Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best-worst choice modeling in Florida USA

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 63, Issue , 2016, Pages 35-42

  Soto, José R ^a   Adams, Damian C ^a   Escobedo, Francisco J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO   (Colombia)

Author keywords

Best worst scaling; Carbon offsets; Choice modeling; Discrete choice; Non industrial private forest; Willingness to accept

Indexed keywords

C (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE); ECONOMICS;

BEST-WORST SCALING; CARBON OFFSETS; CHOICE MODEL; DISCRETE CHOICE; NONINDUSTRIAL PRIVATE FORESTS; WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT;

FORESTRY;

EID: 84955304826     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aanesen M., Armstrong C., Czajkowski M., Falk- J., Hanley N., Navrud S. Willingness to pay for unfamiliar public goods: preserving cold-water corals in Norway. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 112:53-67.
2. Alig R., Latta G., Adams D., McCarl B. Mitigating greenhouse gases: the importance of land base interactions between forests, agriculture, and residential development in the face of changes in bioenergy and carbon prices. Forest Policy Econ. 2010, 12(1):67-75.
3. American Carbon Registry American Carbon Registry Forest Carbon Project, Version 2.1 2010, Winrock International, Little Rock, Arkansas.
4. Brooks K.R., Lusk J.L. U.S. consumers attitudes toward farm animal cloning. Appetite 2011, 57(2):483-492.
5. Brown M.J., Nowak J. Florida, 2010 Forest Inventory and Analysis Factsheet 2012, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Asheville, NC.
6. Butler B.J., Leatherberry E.C. America's family forest owners. J. For. 2004, 102(7):4-14.
7. Butterfield R., Hansen E., Fletcher R., Nikinmaa H. Forest Certification and Small Forest Enterprises: Key Trends and Impacts, Benefits and Barriers 2005, Forest Trends, Washington, DC.
8. California AB 32 (2013). Retrieved 11/1/2013 from: . http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.
9. Campbell D., Erdem S. Position bias in best-worst scaling surveys: a case study on trust in institutions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 97(2):526-545.
10. Charnley S., Diaz D., Gosnell H. Mitigating climate change through small-scale forestry in the USA: opportunities and challenges. Small Scale For. 2010, 9(4):445-462.
11. Coast J., Salisbury C., De Berker D., Noble A., Horrocks S., Peters T.J., Flynn T.N. Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br. J. Dermatol. 2006, 155(2):387-392.
12. Dickinson B.J., Stevens T.H., Markowski M., Kittredge D.B. Estimated participation in U.S. carbon sequestration programs: a study of NIPF landowners in Massachusetts. J. For. Econ. 2012, 18(1):36-46.
13. Dillman D.A., Smyth J.D., Christian L.M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2009, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ. 3rd ed.
14. Dwivedi P., Alavalapati J.R.R., Susaeta A., Stainback A. Impact of carbon value on the profitability of slash pine plantations in the southern United States: an integrated life cycle and Faustmann analysis. Can. J. For. Res. 2009, 39(5):990-1000.
15. GISTEMP Team GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) 2015, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, (Retrieved 5/13/2015 from: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/).
16. Elrod T., Louviere J.J., Davey K.S. An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models. J. Mark. Res. 1992, 29(3):368-377.
17. EPA CPP Final Rule Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 2015, (Retrieved 8/4/2015 from: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/cpp-final-rule.pdf).
18. Finn A., Louviere J.J. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J. Public Policy Mark. 1992, 11:12-25.
19. Fletcher L.S., Kittridge D., Stevens T. Forest landowners' willingness to sell carbon credits: a pilot study. North. J. Appl. For. 2009, 26(1):35-37.
20. Flynn T.N., Louviere J.J., Peters T.J., Coast J. Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J. Health Econ. 2007, 26:171-189.
21. Flynn T., Louviere J., Peters T., Coast J. Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using best-worst scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2008, 8(1):76-88.
22. Foster V., Mourato S. Testing for consistency in contingent ranking experiments. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2002, 44(2):309-328.
23. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis 2003, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. fifth ed.
24. Lancsar E., Louviere J., Flynn T. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments, 64, 1738-1753 2007, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.12.007.
25. Louviere J., Hensher D., Swait J. Stated Choice Methods-Analysis and Application 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.12.007.
26. Louviere J.J., Islam T. A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61(9):903-911.
27. Lubowski R., Plantinga A., Stavins R. Land-use change and carbon sinks: econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2006, 51:135-152.
28. Lusk J.L., Parker N. Consumer preferences for fat in ground beef. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2009, 41(1):75-90.
29. Lusk J.L., Briggeman B.C. Food values. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 91(1):184-196.
30. Markowski-Lindsay M., Stevens T., Kittredge D.B., Butler B.J., Catanzaro P., Dickinson B.J. Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 71:180-190.
31. Marley A.A.J., Louviere J.J. Some Probabilistic Models of Best, Worst, and Best-Worst Choices 2005, 49:464-480.
32. Marley A.A.J., Flynn T.N., Louviere J.J. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J. Math. Psychol. 2008, 52(5):281-296.
33. Miller K.A., Snyder S.A., Kilgore M.A. An assessment of forest landowner interest in selling forest carbon credits in the Lake States, USA. Forest Policy Econ. 2012, 25:113-122.
34. Oleson K.L.L., Barnes M., Brander L.M., Oliver T.a., van Beek I., Zafindrasilivonona B., van Beukering P. Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows among indigenous fishers: a discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114.
35. Peters-Stanley M., Yin D. State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2013 http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3898.pdf.
36. Rigby D., Burton M., Lusk J.L. Journals, preferences, and publishing in agricultural and environmental economics. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 97(2):490-509.
37. Rodriguez G., Elo I. Intra-class correlation in random-effects models for binary data. Stata J. 2003, 3(1):32-46.
38. Simpson H., Li Y. Environmental Credit Marketing Survey Report 2010, Texas Forest Service.
39. Smith W.B., Miles P.D., Perry C.H., Pugh S.A. Forest resources of the United States, 2007. General Technical Report WO-78 2009, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington Office.
40. Stainback G.A., Alavalapati J.R.R. Economic analysis of slash pine forest carbon sequestration in the southern US. J. For. Econ. 2002, 8:105-117.
41. Street D.J., Burgess L., Louviere J.J. Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2005, 22(4):459-470.
42. US Environmental Protection Agency Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2012. USEPA #430-R-14-003 2014, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
43. Whitty J.A., Ratcliffe J., Chen G., Scuffham P.A. Australian public preferences for the funding of new health technologies: a comparison of discrete choice and profile case best-worst scaling methods. Med. Decis. Mak. 2014, (0272989X14526640).