The value of forest conservation for water quality protection

Forests

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 862-884

  Kreye, Melissa M ^a   Adams, Damian C ^a   Escobedo, Francisco J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Benefit transfer; Conservation easement; Ecosystem services and goods; Forest conservation policies; Water quality; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; SOIL CONSERVATION; WATER POLLUTION; WATER QUALITY;

BENEFIT TRANSFER; CONSERVATION EASEMENTS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; FOREST CONSERVATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FORESTRY;

CONSERVATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; FOREST; WATER QUALITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CONSERVATION; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY; WATER POLLUTION; WATER QUALITY;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84902463408     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19994907     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/f5050862     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results. Available online: http://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control (accessed on 8 August 2012).
2. Job, C.A. Benefits and costs of wellhead protection. Gr. Water Monit. Remediat. 1996 , 16, 65-68.
3. Postel, S.L.; Thompson, B.H. Watershed protection: Capturing the benefits of nature's water supply services. Nat. Resour. Forum 2005 , 29, 98-108.
4. Turner, R.E.; Rabalais, N.N. Linking landscape and water quality in the mississippi river basin for 200 years. BioScience 2003 , 53, 563-572.
5. EPA. Achieving Cleaner Waters Across America: Supporting Effective Programs to Prevent Water Pollution from Forestry Operations; EPA841-F-002; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
6. de Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002 , 41, 393-408.
7. Phillips, J.D. Nonpoint source pollution control effectiveness of riparian forests along a coastal plain river. J. Hydrol. 1989 , 110, 221-237.
8. EPA. The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis; EPA816-F-02-017; US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
9. Chichilnisky, G.; Heal, G. Economic returns from the biosphere. Nature 1998 , 391, 629-630.
10. Ernst, C.; Gullick, R.; Nixon, K. Conserving forests to protect water. Am. Water W. Assoc. 2004 , 30, 1-7.
11. Lindhjem, H.; Mitani, Y. Forest owners' willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach. J. For. Econ. 2012 , 18, 290-302.
12. Loureiro, M.L.; Arcos, F. Applying best-worst scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs. J. For. Econ. 2012 , 18, 381-394.
13. Carson, R.T.; Mitchell, R.C. The value of clean water: The public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water Resour. Res. 1993 , 29, 2445-2454.
14. Wilson, M.A.; Carpenter, S.R. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the united states: 1971-1997. Ecol. Appl. 1999 , 9, 772-783.
15. McNeil, B.E.; Read, J.M.; Sullivan, T.J.; McDonnell, T.C.; Fernandez, I.J.; Driscoll, C.T. The spatial pattern of nitrogen cycling in the adirondack park, new york. Ecol. Appl. 2008 , 18, 438-452.
16. Wright, A.L. Soil phosphorus stocks and distribution in chemical fractions for long-term sugarcane, pasture, turfgrass, and forest systems in florida. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2009 , 83, 223-231.
17. Scherer-Lorenzen, M.; Venterink, H.O.; Buschmann, H. Nitrogen enrichment and plant invasions: The importance of nitrogen-fixing plants and anthropogenic eutrophication. In Biological Invasions; Nentwig, W., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 163-180.
18. Smith, V.H.; Tilman, G.D.; Nekola, J.C. Eutrophication: Impacts of excess nutrient inputs on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Environ. Pollut. 1999 , 100, 179-196.
19. Dodds, W.K.; Bouska, W.W.; Eitzmann, J.L.; Pilger, T.J.; Pitts, K.L.; Riley, A.J.; Schloesser, J.T.; Thornbrugh, D.J. Eutrophication of us freshwaters: Analysis of potential economic damages. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008 , 43, 12-19.
20. Wainger, L.; Mazzotta, M. Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: A framework for relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Environ. Manag. 2011 , 48, 710-733.
21. Miller, W.W.; Johnson, D.W.; Karam, S.L.; Walker, R.F.; Weisberg, P.J. A synthesis of sierran forest biomass management studies and potential effects on water quality. Forests 2010 , 1, 131-153.
