Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay

Ecological Economics

Volumn 98, Issue , 2014, Pages 90-101

  Yao, Richard T ^a   Scarpa, Riccardo ^b,f   Turner, James A ^c   Barnard, Tim D ^a   Rose, John M ^d   Palma, João H N ^e   Harrison, Duncan R ^a  

^a SCION   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

^c RUAKURA RESEARCH CENTRE   (New Zealand)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^e INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DE AGRONOMIA   (Portugal)

^f QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Discrete choice experiment; Ordinary least squares panel regression; Planted forests; Random parameters logit; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; BIODIVERSITY; ECONOMIC ACTIVITY; ENDANGERED SPECIES; EXTINCTION; FOREST COVER; FOREST MANAGEMENT; HABITAT STRUCTURE; MARKET DEVELOPMENT; SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

NEW ZEALAND;

EID: 84892885449     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.009     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Alavalapati J.R.R., Stainback G.A., Carter D.R. Restoration of the longleaf pine ecosystem on private lands in the US South: an ecological economic analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 40:411-419.
2. Axsen J., Mountain D.C., Jaccard M. Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: the case of hybrid-electric vehicles. Resour. Energy Econ. 2009, 31:221-238.
3. Banerjee S., Murphy J.H. The scope test revisited. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2005, 12:613-617.
4. Bateman I.J., Langford I.H., Nishikawa N., Lake I. The Axford Debate Revisited: A Case Study Illustrating Different Approaches to the Aggregation of Benefits Data. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2000, 43:291-302.
5. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Georgiou S., Lake I. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60:450-460.
6. Bauhus J., Pokorny B., Van der Meer P., Kanowski P.J., Kanninen M. Ecosystem goods and services-the key for sustainable plantations, Ecosystem Goods and Services from Plantation Forests 2010, Earthscan, London, UK.
7. Boxall P.C., Macnab B. Exploring the preferences of wildlife recreationists for features of boreal forest management: a choice experiment approach. Can. J. For. Res. 2000, 30:1931-1941.
8. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L., Swait J., Williams M., Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18:243-253.
9. 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. Can. J. For. Res. 1996, 26:982-990.
10. Brockerhoff E.G., Jactel H., Parrotta J.A., Quine C.P., Sayer J. Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity?. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17:925-951.
11. Brouwer R., Martin-Ortega J. Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability. Resource and Energy Economics 2012, 34:151-166.
12. Burgess L., Street D.J. Optimal designs for choice experiments with asymmetric attributes. J. Stat. Plan. Infer. 2005, 134:288-301.
13. CAG (Controller, Auditor General) Department of Conservation: Prioritising and Partnering to Manage Biodiversity. Performance Audit Report 2012, Office of the Auditor-General, Wellington, (84 pp.).
14. Cameron T.A. Directional heterogeneity in distance profiles in hedonic property value models. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2006, 51(1):26-45.
15. Cameron T.A., DeShazo J.R., Johnson E. Scenario adjustment in stated preference research. J. Choice Model. 2011, 4:9-43.
16. Campbell D. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 58:467-483.
17. Campbell D., Scarpa R., Hutchinson W. Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci. 2008, 1:117-126.
18. Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G., Scarpa R. Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environ. Plan. A 2009, 41:97-111.
19. Chen T.T., Chung K.P., Huang H.C., Man L.N., Lai M.S. Using discrete choice experiment to elicit doctors' preferences for the report card design of diabetes care in Taiwan-a pilot study. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2010, 16:14-20.
20. ChoiceMetrics Ngene 1.1 User manual and reference guide, choice-metrics 2011, www.choice-metrics.com.
21. Christie M., Hanley N., Warren J., Murphy K., Wright R., Hyde T. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58(2):304-317.
22. Christie M., Hanley N., Hynes S. Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiments and contingent behaviour methods. J. For. Econ. 2007, 13:75-102.
23. Colbourne R., Bassett S., Billing T., McCormick H., McLennan J., Nelson A., Robertson H. The Development of Operation Nest Egg as a Tool in the Conservation Management of kiwi 2005, Science and Technical Publishing, Department of Conservation, Wellington, (24 pp.).
