Valuing type and scope of ecosystem conservation: A meta-analysis

Journal of Forest Economics

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 32-50

  Hjerpe, Evan ^a   Hussain, Anwar ^b   Phillips, Spencer ^c  

^a Economist Conservation Economics Institute   (United States)

^b AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Key Log Economics   (United States)

Author keywords

Conservation economics; Ecological restoration; Ecosystem services; Meta analysis; Preservation; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; ECONOMICS; FORESTRY; LAND USE; RESTORATION; WATER; WOOD PRESERVATION;

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS; DICHOTOMOUS CHOICE CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS; META ANALYSIS; RESTORATION STRATEGIES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ECOSYSTEMS;

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; META-ANALYSIS; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CANADA; EUROPE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84923593449     PISSN: 11046899     EISSN: 16181530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2014.12.001     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. 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.
2. Arrow K., et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 1993, 58(10):4601-4614.
3. Barrio M., Loureiro M.L. A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1023-1030.
4. Bateman I.J., Jones A.P. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. Land Econ. 2003, 79(2):235-258.
5. Baum C. An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using Stata 2006, StataCorp LP, College Station, TX.
6. Benayas J.M., et al. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 2009, 325:1121-1124.
7. Bergstrom J.C., Taylor L.O. Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60(2):351-360.
8. Brouwer R., et al. A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Reg. Environ. Change 1999, 1:47-57.
9. Bulte E.H., Van Kooten G.C. Marginal valuation of charismatic species: implications for conservation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1999, 14(1):119-130.
10. Cameron A.C., Trivedi P.K. Microeconometrics Using Stata 2009, vol. 77845. StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA.
11. Caparros A., Oviedo J.L., Campos P. Would you choose your preferred option? Comparing choice and recoded ranking experiments. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 90(3):843-855.
12. Carson R.T. Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods 1997, 127-163. Springer, The Netherlands, (Chapter 6). R.J. Kopp (Ed.).
13. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. The value of clean water: the public's willing-ness to pay for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29:2445-2454.
14. Christie M., Hanley N., Warren J., Murphy K., Wright R., Hyde T. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58:304-317.
15. Czajkowski M., Buszko-Briggs M., Hanley N. Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:2910-2917.
16. Farber S., Griner B. Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 34:63-76.
17. Garber-Yonts B., Kerkvliet J., Johnson R. Public values for biodiversity conservation policies in the Oregon coast range. For. Sci. 2004, 50:589-602.
18. Garrod G.D., Willis K.G. The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: a contingent ranking study. Ecol. Econ. 1997, 21:45-61.
19. Glass G.V. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ. Res. 1976, 10:3-8.
20. Gujarati D.N. Basic Econometrics 1992, 10020. McGraw-Hill Publishing, Co., New York.
21. Hagen D.A., Vincent J.W., Welle P.G. Benefits of preserving old-growth forests and the spotted owl. Contemp. Policy Issues 1992, X(April):13-26.
22. Hailu A., Adamowicz W.L., Boxall P.C. Complements, substitutes, budget constraints and valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2000, 16(1):51-68.
23. Hanley N., MacMillan D., Wright D.E., Bullock C., Simpson I., Parsisson D., Crabtree B. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 49(1):1-15.
24. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Alvarez-Farizo B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. J. Environ. Manage. 2006, 78:183-193.
25. Hjerpe E., Abrams J., Becker D.R. Socioeconomic barriers and the role of biomass utilization in southwestern ponderosa pine restoration. Ecol. Restor. 2009, 27(2):169-177.
26. Holmes T., Bergstrom J.C., Huszar E., Kask S.B., Orr F. Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 49:19-30.
27. Johnston R.J., Besedin E.Y., Wardwell R.F. Modeling relationship between use and nonuse values for surface water quality: a meta-analysis. Water Resour. Res. 2003, 39:1-8.
28. 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.
29. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1992, 22:57-70.
30. Katz E. The big lie: human restoration of nature. Res. Philos. Technol. 1992, 12:231-241.
31. Kramer R.A., Holmes T., Haefele M. Using contingent valuation to estimate the value of forest ecosystem protection. Forests in a Market Economy 2004, 303-320. Kluwer Academic Publishers. E.O. Sills, K.L. Abt (Eds.).
