Paying for Forest Ecosystem Services: Voluntary Versus Mandatory Payments

Environmental Management

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 585-600

  Roesch McNally, Gabrielle E ^a   Rabotyagov, Sergey S ^b  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Crowdfunding; Forest ecosystem service; Payment mechanism; Preference elicitation; Provision point mechanism; Stated choice

Indexed keywords

CARBON; COMMERCE; COST EFFECTIVENESS; DIGITAL STORAGE; ECOLOGY; ECONOMICS; FORESTRY; SURVEYS; WATER QUALITY;

CROWDFUNDING; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; PAYMENT MECHANISM; PREFERENCE ELICITATION; STATED CHOICE;

ECOSYSTEMS;

COST ANALYSIS; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; FOREST MANAGEMENT; LANDOWNER; MARKET CONDITIONS; PRIVATE LAND; PUBLIC GOODS; TAX SYSTEM; WATER QUALITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CARBON STORAGE; FOREST; FOREST MANAGEMENT; HABITAT; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; WATER QUALITY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; OREGON; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECREATION; UNITED STATES; WASHINGTON;

OREGON; PACIFIC NORTHWEST; UNITED STATES; WASHINGTON [UNITED STATES];

CARBON;

CARBON; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM; FORESTS; NORTHWESTERN UNITED STATES; OREGON; RECREATION; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; WASHINGTON;