24. Concu G.B. Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2007, 51:175-194.
25. Cummings R.G., Taylor L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am. Econ. Rev. 1999, 89:649-665.
26. Dhakal B., Yao R., Turner J.A., Barnard T. Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 17:34-44.
27. DOC (Department of Conservation) Department of Conservation Annual Report 2010, 127. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
28. DOC (Department of Conservation) Department of Conservation Annual Report: For the Year Ended 30 June 2012 2012, 116. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
29. DOI (Department of the Interior) Proposed rules for valuing environmental damages. Fed. Regist. 1994, 59(85):23098-23111.
30. Dyck B. Benefits of planted forests: social, ecological and economic. UNFF Intersessional Experts Meeting on the Role of Planted Forests in Sustainable Forest Management, Wellington 2003.
31. FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010-Key Findings 2010, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.
32. FAO Planted Forests. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Accessed on 16 April 2013 at. http://www.fao.org/forestry/plantedforests/en/.
33. FAO State of the World's Forests 2012 2012, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
34. Foster V., Mourato S. Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope: do contingent valuation and choice experiments give the same results?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 24:141-160.
35. Fox J., Nino-murcia A. Status of species conservation banking in the United States. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19(4):996-1007.
36. Freeman A.M. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods 1993, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
37. Garrod G.D., Willis K.G. The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: a contingent ranking study. Ecol. Econ. 1997, 21:45-61.
38. Garrod G.D., Scarpa R., Willis K.G. Estimating the benefits of traffic calming on through routes: a choice experiment approach. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 2002, 36:211-231.
39. Getis A., Ord K. The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geogr. Anal. 1992, 24:189-206.
40. Goldberg I., Roosen J. Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: a comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food. J. Risk Uncertain. 2007, 34:123-144.
41. Haaijer M.E. Modeling conjoint choice experiments with the probit model. Economics 1999, University of Groningen, Groningen.
42. Haaijer M.E., Kamakura W.A., Wedel M. The no-choice alternative in conjoint choice. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 43:93-106.
43. Hanley N., Willis K.G., Powe N., Anderson M. Valuing the Benefits of Biodiversity in Forests, Social & Environmental Benefits of Forestry Phase 2 2002, Centre for Research in Environmental Appraisal & Management, University of Newcastle, Edinburgh.
44. Hanley N., Schläpfer F., Spurgeon J. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 68:297-304.
45. Harrison G.W. Making choice studies incentive compatible. Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Guide to Theory and Practice 2006, 65-108. Kluwer, Boston. B. Kanninen (Ed.).
46. Hensher D.A. Empirical approaches to combining revealed and stated preference data: some recent developments with reference to urban mode choice. Res. Transp. Econ. 2008, 23:23-29.
47. Hensher D.A., Greene W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30:133-176.
48. Herriges J.A., Phaneuf D.J. Inducing patterns of correlation and substitution in repeated logit models of recreation demand. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 84:1076-1090.
49. Hess S., Rose J. Should reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 42:297-317.
50. Horne P. 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 2008, 178-197. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA. E. Birol, P. Koundouri (Eds.).
51. Johnston R.J., Roheim C.A. A battle of taste and environmental convictions for ecolabeled seafood: a contingent ranking experiment. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2006, 31:283-300.
52. 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. Agricultural & Applied Economics Association's 2011 AAEA & NAREA Joint Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 2011.
53. Jukes M.R., Peace A.J., Ferris R. Carabid beetle communities associated with coniferous plantations in Britain: the influence of site, ground vegetation and stand structure. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 148:271-286.
