Use of choice experiments in assessing the role of policy instruments in social acceptability of forest biodiversity conservation in Southern Finland

Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy: A European Perspective

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 178-197

  Horne, Paula ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876150616     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781848441255.00015     Document Type: Chapter

References (34)

1. Adamowicz, W.L., J. Louviere and M. Williams (1994), 'Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 271-292.
2. Adamowicz, W.L., J. Swait, P.C. Boxall, J. Louviere and M. Williams (1997), 'Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32, 65-84.
3. Bennett, J. and R. Blamey (eds) (2002), The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
4. Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1997), Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation. Volume 1: A Process Companion, Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
5. Boxall, P. and W. Adamowicz (2002), 'Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach', Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 421-446.
6. Dijkstra, B.R. (1999), The Political Economy of Environmental Policy: A Public Choice Approach to Market Instruments, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
7. The role of policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation 195 Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry (2005), Vantaa, Finland: Finnish Forest Research Institute.
8. Hänninen, H. and H. Karppinen (1996), 'Kansalaismielipide metsien suojelusta ja talouskäytöstä', Metsätieteen aikakauskirja, 1, 27-39.
9. Hanley, N., S. Mourato and R. Wright (2001), 'Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?', Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(3), 1-25.
10. Horne, P. (2006), 'Forest owners' acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation: A choice experiment based approach', Silva Fennica, 40(1), 169-178.
11. Horne, P., T. Koskela and V. Ovaskainen (eds) (2004), Metsänomistajien ja Kansalaisten Näkemykset Metsäluonnon Monimuotoisuuden Turvaamisesta, Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen Tiedonantoja 933, Vantaa, Finland: Finnish Forest Research Institute.
12. Innes, R. (2000), 'The economics of takings and compensation when land and its public use value are in private hands', Land Economics, 76(2), 195-212.
13. Kangas, J. and P. Niemeläinen (1996), 'Opinion of forest owners and the public on forests and their use in Finland', Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 11(3), 269-280.
14. Karppinen, H. (2000), Forest Values and the Objectives of Forest Ownership, Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen Tiedonantoja 757, Vantaa, Finland: Finnish Forest Research Institute.
15. Kline, J., R. Alig and R. Johnson (2000), 'Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat', Ecological Economics, 33(1), 29-43.
16. Kriström, B. (1990), Valuing Environmental Benefits Using the Contingent Valuation Method: An Econometric Analysis, Umeå Economic Studies 219, Umeå, Sweden: University of Umeå.
17. Kuuluvainen, J.,E. Lehtonen, E.Pouta,M.Rekolaand C.-Z. Li (2002), Etelä-Suomen ja Pohjanmaan Metsien Suojelun Hyötyjen Taloudellinen Arvottaminen, Tutkimusraportteja 22, Helsinki, Finland: Helsingin yliopisto, Metsäekonomian laitos.
18. Langpap, C. (2006), 'Conservation of endangered species: Can incentives work for private landowners?', Ecological Economics, 57, 558-572.
19. Louviere, J.J.,D.A. Hensher and J.D. Swait (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20. Manning, R., W. Valliere and B. Minteer (1999), 'Values, ethics, and attitudes toward national forest management: An empirical study', Society and Natural Resources, 12, 421-436.
21. McFarlane, B.L. and P.C. Boxall (2000), 'Factors influencing forest values and attitudes of two stakeholder groups: The case of the Foothills Model Forests, Alberta, Canada', Society and Natural Resources, 13, 649-661.
22. Milon, J.W. and D. Scrogin (2006), 'Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration', Ecological Economics, 56, 162-175.
23. Oksanen, M. (ed) (1997), Arvot ja Luonnon Arvottaminen, Helsinki, Finland: Yliopistopaino.
24. Pietarinen, J. (1987), 'Ihminen ja metsä: Neljä perusasennetta', Silva Fennica, 21(4), 323-331.
25. Pietarinen, J. (2000), 'Ihmislähtöiset luontoarvot ja luonnon omat arvot', in A. Haapala and M. Oksanen (eds), Arvot ja Luonnon Arvottaminen, Helsinki, Finland: Yliopistopaino.
26. Polasky, S. and H. Doremus (1998), 'When the truth hurts: Endangered species policy on private land with imperfect information', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 35, 22-47.
27. Pope, C.A. III and J.W. Jones (1990), 'Value of wilderness designation in Utah', Journal of Environmental Management, 30, 157-174.
28. Rassi, P., A. Alanen, T. Kanerva and I. Mannerkoski (eds) (2001), Suomen Lajien Uhanalaisuus 2000. Helsinki, Finland: Ympäristöministeriö and Suomen Ympäristökeskus.
29. Rogers, M.F. and J.A. Sinden (1994), 'Safe minimum standard for environmental choices: old-growth forest in New South Wales', Journal of Environmental Management, 41, 89-103.
30. Rolfe, J., J. Wake and P. Donaghy (2005), Designing Incentive Mechanisms to Improve Water Quality in Sandy Creek, Rockhampton, Australia: Central Queensland University.
31. Siikamäki, J. (2001), Discrete Choice Experiments for Valuing Biodiversity Conservation in Finland, PhD Dissertation. Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Davis, USA: University of California.
32. Train, K.E. (1998), 'Recreation demand models with taste differences over people', Land Economics, 74, 230-239.
33. Veisten, K., H. Hoen, S. Navrud and J. Strand (1993), Valuing Biodiversity in Norwegian Forests: A Contingent Valuation Study with Multiple Bias Testing, Memorandum from Department of Economics 7. Oslo, Norway: Oslo University.
34. Virkkala, R., K.T. Korhonen, R. Haapanen and K. Aapala (2000), Metsien ja Soiden Suojelutilanne Metsä-ja Suokasvillisuusvyöhykkeittäin Valtakunnan Metsien 8. Inventoinnin Perusteella, Suomen ympäristö 395, Helsinki, Finland: Metsäntutkimuslaitos, Suomen ympäristökeskus.