Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation

Ecological Economics

Volumn 92, Issue , 2013, Pages 67-77

  Abildtrup, Jens ^a   Garcia, Serge ^a   Olsen, Søren Bøye ^b   Stenger, Anne ^a  

^a AGROPARISTECH   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Cluster effects model; Error component model; Forest attributes; Forest recreation; Spatial heterogeneity

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; HETEROGENEITY; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; VALUATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FRANCE; LORRAINE;

EID: 84879322090     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Adamowicz W.L., Louviere J., Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 26:271-392.
2. Ando A.W., Shah P. Demand-side factors in optimal land conservation choice. Resource and Energy Economics 2010, 32:203-221.
3. Baerenklau K.A. A latent class approach to modeling endogenous spatial sorting in zonal recreation demand models. Land Economics 2010, 86(4):800-816.
4. Baerenklau K.A., Conzález-Cabán A., Paez C., Chavez E. Spatial allocation of forest recreation value. Journal of Forest Economics 2010, 16(2):113-126.
5. 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, 60:450-460.
6. Bergmann A., Colombo S., Hanley N. Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(3):616-625.
7. Bestard A.B., Font A.F. Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context. Journal of Forest Economics 2010, 16:205-216.
8. Birol E., Karousakis K., Koundouri P. Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecological Economics 2006, 60:145-156.
9. Bockstael N.E., Hanneman M., Kling C.L. Estimating the value of water quality improvements in a recreational demand framework. Water Resources Research 1987, 23(5):951-960.
10. Breusch T.S., Pagan A.R. The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specifications in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies 1980, 47:239-253.
11. Brey R., Riera P., Mogas J. Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: an application to Spanish forests. Ecological Economics 2007, 64:305-312.
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 2013, 92:69-77.
13. Brouwer R., Martin-Ortega J., Berbel J. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Economics 2010, 86(3):552-568.
14. Cameron A.C., Trivedi P.K. Microeconometrics: methods and Applications 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15. Campbell D. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 58(3):467-483.
16. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. Using mixed logit models to derive individual-specific WTP estimates for landscape improvements under agri-environmental schemes: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland. Choice experiments informing European environmental policy 2006, 58-81. Edward Elgar, Publishing Limited, Cheltenham. P. Koundouri, E. Birol (Eds.).
17. Campbell D., Scarpa R., Hutchinson W.G. Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences 2008, 1(2-3):117-126.
18. Campbell D., Hutchinson G., Scarpa R. Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environment and Planning 2009, 41:97-112.
19. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Liljenstolpe C. Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics 2003, 47(1):95-103.
20. Cavailhès J., Brossard T., Foltête J., Hilal M., Joly D., Tourneux F., Tritz C., Wavresky P. GIS-based hedonic pricing of landscape. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 44(4):571-590.
21. Christie M., Hanley N., Hynes S. Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. Journal of Forest Economics 2007, 13(2-3):75-102.
22. Despres A., Normandin D. Demande et évaluation des services écologiques et récréatifs des forêts en Lorraine. Document de Recherche, ENGREF, Nancy 1998.
23. Epple D., Peress M., Sieg H. Identification and semiparametric estimation of equilibrium models of local jurisdictions. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 2010, 2:195-220.
24. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics & Transportation Review 2007, 43(5):610-623.
25. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A., Rose J.M. Using classical simulation-based estimators to estimate individual WTP values. The economics of non-market goods and resources 2005, vol. 6:17-33. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
26. Hand M.S., Thacher J.A., McCollum D.W., Berrens R.P. Intra-regional amenities, wages, and home prices: the role of forests in the southwest. Land Economics 2008, 84(4):635-651.
27. Hanley N., Macmillan D.C., Wright R.E., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., Crabtree B. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 89(1):1-15.
28. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Koop G. Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: climbing in Scotland. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 22:449-466.
29. Hensher D.A., Greene W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30:133-176.
30. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: a Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
31. Hensher D.A., Greene W.H., Rose J.M. Deriving willingness-to-pay estimates of travel-time savings from individual-based parameters. Environment and Planning A 2006, 38(12):2365-2376.
32. Hess S. Conditional parameter estimates from Mixed Logit models: distributional assumptions and a free software tool. Journal of Choice Modelling 2010, 3(2):134-152.
33. Hess S., Hensher D.A. Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 2010, 44(6):781-790.
34. Hess S., Bierlaire M., Polak J. Estimation of value of travel-time savings using Mixed Logit models. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2005, 39(3):221-236.
35. Irwin E.G. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics 2002, 78(4):465-480.
36. Irwin E.G., Bockstael N.E. The problem of identifying land use spillovers: measuring the effects of open space on residential property values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001, 83(3):698-704.
37. Johnston R.J., Ramachandran M., Schultz E.T., Segerson K., Besedin E.Y. Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn't Apply: choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association 2011, Association's 2011 AAEA & NAREA Joint Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, (July 24-26, 2011).
38. Klaiber H.A., Phaneuf D.J. Do sorting and heterogeneity matter for open space policy analysis? An empirical comparison of hedonic and sorting models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009, 91(5):1312-1318.
39. Klaiber A.H., Phaneuf D.J. Valuing open space in a residential sorting model of the Twin Cities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2010, 60(2):57-77.