54. Kaval P., Yao R., Scrimgeour F. The economic value of biodiversity in New Zealand: results from a household survey. Working Paper in Economics 09/05 2009, Department of Economics, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
55. Kerr G.N., Sharp B.M.H. Choice experiments adaptive design benefits: a case study. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2010, 54:407-420.
56. Landry C.E., List J.A. Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: evidence from the field. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 89(2):420-429.
57. Loomis J.B. How large is the extent of the market for public goods: evidence from a nationwide contingent valuation survey. Appl. Econ. 1996, 28:779-782.
58. Matta J.R., Alavalapati J.R.R., Stainback G.A. Effect of conserving habitat for biodiversity on optimal management of non-industrial private forests in Florida. J. For. Econ. 2009, 15:223-235.
59. Maunder C. Face to face personal communication with Colin Maunder of Timberlands Ltd., Rotorua, New Zealand 2008.
60. Maunder C., Shaw W., Pierce R. Indigenous biodiversity and land use - what do exotic plantation forests contribute?. N. Z. J. For. 2005, 49:20-26.
61. Mazur K., Bennett J. Location differences in communities' preferences for environmental improvements in selected NSW catchments: a choice modelling approach. Paper Presented at the 54st Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Cairns, Australia, 10-13 February 2009 2009.
62. McFadden D., Train K.E. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 2000, 15:447-470.
63. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis 2005, World Resources Institute, Washington DC.
64. Meyerhoff J.R., Liebe U., Hartje V. Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: evidence from two choice experiments in Germany. J. For. Econ. 2009, 15:37-58.
65. Ministry for the Environment Bio-what? Addressing the Effects of Private Land Management on Indigenous Biodiversity 2000, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.
66. Ministry for the Environment The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2000, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.
67. Ministry for the Environment The New Zealand Land Cover Database Available online at. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/land/land-cover-dbase/index.html.
68. Morse-Jones S., Bateman I.J., Kontoleon A., Ferrini S., Burgess N.D., Turner R.K. Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 78:9-18.
69. Mozumder P., Berrens R.P. Investigating hypothetical bias: induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism with uncertainty. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2007, 14(10):705-709.
70. MPI (Ministry for Primary Industries) National Exotic Forest Description as of 1 April 2012 2012, Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, (76 pp.).
71. NZFOA (New Zealand Forest Owners Association) New Zealand Plantation Forest Industry 2011, New Zealand Forest Owners Association, Wellington.
72. Pawson S. Natives in a pine forest. N. Z. Geogr. 2005, 78:79-93.
73. Pawson S.M., Ecroyd C.E., Seaton R., Shaw W.B., Brockerhoff E.G. New Zealand's exotic plantation forests as habitats for threatened indigenous species. N. Z. J. Ecol. 2010, 34:342-355.
74. Raunikar R., Buongiorno J. Willingness to pay for forest amenities: the case of non-industrial owners in the south central United States. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 56:132-143.
75. Revelt D., Train K.E. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1998, 80:647-657.
76. Rolfe J., Windle J. Testing for geographic scope and scale effects with choice modelling: application to the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1069 2010, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
77. Rolfe J., Windle J. Distance decay functions for iconic assets: assessing national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2012, 53:347-365.
78. Rose J.M., Bain S., Bliemer M.C.J. Experimental design strategies for stated preference studies dealing with non-market goods. International Handbook on Non-Marketed Environmental Valuation 2011, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. J. Bennett (Ed.).
79. Rosenberger R.S., Needham M.D., Morzillo A.T., Moehrke C. Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest. J. For. Econ. 2012, 18:271-281.
80. Ryan M., Wordsworth S. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to the level of attributes in discrete choice experiments. Scott. J. Polit. Econ. 2000, 47(5):504-524.
81. Samuelson W., Zeckhauser R. Status-quo bias in decision-making. J. Risk Uncertain. 1988, 24:7-59.
82. 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, 52:253-282.
