Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment

Journal of Forest Economics

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 396-412

  Juutinen, Artti ^a,b   Kosenius, Anna Kaisa ^a   Ovaskainen, Ville ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Cost benefit analysis; Forest recreation; Public preferences; Random parameters logit; WTP space

Indexed keywords

FORESTRY; LOGISTIC REGRESSION;

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES; FOREST RECREATION; MANAGEMENT PRACTICES; PUBLIC PREFERENCES; RANDOM PARAMETERS LOGIT; REGIONAL DIFFERENCES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; WTP SPACE;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FOREST RESOURCE; FORESTRY PRODUCTION; LEGISLATION; LOGIT ANALYSIS; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; RECREATIONAL MANAGEMENT; STATE OWNED ENTERPRISE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

COSTS; FINLAND; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTS; LEGISLATION; NATURAL RESOURCES;

FINLAND;

AVES;

EID: 84919463942     PISSN: 11046899     EISSN: 16181530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2014.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Act on Metsähallitus 1378/2004. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland. Available: 2013 (accessed 09.01.13). http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2004/en20041378.pdf.
2. Adamowicz W., Swait J., Boxall P., Louviere J., Williams M. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1997, 32:65-84.
3. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 80:64-75.
4. Bech M., Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2005, 14:1079-1083.
5. Bennett J., Adamowicz V. Some fundamentals of environmental choice modelling. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation 2001, 37-72. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton. J. Bennett, R. Blamey (Eds.).
6. Bestard A., Font A. Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context. J. For. Econ. 2010, 16:205-216.
7. Bierlaire M., 2003. BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. In: Proceedings of the third Swiss Transportation Research Conference. Ascona, Switzerland.
8. 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.
9. Campbell D., Vedel S., Thorsen B., Jacobsen J. Heterogeneity in the WTP for recreational access: distributional aspects. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2014, 57:1200-1219.
10. Christie M., Hanley N., Hynes S. Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behavior methods. J. For. Econ. 2007, 13:75-102.
11. Fiebig D.G., Keane M.P., Louviere J., Wasi N. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark. Sci. 2010, 29:393-421.
12. Garrod G.D., Willis K.G. The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: a contingent rank study. Ecol. Econ. 1997, 21:45-61.
13. Haefele M.A., Loomis J.B. Using the conjoint analysis technique for the estimation of passive use values of forest health. J. For. Econ. 2001, 7:9-28.
14. Hanley N., Wright R., Adamowicz W. Using choice experiments to value the environment: design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environ. Res. Econ. 1998, 11:413-428.
15. Hanemann W.M. Applied Welfare Analysis With Qualitative Response Models 1982, University of California, Berkeley, (Working Paper 241).
16. Heal G.M., Barbier E.B., Boyle K.J., Covich A., Gloss S.P., Hershner C.H., et al. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Towards Better Environmental Decision-making 2005, 290. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
17. Hess S., Rose J.M., Hensher D.A. Asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay estimates in discrete choice models. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 2008, 44:847-863.
18. Hill G.W., Courtney P.R. Demand analysis projections for recreational visits to countryside woodlands in Great Britain. Forestry 2006, 79:185-200.
19. Holmes T.P., Adamowicz W.L. Attribute-based methods. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation 2003, 185-217. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. P. Champ, K. Boyle, T. Brown (Eds.).
20. Holmes T.P., Boyle K.J. Stated preference methods for valuation of forest attributes. Forests in a Market Economy 2003, 321-340. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. E. Sills, K. Abt (Eds.).
21. Horne P., Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 207:189-199.
22. Horne P., Koskela T., Ovaskainen V., Horne T. (Eds.), 2009. Safeguarding Forest Biodiversity in Finland: Citizens' and Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners' Views, Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 119, p. 59.
23. Huhtala A. What price recreation in Finland? A contingent valuation study on non-market benefits of public outdoor recreation areas. J. Leis. Res. 2004, 36:23-44.
24. Hynes S., Hanley N., Scarpa R. Effects on welfare measures of alternative means of accounting for preference heterogeneity in recreational demand models. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 90:1011-1027.
25. Jacobsen J., Boiesen J., Thorsen B., Strange N. What's in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus 'Iconised' species when valuing biodiversity. Environ. Res. Econ. 2008, 39:247-263.