EID: 84957932618     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: 14321009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-015-0641-7     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Swait J (1998) Introduction to attribute based stated choice methods. Final Report for NOAA and the US Department of Commerce
2. Aldanondo-Ochoa AM, Almonsa-Saez C (2009) The private provision of the public environment: consumer preferences for organic production systems. Land Use Econ 26:669–682. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.09.006
3. Alig RJ, Plantinga AJ, Ahn S, Kline J (2003) Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. In: USDA forest service general technical report PNW-GTR-587, Portland
4. Barrio M, Loureiro ML (2010) A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecol Econ 69(5):1023–1030
5. Batker D, Schmidt R, Harrison-Cox J, Lovell B (2010) The whole economy of the snohomish: the essential economics of ecosystem services. A report prepared for Snohomish County, Everett
6. Berninger K, Adamowicz W, Kneeshaw D, Messier C (2010) Sustainable forest management preferences of interest groups in three regions with different levels of industrial forestry: an exploratory attribute-based choice experiment. J Environ Manag 46:117–133. doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9507-1
7. Beuter JH, Alig RJ (2004) Forestland values. J For 102:4–8
8. Boxall P, Adamowicz WL, Moon A (2009) Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Aust J Agric Res Econ 53(4):503–519
9. Boyd J (2010) Ecosystem services and climate adaptation. Resources for the future issue brief 10–16
10. Bulte E, Gerking S, List JA, De Zeeuw A (2005) The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. J Environ Econ Manag 49(2):330–342
11. Bush G, Hanley N, Moro M, Rondeau D (2013) Measuring the local costs of conservation: a provision point mechanism for eliciting willingness to accept compensation. Land Econ 89(3):490–513
12. Carlssonn F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments?: Application to the valuation of the environment. J Environ Econ Manag 41(2):179–192
13. Carson R, Groves T (2007) Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Environ Res Econ 37:181–210
14. Cashore B, Auld G, Newsom D (2003) Forest certification (eco-labeling) programs and their policy-making authority: explaining divergence among North American and European case studies. For Pol Econ 5:225–247
15. Champ PA, Flores NE, Brown TC, Chivers J (2002) Contingent valuation and incentives. Land Econ 78(4):591–604
16. Chang JB, Lusk JL (2011) Mixed logit models: accuracy and software choice. J App Econ 26(1):167–172
17. Chee YE (2004) An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Bio Cons 120(4):549–565
18. Cochran B, Logue C (2011) A watershed approach to improve water quality: case study of clean water services’ Tualatin River Program1
19. Collins JP, Vossler CA (2009) Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions. J Enviro Econ Manag 58(2):226–235
20. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260
21. Czajkowski M, Bartczak A, Giergiczny M, Navrud S, Żylicz T (2014) Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management. For Pol Econ 39:1–12
22. Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C, p 392
23. Davis H, Midghall INC (2010) Oregon forests values and beliefs study. A report prepared for OR For Res Inst and OR DOF. http://www.oregon.gov/odf/board/docs/ofri_vb_study_2010/ofri_2010_report_june.pdf Accessed 15 January 2011
24. Deal RL, Cochran B, LaRocco G (2012) Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management. For Pol Econ 17:69–76
25. Freeman AM III, Herriges JA, Kling CL (2014) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Routledge, New York
26. Garber-Yonts B, Kerkvliet J, Johnson R (2004) Public values for biodiversity conservation policies in the Oregon Coast range. For Sci 50(5):589–602
27. Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis. Pearson Education India, Delhi
28. Groothuis PA, Whitehead JC (2009) The provision point mechanism and scenario rejection in contingent valuation. Agric Res Econ Rev 38(2):271
29. Halsey K (2010) Ecosystem services-a framework for thinking about sustainability. Oregon State Bar-Sustainability Section
30. Hamilton SF, Sunding DL, Zilberman D (2003) Public goods and the value of product quality regulations: The case of food safety. J Pub Econ 87(3–4):799–817
31. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Ag Econ 66(3):332–341
32. Hanley N, Wright RE, Alvarez-Farizo B (2006) Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. J Environ Manag 78(2):183–193
33. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene GH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, London
34. Herriges J, Kling C, Liu CC, Tobias J (2010) What are the consequences of consequentiality? J Environ Econ Manag 59(1):67–81
35. Hill MRJ, McMaster DG, Harrison T, Hershmiller A, Plews T (2011) A reverse auction for wetland restoration in the Assiniboine River Watershed, Saskatchewan. Can J Agric Econ 59(2):245–258
36. Hörisch J (2015) Crowdfunding for environmental ventures: an empirical analysis of the influence of environmental orientation on the success of crowdfunding initiatives. J Clean Prod (in press)
37. Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK (1996) Contingent valuation and endangered species: methodological issues and applications. Edward Elgar Publishing, Chicago
38. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Res Econ 14:131–150
39. Keohane NO, Revesz RL, Stavins RN (1998) The choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy. Harv Environ Law Rev 22:313