22. Farber, S.C.; Costanza, R.; Wilson, M.A. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2002 , 41, 375-392.
23. Just, R.E.; Hueth, D.L.; Andrew, S. The Welfare Economics of Public Policy: A Practical Approach to Project and Policy Evaluation; Edward Elgar Publishing: NorthHampton, England, UK, 2004.
24. Champ, P.A.; Boyle, K.J.; Brown, T.C., Eds.; A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2003; Volume 3.
25. Blaine, T.W.; Lichtkoppler, F.R.; Stanbro, R. An assessment of residents' willingness to pay for green space and farmland preservation conservation easements using the contingent valuation method (cvm). J. Ext. 2003, 41, 4FEA3.
26. Larkin, S.L.; Alavalapati, J.R.; Shresthra, R.K. Estimating the cost of preserving private lands in Florida: a hedonic analysis. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2005 , 37, 115-130.
27. Holmes, T.P.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Huszar, E.; Kask, S.B.; Orr, F., III. Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecol. Econ. 2004 , 49, 19-30.
28. Shrestha, R.K.; Alavalapati, J.R.R. Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: A case study of the lake okeechobee watershed in florida. Ecol. Econ. 2004 , 49, 349-359.
29. Collins, A.; Rosenberger, R.; Fletcher, J. The economic value of stream restoration. Water Resour. Res. 2005, 41, W02017.
30. Farber, S.; Griner, B. Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2000 , 34, 63-76.
31. Thurston, H.W.; Heberling, M.T.; Schrecongost, A. Environmental Economics for Watershed Restoration; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010.
32. Sanders, L.D.; Walsh, R.G.; Loomis, J.B. Toward empirical estimation of the total value of protecting rivers. Water Resour. Res. 1990 , 26, 1345-1357.
33. Freeman, A.M., III. The benefits of water quality improvements for marine recreation: A review of the empirical evidence. Mar. Resour. Econ. 1995 , 10, 385-406.
34. Bockstael, N.E.; Hanemann, W.M.; Kling, C.L. Estimating the value of water quality improvements in a recreational demand framework. Water Resour. Res. 1987 , 23, 951-960.
35. Aiken, R. Public Benefits for Environmental Protection; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1984.
36. Blaine, T.; Smith, T. From water quality to riparian corridors: Assessing willingness to pay for conservation easements using the contingent valuation method. J. Ext. 2006, 44, 2FEA7.
37. Blaine, T.W.; Lichtkoppler, F.R. Willingness to pay for green space preservation: A comparison of soil and water conservation district clientele and the general public using the contingent valuation method. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2004 , 59, 203-208.
38. Carman, M. The Oconto Waterfront: Issues and Options: A Survey of Oconto Residents; University of Wisconsin-Extension/Madison, Center for Community Economic Development: Madison, WI, USA, 1992.
39. Cho, S.-H.; Newman, D.H.; Bowker, J.M. Measuring rural homeowners' willingness to pay for land conservation easements. For. Policy Econ. 2005 , 7, 757-770.
40. Cooksey, R.; Howard, T.E. Willingness to Pay to Protect Forest Benefits with Conservation Easements. Available online: http://www.metla.fi/iufro/iufro95abs/d6pap71.htm (accessed on 1 November 2013).
41. Condon, B.; Hodges, A.; Matta, R. Public preferences and values for rural land preservation in florida. In Proceedings of the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, USA, 29 July-1 August 2007; p. 30.
42. Loomis, J.B.; White, D.S. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 1996 , 18, 197-206.
43. Giraud, K.L.; Loomis, J.B.; Cooper, J.C. A comparison of willingness to pay estimation techniques from referendum questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001 , 20, 331-346.
44. Greenley, D.A.; Walsh, R.G.; Young, R.A. Option value: Empirical evidence from a case study of recreation and water quality. Q. J. Econ. 1981 , 96, 657-673.