32. Latinopoulos D. Valuing the services of coastal ecosystems: a meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2010, 5:13-30.
33. Lehtonen E., Kuuluvainen J., Pouta E., Rekola M., Li C.Z. Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environ. Policy Sci. 2003, 6:195-204.
34. 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.
35. Loomis J.B. Balancing public trust resources of Mono lake and Los Angeles' water right: an economic approach. Water Resour. Res. 1987, 23:1449-1456.
36. Loomis J.B. Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha river: results of a contingent valuation survey. Water Resour. Res. 1996, 32:441-447.
37. Loomis J., White D. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18:197-206.
38. Loomis J.B., Kent P., Strange L., Fausch K., Covich A. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 33:103-117.
39. Macmillan D.C., Duff E.I., Elston D.A. Modelling the non-market environmental costs and benefits of biodiversity projects using contingent valuation data. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 18(4):391-410.
40. McFadden D. Can meta-analyses of CV studies determine their reliability? Unpublished Paper 1997, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.
41. Meyerhoff J., Liebe T., Hartje V. Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: evidence from two choice experiments. J. For. Econ. 2009, 15:37-58.
42. Mirer T.W. Economic Statistics and Econometrics 1994, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 3rd ed.
43. Montgomery C.A. Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: an exploration of relative values. J. Environ. Manage. 2002, 65:313-326.
44. Morrison M., Bennett J., Blamey R., Louviere J. Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 84(1):161-170.
45. Mueller J.M., Swaffar W., Nielsen E.A., Springer A.E., Lopez S.M. Estimating the value of watershed services following forest restoration. Water Resour. Res. 2013, 49(4):1773-1781.
46. 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(3):345-377.
47. O'Brien R.M. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant. 2007, 41:673L 690.
48. Ojea E., Loureiro M.L. Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies. Resour. Energy Econ. 2011, 33:706-724.
49. Ovaskainen V., Kniivila M. Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2005, 49:379-394.
50. Pagiola S., Ritter K.V., Bishop J. Assessing the economic value of ecosystem conservation. Environment Department Paper No. 101 2004, The World Bank Environment Department, In Collaboration with The Nature Conservancy and IUCN - The World Conservation Union.
51. Ready R., Navrud S. International benefit transfer: methods and validity tests. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60(2):429-434.
52. 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.
53. Rosenberger R.S., Loomis J.B. Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use values: a technical document supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-72 2001, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.
54. Rosenberger R.S., Stanley T.D. Measurement, generalization, and publication: sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60(2):372-378.
55. Siikamaki J., Layton D.F. Discrete choice survey experiments: a comparison using flexible methods. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2007, 53:122-139.
56. Smith V.K., Osborne L.L. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a scope test? A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1996, 31(3):287-301.
57. Smith V.K., Pattanayak S.K. Is meta-analysis a Noah's ark for non-market valuation?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 22(1-2):271-296.
58. Stanley T.D., Jarrell S.B. Meta-regression analysis: a quantitative method of literature surveys. J. Econ. Surv. 1989, 3(2):161-170.
59. Stevens T.H., DeCoteau N.E., Willis C.E. Sensitivity of contingent valuation to alternative payment schedules. Land Econ. 1997, 73:140-148.
60. Stewart K.G. Introduction to Applied Econometrics 2005, Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.
61. Thaler R. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1980, 1(1):39-60.
62. Van Houtven. G., Powers J., Pattanayak S.K. Valuing water quality improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis?. Resour. Energy Econ. 2007, 29:206-228.
63. Veisten K., Fredrik Hoen H., Navrud S., Strand J. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J. Environ. Manage. 2004, 73(4):317-331.
64. Weber M.A., Stewart S. Public values for river restoration options on the Middle Rio Grande. Restor. Ecol. 2009, 17:762-771.
65. Wilson M.A., Carpenter S.R. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United States: 1971-1997. Ecol. Appl. 1999, 9:772-783.
66. Wilson J.J., Lantz V.A., MacLean D.A. A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada. For. Policy Econ. 2010, 12:94-103.
67. Woodward R.T., Wui Y.S. The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 37:257-270.