Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 39, Issue , 2014, Pages 1-12

  Czajkowski, Mikołaj ^a   Bartczak, Anna ^a   Giergiczny, Marek ^a   Navrud, Stale ^b   Zylicz, Tomasz ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Discrete choice modeling; Ecosystem services; Forest recreation; Preference and scale heterogeneity; Stated preferences

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; COSTS; FORESTRY; LOGISTIC REGRESSION;

DISCRETE CHOICE MODELS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; FOREST RECREATION; SCALE HETEROGENEITIES; STATED PREFERENCES;

ECOSYSTEMS;

BIODIVERSITY; ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTS;

EID: 84891743329     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Abildtrup J., Garcia S., Olsen S.B., Stenger A. Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92(1):67-77.
2. Arthur L.M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical tests. For. Sci. 1977, 23(2):151-160.
3. Bartczak A., Lindhjem H., Navrud S., Zandersen M., Zylicz T. Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: the case of Poland. For. Policy Econ. 2008, 10(7-8):467-472.
4. Bartczak A., Englin J., Pang A. When are forest visits valued the most? An analysis of the seasonal demand for forest recreation in Poland. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2012, 52(2):249-264.
5. Becker N., Freeman S. The economic value of old growth trees in Israel. For. Policy Econ. 2009, 11(8):608-615.
6. Blasco E., González-Olabarria J., Rodriguéz-Veiga P., Pukkala T., Kolehmainen O., Palahí M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest stands in Catalonia (North-east Spain). J. For. Res. 2009, 20(1):73-78.
7. Bliemer M.C.J., Rose J.M., Hess S. Approximation of Bayesian efficiency in experimental choice designs. J. Choice Model. 2008, 1(1):98-127.
8. Carson R.T., Czajkowski M. The Discrete Choice Experiment Approach to Environmental Contingent Valuation. Handbook of choice modelling 2014, S. Hess, A. Daly (Eds.).
9. Carson R., Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 37(1):181-210.
10. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C., Brown T.C., McCollum D.W. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1997, 33(2):151-162.
11. Cummings R.G., Harrison G.W., Rutström E.E. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible?. Am. Econ. Rev. 1995, 85(1):260-266.
12. Czajkowski M., Giergiczny M., Greene W.H. Learning and fatigue effects revisited 2014, Investigating the effects of accounting for unobservable preference and scale heterogeneity, Land Economics.
13. Czajkowski M., Hanley N. Using labels to investigate scope effects in stated preference methods. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 44(4):521-535.
14. Czajkowski M., Ščasný M. Study on benefit transfer in an international setting. How to improve welfare estimates in the case of the countries' income heterogeneity?. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69(12):2409-2416.
15. Czajkowski M., Buszko-Briggs M., Hanley N. Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68(12):2910-2917.
16. Daniel T.C., Boster R.S., Forest R.M. Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167 1976, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
17. Despres A., Normandin D. Demande et évaluation des services écologiques et récréatifs des forêts en Lorraine 1998, Nancy.
18. Edwards D., Jay M., Jensen F.S., Lucas B., Marzano M., Montagné C., Peace A., Weiss G. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: towards a pan-European perspective. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 19:12-19.
19. Ferrini S., Scarpa R. Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2007, 53(3):342-363.
20. Fiebig D.G., Keane M.P., Louviere J., Wasi N. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark. Sci. 2010, 29(3):393-421.
21. Giergiczny M. Summary of Forest Valuation Studies in Europe. Review of instruments and valuation methods for multifunctional forest policy 2009, (http://www.polforex.wne.uw.edu.pl/docs/R-2008-157_review_final-03-10.pdf). A. Bartczak (Ed.).
22. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit. Transport. Res. E-Log. 2007, 43(5):610-623.
23. Hanley N., Wright R., Adamowicz V. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1998, 11(3):413-428.
24. Hensher D., Greene W. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30(2):133-176.
25. Horne P., Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 207(1-2):189-199.
26. Jensen F.S., Koch N.E. Measuring forest preferences of the population - a Danish approach. Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 2000, 151(1):11-16.
27. Kniivilä M. Users and non-users of conservation areas: are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys?. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 59(4):530-539.
28. Krawczyk M. Testing for hypothetical bias in willingness to support a reforestation program. J. For. Econ. 2012, 18(4):282-289.
29. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 68(4):715-719.
30. Lee T.R. Perceptions, Attitudes and Preferences in Forests and Woodlands 2001, Technical Paper - Forestry Commission.
31. Mattsson L., Li C.-Z. How do different forest management practices affect the non-timber value of forests? - an economic analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 1994, 41(1):79-88.
32. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 2000, 15(5):447-470.
33. MEA Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
34. Melichar J. Ekonomická stránka problematiky kurovce v NP Šumava [Infestation of the Spruce Bark-beetle - Economic View]. Environmentální ekonomie, politika a vnejší vztahy Ceské republiky. 3. seminár doktroandských studentu a mladých vedeckých a výzkumných pracovníku [Environmental Economics, Policy and International Environmental Relations. 3rd Seminar of Postgraduate Students, Young Scientists and Researchers] 2001, 176-192. Nakladatelství a vydavatelství litomyšlského semináre, Prague. P. Šauer (Ed.).
35. Melichar J. Economic Valuation of Forest Quality Change in the Jizerske hory Mountains: the Evidence from Contingent Behavior Study. Ninth Annual Bioecon Conference 2007, Kings College, Cambridge.
36. Mill G.A., van Rensburg T.M., Hynes S., Dooley C. Preferences for multiple use forest management in Ireland: citizen and consumer perpectives. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60(3):642-653.
37. Murphy J., Allen P., Stevens T., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 30(3):313-325.
38. Nagypal N.C. Review of Environmental Valuation Studies in Hungary 2005, Department of Environmental Economics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics.
39. Neill H.R., Cummings R.G., Ganderton P.T., Harrison G.W., McGuckin T. Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments. Land Econ. 1994, 70(2):145-154.
40. Nielsen A.B., Olsen S.B., Lundhede T. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 80:63-71.
41. Revelt D., Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1998, 80(4):647-657.
42. Rosenberger R.S., Loomis J.B. Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: in-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resour. Res. 2000, 36(4):1097-1107.
43. Sándor Z., Wedel M. Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 38(4):430-444.
44. Scarpa R., Rose J.M. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2008, 52(3):253-282.
45. Scarpa R., Chilton S.M., Hutchinson W.G., Buongiorno J. Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 33(2):237-250.
46. Šišák L., Pulkrab K., Kalivoda V. Význam návštevnosti lesa a sberu hlavních lesních plodin obyvateli území s lesy výrazne postiženými imisemi [Importance of Forest Frequentation and of Main Non-wood Forest Product Collection by Inhabitants in Regions with Forests Considerably Afflicted by Emissions]. Lesnictví - Forestry 1997, 43:245-258.
47. Sukhdev P., Wittmer H., Schröter-Schlaack C., Nesshöver C., Bishop J., Brink P.T., Gundimeda H., Simmons P.K.A.B. Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2010.
48. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, New York. 2nd ed.
49. Vossler C.A., Doyon M., Rondeau D. Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 2012, 4(4):145-171.
50. Yarrow C. A preliminary survey of the public's concepts of amenity in British forestry. Forestry 1966, 39(1):59-67.
51. Zube E.H., Sell J.L., Taylor J.G. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landsc. Plan. 1982, 9(1):1-33.