83. Scarpa R., Thiene M. Destination choice models for rock climbing in the northeastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of preferences. Land Econ. 2005, 81(3):426-444.
84. 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, 33:237-250.
85. Scarpa R., Ferrini S., Willis K. Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
86. Scarpa R., Campbell D., Hutchinson W.G. Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiments. Land Econ. 2007, 83:617-634.
87. Scarpa R., Notaro S., Louviere J., Raffaelli R. Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate benefits of tourism in Alpine grazing commons. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 93:813-828.
88. Schaafsma M., Brouwer R., Rose J. Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 79:21-31.
89. Seaton R. The ecological requirements of the New Zealand (Falco novaeseelandiae) in plantation forestry 2007, (PhD thesis in Zoology), Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
90. Seaton R., Holland J.D., Minot E.O., Springett B.P. Breeding success of New Zealand falcons (Falco novaeseelandiae) in a pine plantation. N. Z. J. Ecol. 2009, 33:32-39.
91. Seaton R., Minot E.O., Holland J.D. Nest-site selection of New Zealand Falcons (Falco novaeseelandiae) in plantation forests and the implications of this to forestry management. Emu 2010, 110:316-323.
92. SNZ (Statistics New Zealand) Browse for statistics 2011, Statistics New Zealand, Wellington.
93. Statistics New Zealand, Undated. New Zealand: An Urban/Rural Profile Update (Updated Data Tables: People). Available online at http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Geographic-areas/urban-rural-profile-update.aspx.
94. Stewart D., Hyde N. New Zealand falcons (Falco novaeseelandiae) nesting in exotic plantations. Notornis 2004, 51:119-121.
95. Sutherland R.J., Walsh R.G. Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Econ. 1985, 61:281-291.
96. Tait P., Baskaran R., Cullen R., Bicknell K. Non-market valuation of water quality: addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 75:15-21.
97. TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB 2010.
98. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, New York.
99. Train K., Weeks M. Discrete choice models in preference space and willing-to-pay space. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 1-16. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
100. Travisi C.M., Nijkamp P. Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: a choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 67(4):598-607.
101. UKNEA (UK National Ecosystem Assessment) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings 2011, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
102. UNCED The Forest Principles. Agenda 21, Clause 6d, Chapter 11. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992, World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
103. von Haefen R.H. Incorporating observed choice into the construction of welfare measures from random utility models. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2003, 45(2):145-165.
104. Vossler C.A., Doyon M., Rondeau D. Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am. Econ. J. 2012, 4(4):141-171.
105. WBCSD Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation: A Framework for Improving Corporate Decision-making 2011, World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Geneva, Switzerland.
106. Weir P. Face to Face Personal Communication 2010, Wellington, New Zealand.
107. Whitehead J., Haab T., Huang J.C. Preference Data for Environmental Valuation: Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Approaches 2011, Routledge, New York.
108. Whittam R.M., McCracken J.D., Francis C.M., Gartshore M.E. The effects of selective logging on nest-site selection and productivity of hooded warblers (Wilsonia citrina) in Canada. Can. J. Zool. 2002, 80:644-654.
109. Wordsworth S., Ryan M., Skåtun D., Waugh N. Women's preferences for cervical cancer screening: a study using a discrete choice experiment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2006, 22:344-350.
110. Yao, R.T., 2012. The non-market value of biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Economics, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
111. Yao R.T., Kaval P. Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand. Int. J. Ecol. Econ. Stat. 2010, 16:26-42.
112. Yao R.T., Barry L.E., Harrison D.R., Seaton R. A mechanism for enhancing biodiversity in New Zealand. Technical Report 2012, Future Forest Research, Rotorua, New Zealand.
113. Yao R.T., Barry L.E., Wakelin S.J., Harrison D.R., Magnard L.A., Payn T.W. Planted forests. Ecosystem Services in New Zealand-Conditions and Trends 2013, 62-78. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand. J.R. Dymond (Ed.).