Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services

Ecological Economics

Volumn 92, Issue , 2013, Pages 48-57

  Termansen, Mette ^a   McClean, Colin J ^b   Jensen, Frank Søndergaard ^c  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Ecosystem service mapping; Forest recreation; GIS; Mixed logit; Random parameter logit

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGICAL MODELING; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; GIS; HETEROGENEITY; MAPPING METHOD; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; VALUATION;

EID: 84879299884     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. AIS Areal Informations Systemet [Land Cover Map] 2000, Ministry for Environment and Energy and the Danish Environmental Research Institute, Copenhagen.
2. Bateman I.J., Garrod G.J., Brainard J.S., Lovett A.A. Measurement issues in the travel cost method: a Geographical Information Systems approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1996, 47:191-205.
3. Bateman I.J., Jones A.P., Lovett A.A., Lake I.R., Day B.H. Applying Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to environmental and resource economics. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 22:219-269.
4. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Georgiou S., Lake I. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics 2006, 60(2):450-460.
5. Ben-Akiva M., Lerman S.R. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Applications to Travel Demand 1985, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
6. Bockstael N.E., Hanneman W.M., Kling C.L. Estimating the value of water quality improvements in a recreational demand framework. Water Resources Research 1987, 23:951-960.
7. Bockstael N., Hanneman W.M., Strand I. Measuring the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Using Recreation Demand Models. Draft Report Presented to the US Environmental Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement CR-811043-01-0 1987, (Washington D.C.).
8. Boxall P.C., Watson D.O., Englin J. Backcountry recreationists' valuation of forest and park management features in wilderness parks of the western Canadian Shield. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 1996, 26:982-990.
9. Brainard J.S., Lovett A.A., Bateman I.J. Integrating Geographical Information Systems into travel cost analysis and benefit transfer. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 1999, 13:227-246.
10. Breffle W., Morey E.R. Investigating preference heterogeneity in a repeated discrete choice recreation demand model of Atlantic salmon fishing. Marine Resource Economics 2000, 15:1-20.
11. Carl Bro Befordringsbidrag 1997, 1-8. Carl Bro Informatik, Copenhagen.
12. Broch S.W., Strange N., Jacobsen J.B., Wilson K.A. Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution. Ecological Economics 2012.
13. Cambell D., Hutchinson W., Scarpa R. Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environmental and Planning A 2009, 41:97-111.
14. Cameron A.C., Trivedi P.K. Regression Analysis of Count Data 1998, Cambridge University Press.
15. Chen H.Z., Cosslett S.R. Environmental quality preference and benefit estimation in multinomial probit models: a simulation approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 80:512-520.
16. Day B.H., Bateman I.J., Lake I. Estimating the demand for peace and quiet using property market data. CSERGE Working Paper Series 2006, University of East Anglia.
17. Feather P., Hellerstein D., Tomasi T. A discrete-count model of recreation demand. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 29:214-227.
18. Fisher B., Turner R.K., Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:643-653.
19. Haab T.C., McConnell K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources. The Econometrics of Non-market Valuation 2002, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
20. Hanemann W.M. Welfare analysis with discrete choice models. Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practise 1999, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. J.A. Herriges, C.L. Kling (Eds.).
21. The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation 2003, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. N. Hanley, W.D. Shaw, R.E. Wright (Eds.).
22. Hausman J.A., Leonard G.K., McFadden D. A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model. Assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage. Journal of Public Economics 1995, 56:1-30.
23. Hellerstein D., Mendelsohn M. A theoretical foundation for count data models, with an application to a travel cost model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1993, 75:604-611.
24. Hensher D.A., Greene W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30:133-176.
25. Herriges J.A., Kling C.L. Nonlinear income effects in random utility models. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1999, 81:62-72.
26. Herriges J.A., Phaneuf D.J. Inducing patterns of correlation and substitution in repeated logit models of recreation demand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2002, 84:1076-1090.
27. Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R., Chilton S.M., McCallion T. Spatial distribution versus efficiency effects of forest recreation policies: using a regional travel cost model. The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation 2003, 139-164. Edward Elgar. N. Hanley, D. Shaw, R. Wright (Eds.).
28. Jensen F.S. Friluftsliv i 592 skove og andre natur omraader 2003, The Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Hørsholm.