45. Mannesto, G.; Loomis, J.B. Evaluation of mail and in-person contingent value surveys: Results of a study of recreational boaters. J. Environ. Manag. 1991 , 32, 177-190.
46. Petrolia, D.; Moore, R.; Kim, T.-g. Preferences for timing of wetland loss prevention in Louisiana. Wetlands 2011 , 31, 295-307.
47. Whitehead, J. Measuring willingness-to-pay for wetlands preservation with the contingent valuation method. Wetlands 1990 , 10, 187-201.
48. Johnston, R.J.; Besedin, E.Y.; Iovanna, R.; Miller, C.J.; Wardwell, R.F.; Ranson, M.H. Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: A meta-analysis. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2005 , 53, 221-248.
49. Johnston, R.J.; Duke, J.M. Willingness to pay for agricultural land preservation and policy process attributes: Does the method matter? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2007 , 89, 1098-1115.
50. Hanemann, M.; Loomis, J.; Kanninen, B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1991 , 73, 1255-1263.
51. Sutherland, R.J.; Walsh, R.G. Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Econ. 1985 , 61, 281-291.
52. Bergstrom, J.C.; Taylor, L.O. Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 2006 , 60, 351-360.
53. Boyle, K.J.; Kuminoff, N.V.; Parmeter, C.F.; Pope, J.C. The benefit-transfer challenges. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2010 , 2, 161-182.
54. Cai, Z.; Aguilar, F.X. Meta-analysis of consumer's willingness-to-pay premiums for certified wood products. J. For. Econ. 2012 , 19, 15-31.
55. Dumas, C.F.; Schuhmann, P.W.; Whitehead, J.C. Measuring the Economic Benefits of Water Quality Improvement with Benefit Transfer: An Introduction for Noneconomists. In Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems; Brown, L.R., Gray, R.H., Hughes, R.M., Meador, M.R., Eds.; American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2005; pp. 53-68.
56. Woodward, R.T.; Wui, Y.-S. The economic value of wetland services: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2001 , 37, 257-270.
57. Zandersen, M.; Tol, R.S. A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in europe. J. For. Econ. 2009 , 15, 109-130.
58. Nelson, J.P.; Kennedy, P.E. The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource economics: An assessment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009 , 42, 345-377.
59. Brouwer, R. Environmental value transfer: State of the art and future prospects. Ecol. Econ. 2000 , 32, 137-152.
60. Lindhjem, H. 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis. J. For. Econ. 2007, 12, 251-277
61. Stanley, T.; Doucouliagos, H.; Giles, M.; Heckemeyer, J.H.; Johnston, R.J.; Laroche, P.; Nelson, J.P.; Paldam, M.; Poot, J.; Pugh, G. Meta-analysis of economics research reporting guidelines. J. Econ. Surv. 2013 , 27, 390-394.
62. Johnston, R.J.; Rosenberger, R.S. Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. J. Econ. Surv. 2010 , 24, 479-510.
63. Brouwer, R.; Spaninks, F.A. The validity of environmental benefits transfer: Further empirical testing. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1999 , 14, 95-117.
64. 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, 1097-1107.
65. Walsh, R.G.; Johnson, D.M.; McKean, J.R. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation demand studies, 1968-1988. Water Resour. Res. 1992 , 28, 707-713.
66. Johnston, R.J.; Besedin, E. Estimating Willingness to Pay for Aquatic Resource Improvements Using Benefits Transfer; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009.
67. Williamson, J.M.; Thurston, H.W.; Heberling, M.T. Using benefit transfer to value acid mine drainage remediation in west virginia. In Environmental Economics for Watershed Restoration; Herberling, H.W., Schrecongost, M.T., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009.
68. Kramer, R.A.; Eisen-Hecht, J.I. Estimating the economic value of water quality protection in the catawba river basin. Water Resour. Res. 2002, 38, 21:1-21:10.