26. Juutinen A., Mitani Y., Mäntymaa E., Shoji Y., Siikamäki P., Svento R. Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: a choice experiment application. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:1231-1239.
27. Kosenius A.-K., Juutinen A., Neuvonen M., Ovaskainen V., Sievänen T., Tolvanen A., Tyrväinen L., 2013. Virkistyskäyttöä edistävä metsänhoito valtion talousmetsissä: hyötyjen rahamääräinen arvo. [Recreation-enhancing management of state-owned commercial forests: monetary benefits.] Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 261, p. 60.
28. 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.
29. Louviere J., Eagle T., 2006. Confound it! That pesky little scale constant messes up our convenient assumptions. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Sawtooth Software Conference. Sequim, WA, pp. 211 - 228.
30. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers of Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
31. Meyerhoff J., Liebe U., Hartje V. Benefits of biodiversity enhancement due to nature-oriented silviculture: evidence from two choice experiments in Germany. J. For. Econ. 2009, 15:37-58.
32. National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. §§1600-1687).
33. Ngene, 2010. User Manual and Reference Guide. The Cutting Edge in Experimental Design. ChoiceMetrics. p. 230.
34. Ovaskainen V., Mikkola J., Pouta E. Estimating recreation demand with on-site data: an application of truncated and endogenously stratified count data models. J. For. Econ. 2001, 7:125-144.
35. Ovaskainen V., Neuvonen M., Pouta E. Modelling recreation demand with respondent-reported driving cost and stated cost of travel time: a Finnish case. J. For. Econ. 2012, 18:303-317.
36. Poe G.L., Giraud K.L., Loomis J.B. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87:353-365.
37. Redsven V., Hirvelä H., Härkönen K., Salminen O., Siitonen M. (Eds.), 2012. MELA 2012 Reference Manual. The Finnish Forest Research Institute. p. 666. Available from: http://mela2.metla.fi/mela/julkaisut/oppaat/mela2012.pdf.
38. Ribe R. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views: the interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005, 73:277-293.
39. Ribe R. In-stand scenic beauty of variable retention harvests and mature forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: the effects of basal area, density, retention pattern and down wood. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91:245-260.
40. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Train K. Utility in willingness to pay space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 90:994-1010.
41. Scarpa R., Willis K. Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies. Energy Econ. 2010, 32:129-136.
42. Scarpa R., Zanoli R., Bruschi V., Naspetti S. Inferred and stated attribute non-attendance in food choice experiments. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2013, 95:165-180.
43. Schaberg R.H., Homes T.P., Lee K.J., Abt R.C. Ascribing value to ecological processes: an economic view of environmental change. For. Ecol. Manag. 1999, 114:329-338.
44. Sievänen T., Neuvonen M., 2011. Luonnon virkistyskäyttö 2010 [Recreation in the nature 2010]. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 212. p. 190.
45. Silvennoinen H., Pukkala T., Tahvanainen L. Effect of cuttings on the scenic beauty of a tree stand. Scand. J. For. Res. 2002, 17:263-273.
46. Sonnier G., Ainslie A., Otter T. Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models. Quant. Mark. Econ. 2007, 5:313-331.
47. Swait J., Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and use of multinominal logit models. J. Mark. Res. 1993, 30:305-314.
48. Thiene M., Scarpa R. Deriving and testing efficient estimates of WTP distributions in destination choice models. Environ. Res. Econ. 2009, 44:379-395.
49. Thiene M., Meyerhoff J., De Salvo M. Scale and taste heterogeneity for forest biodiversity: models of serial nonparticipation and their effects. J. For. Econ. 2012, 18:355-369.
50. Tolvanen A., Juutinen A., Svento R. Preferences of local people for the use of peatlands: the case of peatland-richest region in Finland. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18:19.
51. Train K. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ. 1998, 74:230-239.
52. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. second ed.
53. Train K., Weeks M. Discrete Choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 1-16. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
54. Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H., Hallikainen V., 2010. Kansainvälisten matkailijoiden maisema- ja ympäristöarvostukset Pohjois-Suomessa [Scenic and environmental preferences of international tourists in Northern Finland]. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 147, p. 52.
55. Tyrväinen L., Mäntymaa E., Ovaskainen V. Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands: the case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 47:4-13.
56. von Haefen R., Massey M., Adamowicz W. Serial nonparticipation in repeated discrete choice models. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87:1061-1076.
57. Zandersen M., Tol R.S.J. A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. J. For. Econ. 2009, 15:109-130.