29. Jensen F.S., Koch N.E. Friluftsliv i skovene 1976/77-1993/94 1997, The Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Hørsholm.
30. Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services 2011, Oxford University Press, Natural Capital. P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T.H. Ricketts, G.C. Daily, S. Polasky (Eds.).
31. KMS VejnetDK 1995, National Survey and Cadastre, Danish Ministry of the Environment, Copenhagen.
32. KMS Det levende Danmarkskort 2001, National Survey and Cadastre, Danish ministry of the environment, Copenhagen.
33. Maes J., Braat L. A spatial assessment of ecosystem services in Europe: methods, case studies and policy analysis-phase 2. PEER Report Ispra 2012.
34. Maes J., Hauck J., Paracchini M.L., Ratamäki O., Termansen M., Perez-Soba M., Kopperoinen L., Rankinen K., Schägner J.P., Henrys P., Cisowska I., Zandersen M., Jax K., La Notte A., Leikola N., Pouta E., Smart S., Hasler B., Lankia T., Andersen H.E., Lavalle C., Vermaas T., Alemu M.H., Scholefield P., Batista F., Pywell R., Hutchins M., Blemmer M., Fonnesbech-Wulff A., Vanbergen A., Münier B., Baranzelli C., Roy D., Thieu V., Zulian G., Kuussaari M., Thodsen H., Alanen E.-L., Egoh B., Sørensen P.B., Braat L., Bidoglio G. A Spatial Assessment of Ecosystem Services in Europe-Phase II : Methods, Case Studies and Policy Analysis & Synthesis Report 2012, 215. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra.
35. McConnell K.E. The economics of outdoor recreation. Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics 1985, 677-722. North Holland, Amsterdam. A.V. Kneese, J.L. Sweeney (Eds.).
36. McFadden D. Modeling the choice of residential location. Transportation Research Records 1978, 673:72-77.
37. MIM Virksomhedregnskab 1999, 1-157. Forest and Nature Agency, Ministry of Environment and Energy.
38. MIM Skovkulturen i et naturnært perspektiv 2003, 1-41. The Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Ministry of Environment and Energy, Copenhagen.
39. Moeltner K., Shonkwiler J.S. Correcting for on-site sampling in random utility models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 87(2):327-339.
40. Morey E.R., Rowe R.D., Watson D.O. A repeated nested logit model of Atlantic salmon fisheries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1993, 75:578-592.
41. Nerella S., Bhat C.R. Numerical analysis of effect of sampling of alternatives in discrete choice models. Transportation Research Records 2004, 1894:11-19.
42. Nielsen A.B., Olsen S.B., Lundhede T.H. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 80(1-2):63-71.
43. Parsons G.R., Kealy M.J. Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation. Land Economics 1992, 68:93-106.
44. Parsons G.R., Kealy M.J. A demand theory for number of trips in a random utility model of recreation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 29:357-367.
45. Parsons G.R., Platinga A.J., Boyle K.J. Narrow choice set in a random utility model of recreation demand. Land Economics 2000, 76(1):86-99.
46. Provencher B., Barenklau K.B.R.C. A finite mixture model of recreational angling with serially correlated random utility. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2002, 1066-1075.
47. Revelt D., Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1998, LXXX:647-657.
48. Romano D., Scarpa R., Spalatro F., Viganò L. Modeling determinants of participation, number of trips and site choice for outdoor recreation in protected areas. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2000, 51:224-238.
49. Scarpa R., Chilton S.M., Hutchinson W.G., Boungiorno J. Valuing the recreational benefits from creation of nature reserves in Irish forests. Ecological Economics 2000, 33:237-250.
50. Sen A., Darnell A., Crowe A., Bateman I.J., Munday P., Foden J. Economic assessment of the recreational value of ecosystems in Great Britain. Report to the Economics Team of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011.
51. Shaw D., Shonkwiler J.S. Brand choice and purchase frequency revisited: an application to recreation behavior. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2000, 82(3):515-526.
52. Shonkwiler J.S., Shaw W.D. A finite mixture approach to analyzing income effects in random utility models: reservoir recreation along the Columbia river. The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation 2003, 268-279. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. N. Hanley, W.D. Shaw, R.E. Wright (Eds.).
53. Skov-Petersen H. GIS, accessibility, and physical planning. Exemplified by models of recreational. Exemplified by Models of Recreational Activities 2002, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen.
54. Termansen M., McClean C.J., Skov-Petersen H. Recreational site choice modeling using high spatial resolution data. Environment and Planning A 2004, 36:1085-1099.
55. Train K. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 1998, 74:230-239.
56. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press.
57. Train K. Halton sequences for mixed logit. Working Paper 2004, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.
58. UK National Ecosystem Assessment The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report 2011, UNEP-WCMC, (Cambridge).
59. Zandersen M., Toll R.S.J. A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. Journal of Forest Economics 2009, 15(1-2):109-130.
60. Zandersen M., Termansen M., Jensen F.S. Testing benefits transfer of forest recreation values over a 20-year time horizon. Land Economics 2007, 83(3):412-440.