40. Kollert W, Lagan P (2007) Do certified tropical logs fetch a market premium?: a comparative price analysis from Sabah, Malaysia. For Pol Econ 9(7):862–868
41. Krieger DJ (2001) The economic value of forest ecosystem services: a review. Report prepared for the Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C
42. Lindhjem H (2007) 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. J For Econ 12(4):251–277
43. Loomis J (2005) Economic values without prices: the importance of nonmarket values and valuation for information public policy debates. Choices Mag 20(3):179–182
44. Lorenzo AB, Blanche CA, Qi Y, Guidry MM (2000) Assessing residents willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: a small-city case study. J Arboric 26(6):319–325
45. Lusk JL, Schroeder TC (2004) Are choice experiments incentive compatible? a test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Amer J Ag Econ 86(2):467–482
46. Mollick E (2014) The dynamics of crowdfunding: an exploratory study. J Bus Ventur 29(1):1–16
47. Montgomery CA, Helvoigt TL (2006) Changes in attitudes about importance and willingness to pay for salmon recovery in Oregon. J Environ Manag 78:330–340
48. Moon A (2005) Assessing the impacts of complexity in stated preference methods. University of Alberta, Canada
49. Murphy JJ, Stevens T, Weatherhead D (2005) Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? Environ Res Econ 30(3):327–343
50. Newell LW, Swallow SK (2013) Real-payment choice experiments: valuing forested wetlands and spatial attributes within a landscape context. Ecol Econ 92:37–47
51. Oregon Department of Forestry (2011) Oregon: forest facts and figures. http://library.state.or.us/repository/2013/201305161432344/2011.pdf. Accessed May 2015
52. Pagiola S, von Ritter K, Bishop J (2004) Assessing the economic value of ecosystem conservation. World Bank, Washington, D.C. https://www.openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/18391. Accessed 8 June 2015
53. Parks PJ, Murray BC (1994) Land attributes and land allocation: nonindustrial forest use in the Pacific Northwest. For Sci 40(3):558–575
54. Quinn M (2013) Forest stewardship council. Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. Springer, Berlin, pp 1146–1149
55. Rabotyagov SS, Lin S (2013) Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: a case of Washington State, USA. J For Econ 19(3):307–330
56. Rabotyagov SS, Tóth SF, Ettl GJ (2013) Testing the design variables of ECOSEL: a market mechanism for forest ecosystem services. For Sci 59(3):303–321
57. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. PNAS 107(11):5242–5247
58. Rondeau D, Schulze WD, Poe GL (1999) Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism. J Pub Econ 72:455–470
59. Rondeau D, Poe GL, Schulze WD (2005) VCM or PPM? A comparison of the performance of two voluntary public goods mechanisms. J Pub Econ 89(8):1581–1592
60. Rose SK, Clark J, Poe GL, Rondeau D, Schulze WD (2002) The private provision of public goods: tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs. Res Energy Econ 24(1–2):131–155
61. Selman SJ, Greenhalgh MS, Taylor M, Guiling J (2008) Paying for environmental performance: potential cost savings using a reverse auction in program sign-up. WRI Pol note environmental markets No 5, vol 3. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C, pp 1–6
62. Shapansky B, Adamowicz W, Boxall P (2003) Measuring forest resource values: an assessment of choice experiments and preference construction methods as public involvement tools. Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton
63. Stanton T, Echavarria M, Hamilton K, Ott C (2010) State of watershed payments: an emerging marketplace. Forest-trends. http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2438.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2015
64. Stenger A, Harou P, Navrud S (2009) Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests. J For Econ 15(1):1–14
65. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6(2):81–97
66. Swallow SK (2013) Demand-side value for ecosystem services and implications for innovative markets: experimental perspectives on the possibility of private markets for public goods. Ag Res Econ Rev 42(1):33–56
67. Tóth SF, Ettl GJ, Rabotyagov SS (2010) ECOSEL: an auction mechanism for forest ecosystem services. Math Comput For Nat Res Sci 2(2):99–116
68. Tóth SF, Ettl GJ, Könnyű N, Rabotyagov SS, Rogers LW, Comnick JM (2013) ECOSEL: multi-objective optimization to sell forest ecosystem services. For Pol Econ 35:73–82
69. Train K (2009) Qualitative choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York
70. U.S. Census Bureau (2012) State and county quickfacts: Washington State/Oregon State
71. Vossler CA, Evans MF (2009) Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality. J Environ Econ Manag 58(3):338–345
72. Vossler CA, Doyon M, Rondeau D (2012) Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am Econ J 4(4):145–171
73. WA DNR. Forest certification: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/TimberSaleAuction/Pages/lm_forest_certification.aspx. Accessed 25 May 2015
74. WA State Congress House. Forest products industry—landowners conservation Proposals, HB 2541. 61st Congress 2010 Regular Session SB 6256
75. Wiser RH (2007) Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecol Econ 62(3–4):419–432
76. Xu W, Lippke BW, Perez-Garcia J (2003) Valuing biodiversity, aesthetics, and job losses associated with ecosystem management using stated preferences. For Sci 49(2):247–257
77. Zobrist KW, Lippke BR (2007) Economic costs of different riparian management regulations in the Pacific Northwest. West J Appl For 22(1):36–41