G.S., Wear D.N. Scale of harvesting by non-industrial private forest landowners. Journal of Forest Economics 2006, 11:223-244.