69. Rosenberger, R.S.; Loomis, J.B. Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Use Values: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan, 2000 Revision; General Technical Report-Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2001.
70. Arrow, K.R.; Solow, R.; Portney, P.R.; Leamer, E.E.; Radner, R.; Schumman, H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent Valuation; Federal Register: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; pp. 4602-4614.
71. Balistreri, E.; McClelland, G.; Poe, G.; Schulze, W. Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001 , 18, 275-292.
72. Rogers, P.; Silva, R.D.; Bhatia, R. Water is an economic good: How to use prices to promote equity, efficiency, and sustainability. Water Policy 2002 , 4, 1-17.
73. Olsson, P.; Folke, C.; Berkes, F. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environ. Manag. 2004 , 34, 75-90.
74. Winter, P.L.; Palucki, L.J.; Burkhardt, R.L. Anticipated responses to a fee program: The key is trust. J. Leisure Res. 1999 , 31, 207-226.
75. Winter, G.; Vogt, C.A.; McCaffrey, S. Examining social trust in fuels management strategies. J. For. 2004 , 102, 8-15.
76. Spash, C.L. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: Rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Econ. 2006 , 82, 602-622.
77. Steel, B.S. Conflicting values about federal forests: A comparison of national and oregon publics. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1994 , 7, 137-153.
78. EPA. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report; EPA841-R-02-001; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
79. American Fact Finder. Available online: http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed on 1 November 2011).
80. Heberlein, T.A.; Wilson, M.A.; Bishop, R.C.; Schaeffer, N.C. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2005 , 50, 1-22.
81. Grafen, A.; Hails, R. Modern Statistics for the Life Sciences; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2002; Volume 123.
82. Suwannee river basin and estuary initiative: Executive summary 2004. Available online: http://gulfsci.usgs.gov/suwannee/reports/es20041198.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2011).
83. Lakes, Rivers, and Wetlands Facts. Available online: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/faq/mnfacts/water.html (accessed on 1 March 2013).
84. Loomis, J.B. Vertically summing public good demand curves: An empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Econ. 2000 , 76, 312-321.
85. Boyle, K.J.; Bishop, R.C. Welfare measurements using contingent valuation: A comparison of techniques. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1988 , 70, 20-28.
86. Lee, D.J.; Adams, D.C.; Kim, C. Managing invasive plants on public conservation forestlands: Application of a bio-economic model. For. Policy Econ. 2009 , 11, 237-243.
87. Zhang, J.; Lee, D.J. The effect of wildlife recreational activity on florida's economy. Tour. Econ. 2007 , 13, 87-110.
88. Carson, R.T. Contingent valuation: Theoretical advances and empirical tests since the noaa panel. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1997 , 79, 1501-1507.
89. Loomis, J.B. Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: A comparison of general population and visitor responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1989 , 71, 76-84.
90. Flores, N.E.; Carson, R.T. The relationship between the income elasticities of demand and willingness to pay. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1997 , 33, 287-295.
91. Lant, C.L.; Mullens, J.B. Lake and river quality for recreation management and contingent valuation. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1991 , 27, 453-460.
92. Poe, G.L. Valuation of groundwater quality using a contingent valuation-damage function approach. Water Resour. Res. 1998 , 34, 3627-3633.
93. Carson, R.; Flores, N.; Meade, N. Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001 , 19, 173-210.
94. Kahneman, D.; Knetsch, J.L. Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1992 , 22, 57-70.
95. McGonagle, M.P.; Swallow, S.K. Open space and public access: A contingent choice application to coastal preservation. Land Econ. 2005 , 81, 477-495.
96. Desvouges, W.H.; Naughton, M.C.; Parsons, G.R. Benefits transfer: Conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resour. Res. 1992 , 28, 675-683.
97. Haab, T.C.; Interis, M.G.; Petrolia, D.R.; Whitehead, J.C. From Hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" critique of contingent valuation. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2013 , 35, 593-612.
98. Carson, R. Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, USA, 2012.