40. Kuminoff N.V. Decomposing the structural identification of non-market values. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2009, 57(2):123-139.
41. Leplat M., Le Goffe P. Faut-il réguler l'encombrement des sites récréatifs? Un modèle de choix discret avec participation. Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement 2009, 90(1):51-77.
42. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
43. McFadden D., Train K.E. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2000, 15(5):447-470.
44. Meijer E., Rouwendal J. Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2006, 21(2):227-244.
45. Murdock J. Handling unobserved site characteristics in random utility models of recreation demand. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2006, 51(1):1-25.
46. Nielsen A.B., Olsen S.B., Lundhede T. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 80:63-71.
47. Normandin D. Une évaluation de la demande sociale de services environnementaux de la forêt. INRA Sciences Sociales, Recherches en Économie et Sociologies Rurales N° 2 -juin 1998 1998, 1-4.
48. Norton B., Costanza R., Bishop R.C. The evolution of preferences: why 'sovereign' preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it. Ecological Economics 1998, 24:193-211.
49. Olsen S.B. Choosing between internet and mail survey modes for choice experiment surveys considering non-market goods. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 44(4):591-610.
50. Parsons G.R. A note on choice of location in residential travel cost demand models. Land Economics 1991, 67(3):360-364.
51. Peyron J.-L., Bakouma J., Berthier A., Colnard O., Normandin D., Stenger A., Tessier A. Première évaluation économique globale des dégâts forestiers dus aux tempêtes de décembre 1999. Research report 2001, 42. Laboratoire d'Economie Forestière.
52. Peyron J.-L., Harou P., Niedzwiedz A., Stenger S. National survey on demand for recreation in French forests. Research Report 2002, 44. Laboratoire d'Economie Forestière, INRA, Nancy.
53. Randall A. A difficulty with the travel cost method. Land Economics 1994, 70(1):88-96.
54. Revelt D., Train K.E. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1998, 80(4):647-657.
55. Rigby D., Burton M. Modeling disinterest and dislike: a bounded Bayesian mixed logit model of the UK market for GM food. Environmental and Resource Economics 2006, 33(4):485-509.
56. Roback J. Wages, rents, and quality of life. Journal of Political Economy 1982, 90:1257-1278.
57. Scarpa R., Hutchinson W.G., Chilton S.M., Buongiorno J. Importance of forest attributes in the willingness to pay for recreation: a contingent valuation study of Irish forests. Forest Policy and Economics 2000, 1:315-329.
58. Scarpa R., Ferrini S., Willis K. Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. The economics of non-market goods and resources 2005, vol. 6:247-273. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
59. Scarpa R., Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G. Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment. Land Economics 2007, 83(4):619-634.
60. Scarpa R., Willis K., Acutt M. Valuing externalities from water supply: status quo, choice complexity, and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2007, 50(4):449-466.
61. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Marangon F. Using flexible taste distributions to value collective reputation for environmentally friendly production methods. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 56(2):145-162.
62. Schaafsma M., Brouwer R., Rose J.M. Directional heterogeneity in WTP-space models for environmental valuation. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, June 29-July 2 2011, Rome 2011.
63. Schläpfer F., Hanley N. Do local landscape patterns affect the demand for landscape amenities protection?. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 54(1):21-34.
64. Schmidt L., Courant P.N. Sometimes close is good enough: the value of nearby environmental amenities. Journal of Regional Science 2006, 46:931-951.
65. Sieg H., Smith V.K., Banzhaf H.S., Walsh R. Estimating the general equilibrium benefits of large changes in spatially delineated public goods. International Economic Review 2004, 45(4):1047-1077.
66. Smith V.K., Sieg H., Banzhaf H.S., Walsh R.P. General equilibrium benefits for environmental improvements: projected ozone reductions under EPA's prospective analysis for the Los Angeles air basin. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2004, 47:559-584.
67. Termansen M., McClean C. Optimal spatial allocation of reafforestation areas. Paper presented at The European Association of Environmental and Resource Economics Conference. 14th Annual Conference, Bremen, Germany 23-26 June 2005 2005.
68. Termansen M., Skov-Petersen H., McClean C.J. Recreational site choice modelling using high-resolution spatial data. Environmental and Planning A 2004, 36:1085-1099.
69. Termansen M., Zandersen M., Mcclean C. Spatial substitution patterns in forest recreation. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2008, 38(1):81-97.
70. Thirion E. Utilisation d'un Système d'Informations Géographiques pour caractériser l'usage récreatif des forêts de Lorraine 2010, AgroParisTech, Engref, Nancy.
71. Tiebout C. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy 1956, 64:416-424.
72. Timmins C., Murdock J. A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2007, 53:230-249.
73. Train K.E. A Comparison of Hierarchical Bayes and Maximum Simulated Likelihood for Mixed Logit. Working paper 2001, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
74. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
75. Train K.E., Sonnier G. Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. The Economics of Non-market Goods and Resources 2005, vol. 6:117-134. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
76. Train K.E., Weeks M. Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay Space. The Economics of Non-market Goods and Resources 2005, vol. 6:1-16. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
77. Troy A., Wilson M. Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 2006, 60(2):435-449.
78. von Haefen R.H., Phaneuf D.J. Identifying demand parameters in the presence of unobservables: a combined revealed and stated preference approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2008, 56(1):19-32.
79. Walsh R. Endogenous open space amenities in a locational equilibrium. Journal of Urban Economics 2007, 61:319-344.
80. Whitehead J.C., Pattanayak S.K., Van Houtven G.L., Gelso B.R. Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket value of ecological services: an assessment of the state of the science. Journal of Economic Surveys 2008, 22(5):872-908.
81. Wu J., Adams R.M., Plantinga A.J. Amenities in an urban equilibrium model: residential development in Portland, Oregon. Land Economics 2004, 80(1):19-32.