Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country

Journal of Forest Economics

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 329-344

  Hoyos, David ^a,b   Mariel, Petr ^a   Pascual, Unai ^b,c,d,e   Etxano, Iker ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

^b Research group on Ecological Economics and Political Ecology (wwwekopolorg)   (Poland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^d BASQUE FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE   (Spain)

^e BASQUE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BC3   (Spain)

Author keywords

Basque Country; Biodiversity; Choice experiments; Native tree species; Natura 2000 network; Welfare measure

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL ROBOTS; BIODIVERSITY; COMMERCE; CONSERVATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; LAND USE;

BASQUE COUNTRY; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; NATIVE TREE SPECIES; NATURA 2000 NETWORKS; WELFARE MEASURES;

FORESTRY;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; LAND USE; NATIVE SPECIES; PROTECTED AREA; SUSTAINABILITY; TREE; VALUATION; WELFARE ECONOMICS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

BIODIVERSITY; COMMERCE; CONSERVATION; ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING; FORESTRY; LAND USE;

BASQUE COUNTRY; SPAIN;

EID: 84867399886     PISSN: 11046899     EISSN: 16181530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2012.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alpizar F., Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Economic Issues 2001, 8:83-110.
2. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P., Leamer E., Radner R., Shuman H. Report of NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993, 58:4601-4614.
3. Barreiro J., Soler F., Pérez y Pérez L. How much does it cost to include a marginal rural area as a Natura 2000 site?. Social costs and expenditures for compensation schemes. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2004, 2(3):287-300.
4. Bierlaire M. BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference 2003, T. Chevroulet, A. Sevestre (Eds.).
5. Bierlaire M. An Introduction to BIOGEME Version 1.7 2008, Available at: http://www.biogeme.epfl.ch.
6. Chintagunta P., Jain D., Vilcassim N. Investigating heterogeneity in brand preference in logit models for panel data. Journal of Marketing Research 1991, 28:417-428.
7. De la Cruz, A., Benedicto, J., 2009. Assessing Socio-economic Benefits of Natura 2000 - a case study on the ecosystem service provided by SPA Pico da Vara/Ribeira do Guilherme. Output of the Project Financing Natura 2000: Cost Estimate and Benefits of Natura 2000 (Contract No: 070307/2007/484403/MAR/B2).
8. European Commission Natura 2000 Barometer 2011, Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm (accessed 01.07.2011).
9. Fosgerau M., Bierlaire M. A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 2007, 41:784-794.
10. Gantioler S., Rayment M., Bassi S., Kettunen M., McConville A., Landgrebe R., Gerdes H., ten Brink P. Costs and socio-economic benefits associated with the Natura 2000 network. Report to the European Commission 2010.
11. Getzner M., Jungmeier M. Conservation policy and the regional economy: the regional economic impact of Natura 2000 conservation sites in Austria. Journal of Nature Conservation 2002, 10:25-34.
12. Halahan R. Socio-Economic Benefits of Natura 2000 in the UK, WWF UK 2002, Available at: http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/N2Kuk.pdf.
13. Hanemann W.M. Discrete/continuous models of consumer demand. Econometrica 1984, 52:541-561.
14. Hanley N., Mourato S., Wright R.E. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. Journal of Economic Surveys 2001, 15:435-462.
15. Hensher D.A. Attribute processing in choice experiments and implications on willingness to pay. Valuing Environmental Amenities using Stated Choice Studies. A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice 2007, 135-158. Springer, The Netherlands. B.J. Kanninen (Ed.).
16. Horne P., Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 2005, 207:189-199.
17. Hoyos D. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1595-1603.
18. Hoyos D., Mariel P., Fernández-Macho J. The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: some empirical evidence. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:2372-2381.
19. Kamakura W.A., Russell G. A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. Journal of Marketing Research 1989, 26:379-390.
20. Kettunen, M., Baldock, D., Gantioler, S., Carter, O., Torkler, P., Arroyo Schnell, A., Baumueller, A., Gerritsen, E., Rayment, M., Daly, E., Pieterse, M., 2011. Assessment of the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of the EU financing instrument. A Project for the European Commission - Final Report, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium.
21. Krinsky I., Robb A. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1986, 68:715-719.
22. Kuik O., Brander L., Schaafsma M. Globale Batenraming van Natura 2000 gebieden 2006, Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken, Amsterdam.
23. Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 1966, 74:132-157.
24. Li C.-Z., Kuuluvainen J., Pouta E., Rekola M., Tahvonen O. Using choice experiments to value the Natura 2000 nature conservation programs in Finland. Environmental and Resource Economics 2004, 29:361-374.
25. Louviere J., Hensher D.A., Swait J. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
26. Mariel P., De Ayala A., Hoyos D., Abdullah S. Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: a simulation experiment. International Choice Modelling Conference 2010.
27. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
28. McFadden, D., 1995. Computing willingness-to-pay in random utility models. Working Papers_011, University of California at Berkeley, Econometrics Laboratory Software Archive.
29. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2000, 15:447-470.
30. Morey E., Rowe R., Watson M. A repeated nested-logit model of Atlantic salmon fishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1993, 75:578-592.
31. Morrison M.D., Blamey R.K., Bennett J.W. Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics 2000, 16:407-422.
32. Navrud S. Valuation techniques and benefit transfer methods: strengths, weaknesses and policy utility. OECD: Valuing Rural Amenities 2000.
33. Nunes P.A.L.D., van den Bergh J.C.J.M., Nijkamp P. The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity. Methods and Policy Applications 2003, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
34. Pouta E., Rekola M., Kuuluvainen J., Tahvonen O., Li C.-Z. Contingent valuation of the Natura 2000 nature conservation programme in Finland. Forestry 2000, 73(2):119-128.
35. Prada A., Vázquez M.X., Soliño M. Beneficios y costes sociales en la conservación de la red Natura 2000 2005, CIEF, Fundación Caixa Galicia.
36. Rojas-Briales E. Socio-economics of nature protection policies in the perspective of the implementation of Natura 2000 network: the Spanish case. Forestry 2000, 72(2):199-207.
37. Scottish Government, 2004. An economic assessment of the costs and benefits of Natura 2000 sites in Scotland. Final Report, Scottish Executive 2004, Environment Group Research Report 2004/05.
38. Ten Brink P., Monkhouse C., Richartz S. Promoting the Socio-Economic Benefits of Natura 2000 2002, Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels.
39. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, New York.