Heterogeneous preferences for recreation-oriented management in commercial forests: the role of citizens’ socioeconomic characteristics and recreational profiles

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

Volumn 60, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 399-418

  Juutinen, Artti ^a,b   Kosenius, Anna Kaisa ^a   Ovaskainen, Ville ^a   Tolvanen, Anne ^a,b   Tyrväinen, Liisa ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

choice experiment method; forest recreation; multiple use forestry; preference heterogeneity; sample selection model

Indexed keywords

FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY; HETEROGENEITY; MODELING; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS;

FINLAND;

AVES;

EID: 84964458850     PISSN: 09640568     EISSN: 13600559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1159546     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Act on Metsähallitus 1378/2004. 2004. Helsinki:Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2004/en20041378.pdf.
2. Adamowicz, W., P., Boxall, M., Williams, and J., Louviere. 1998. “Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values:Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80:64–75.
3. Adamowicz, W., J., Swait, P., Boxall, J., Louviere, and M., Williams. 1997. “Perceptions Versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32:65–84.
4. Ahtiainen, H., E., Pouta, and J., Artell. 2015. “Modelling Asymmetric Preferences for Water Quality in Choice Experiments with Individual-Specific Status Quo Alternatives.” Water Resources and Economics 12:1–39.
5. Asunta, A., V., Hiltunen, and M., Väisänen. (Eds.) 2004. Metsähallituksen luonnonvarasuunnittelu. Suunnitteluohje. Metsähallitus. [Resource Planning of Metsähallitus:Planning Guidelines.] Helsinki: Edita Prima Oy.
6. Bech, M., and D., Gyrd-Hansen. 2005. “Effects Coding in Discrete Choice Experiments.” Health Economics 14:1079–1083.
7. Bennett, J., and V., Adamowicz. 2001. “Some Fundamentals of Environmental Choice Modelling.” In The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, edited by J., Bennett, and R., Blamey, 37–72. Northampton:Edward Elgar Publishing.
8. Birol, E., K., Karousakis, and P., Koundouri. 2006. “Using a Choice Experiment to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in Wetland Attributes:The Case of Cheimaditida Wetland in Greece.” Ecological Economics 60:145–156.
9. Boxall, P.C., and W.L., Adamowicz. 2002. “Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models:A Latent Class Approach.” Environmental and Resource Economics 23:421–446.
10. Boxall, P.C., and B., Macnab. 2000. “Exploring the Preferences of Wildlife Recreationists for Features of Boreal Forest Management:A Choice Experiment Approach.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:1931–1941.
11. Campbell, D., S., Vedel, B., Thorsen, and J., Jacobsen. 2013. “Heterogeneity in the WTP for Recreational Access:Distributional Aspects.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57:1200–1219.
12. Cramer, J.S., 2003. Logit Models. From Economics and Other Fields. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
13. Christie, M., N., Hanley, and S., Hynes. 2007. “Valuing Enhancements to Forest Recreation Using Choice Experiment and Contingent Behavior Methods.” Journal of Forest Economics 13:75–102.
14. Czajkowski, M., A., Bartczak, M., Giergiczny, S., Navrud, and T., Zylicz. 2014. “Providing Preference-Based Support for Forest Ecosystem Service Management.” Forest Policy and Economics 39:1–12.
15. Ezebilo, E., M., Boman, L., Mattson, A., Lindhagen, and W., Mbongo. 2015. “Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Close to Home Nature for Outdoor Recreation in Sweden.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58:283–296.
16. FAO. 1998. Forestry Policies in Europe:An Analysis. FAO Forestry Paper 86, Rome: FAO.
17. Greene, W., 2012a. Limdep, Version 10. Reference Guide. New York:Econometric Software, Inc.
18. Greene, W., 2012b. Nlogit, Version 5. Reference Guide. New York:Econometric Software, Inc.
19. Greene, W., and D., Hensher. 2003. “A Latent Class Model for Discrete Choice Analysis:Contrasts with Mixed Logit.” Transportation Research Part B 37:681–698.
20. Greene, W., and D., Hensher. 2010. Modeling Ordered Choices. A Primer. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
21. Gundersen, V.S., and L.H., Frivold. 2008. “Public Preferences for Forest Structures:A Review of Quantitative Surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 7:241–258.
22. Haefele, M.A., and J.B., Loomis. 2001. “Using the Conjoint Analysis Technique for the Estimation of Passive Use Values of Forest Health.” Journal of Forest Economics 7:9–28.
23. Haefen, R., M., Massey, and W., Adamowicz. 2005. “Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87:1061–1076.
24. Hanley, N., R., Wright, and W., Adamowicz. 1998. “Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment:Design Issues, Current Experience and Future Prospects.” Environmental and Resource Economics 11:413–428.
25. Hiltunen, V., 2012. “Developing Decision Support in Participatory Strategic Forest Planning in Metsähallitus” Phd Diss. University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences. Dissertationes Forestales 141. http://www.metla.fi/dissertationes/df141.htm
26. Holmes, T.P., and K.J., Boyle. 2003. “Stated Preference Methods for Valuation of Forest Attributes.” In Forests in a Market Economy, edited by E., Sills, and K., Abt, 321–340. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
27. Horne, P., P.C., Boxall, and W.L., Adamowicz. 2005. “Multiple-Use Management of Forest Recreation Sites:A Spatially Explicit Choice Experiment.” Forest Ecology and Management 207:189–199.
28. Hummel, F.C., 1992. “Aspects of Forest Recreation in Western Europe.” Forestry 65:237–251.
29. Jackson, L.E., 1986. “Outdoor Recreation Participation and Attitudes to the Environment.” Leisure Studies 5:1–23.
30. Jackson, L.E., 1987. “Outdoor Recreation Participation and Views on Resource Development and Preservation.” Leisure Studies 9:235–250.
31. Jensen, F., 1995. “Forest Recreation.” In Multiple-Use Forestry in the Nordic Countries, edited by M., Hytönen, 245–278. Helsinki:The Finnish Forest Research Institute.
32. Juutinen, A., A.K., Kosenius, and V., Ovaskainen. 2014. “Estimating the Benefits of Recreation-Oriented Management in State-Owned Commercial Forests in Finland:A Choice Experiment.” Journal of Forest Economics 20:396–412.
33. Kosenius, A.-K., A., Juutinen, M., Neuvonen, V., Ovaskainen, T., Sievänen, A., Tolvanen, and L., Tyrväinen. 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. Helsinki:The Finnish Forest Research Institute. http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2013/mwp261.htm.
34. Manning, R., 2010. Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Search and Research for Satisfaction. 3rd ed. Oregon:Oregon State University Press.
35. McFadden, D., 2001. “Economic Choices.” The American Economic Review 91:351–378.
36. Ngene. 2010. User Manual and Reference Guide. The Cutting Edge in Experimental Design. Choice Metrics Pty Ltd.
37. Nielsen, A.B., S.B., Olsen, and T., Lundhede. 2007. “An Economic Valuation of the Recreational Benefits Associated with Nature-Based Forest Management Practices.” Landscape and Urban Planning 80:63–71.
38. Ribe, R., 1989. “The Aesthetics of Forestry:What Has Empirical Preference Research Taught Us?” Journal of Environmental Management 13:55–74.
39. Ribe, R., 2005. “Aesthetic Perceptions of Green-Tree Retention Harvests in Vista Views:The Interaction of Cut Level, Retention Pattern and Harvest Shape.” Landscape and Urban Planning 73:277–293.
40. Ribe, R., 2009. “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.” Journal of Environmental Management 91:245–260.
41. Roovers, P., M., Marny, and H., Gulinck. 2002. “Visitor Profile, Perceptions and Expectations in Forests from a Gradient of Increasing Urbanization in Central Belgium.” Landscape and Urban Planning 59:129–145.
42. Schaberg, R.H., T.P., Homes, K.J., Lee, and R.C., Abt. 1999. “Ascribing Value to Ecological Processes:An Economic View of Environmental Change.” Forest Ecology and Management 114:329–338.
43. Sievänen, T., and M., Neuvonen. 2011. Luonnon Virkistyskäyttö 2010 [Recreation in Nature 2010].” Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute. Vantaa:The Finnish Forest Research Institute. http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp212.htm.
44. Silvennoinen, H., T., Pukkala, and L., Tahvanainen. 2002. “Effect of Cuttings on the Scenic Beauty of a Tree Stand.” Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 17:263–273.
45. Thiene, M., J., Meyerhoff, and M., De Salvo. 2012. “Scale and Taste Heterogeneity for Forest Biodiversity:Models of Serial Nonparticipation and Their Effects.” Journal of Forest Economics 18:355–369.
46. Tolvanen, A., A., Juutinen, and R., Svento. 2013. “Preferences of Local People for the Use of Peatlands:The Case of Peatland-Richest Region in Finland.” Ecology and Society 18 (2):19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05496-180219
47. Train, K., 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2nd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
48. Tyrväinen, L., M., Buchecker, D., Vuletic, and B., Degenhart. 2008. “Evaluating the Economic and Social Benefits of Forest Recreation and Nature Tourism.” In European Forest Recreation and Tourism:A Handbook, edited by S., Bell, S., Simpson, L., Tyrväinen, T., Sievänen, and U., Pröbstl, 35–64. London:Taylor and Francis Group Plc.
49. Tyrväinen, L., E., Mäntymaa, and V., Ovaskainen. 2014. “Demand for Enhanced Forest Amenities in Private Lands:The Case of the Ruka-Kuusamo Tourism Area, Finland.” Forest Policy and Economics 47:4–13.