Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 705-727

  Czajkowski, Mikołaj ^a   Budziński, Wiktor ^a   Campbell, Danny ^b   Giergiczny, Marek ^a   Hanley, Nick ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Discrete choice experiment; Forest management; Kriging; Litter; Mixed logit; Passive protection; Spatial heterogeneity of preferences; Spatial lag; Tourist infrastructure; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; RESOURCE VALUATION;

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; KRIGING; LITTER; MIXED LOGIT; PASSIVE PROTECTION; SPATIAL HETEROGENEITY; SPATIAL LAGS; TOURIST INFRASTRUCTURE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FORESTRY;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ECONOMETRICS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FOREST MANAGEMENT; HETEROGENEITY; KRIGING; LITTER; POLICY MAKING; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; TOURISM ECONOMICS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

POLAND [CENTRAL EUROPE];

EID: 84978152381     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: 15731502     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-016-0044-0     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Abildtrup J, Garcia S, Olsen SB, Stenger A (2013) Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol Econ 92(1):67–77
2. Baerenklau KA (2010) A latent class approach to modeling endogenous spatial sorting in zonal recreation demand models. Land Econ 86(4):800–816
3. Baerenklau KA, González-Cabán A, Paez C, Chavez E (2010) Spatial allocation of forest recreation value. J For Econ 16(2):113–126
4. Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Ferrini S, Schaafsma M, Barton DN, Dubgaard A, Hasler B, Hime S, Liekens I, Navrud S, De Nocker L, Ščeponavičiūtė R, Semėnienė D (2011) Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environ Resour Econ 50(3):365–387
5. Bivand R (2005) The spdep package. Comprehensive R Archive Network, Version 0.3-13
6. Bliemer MCJ, Rose JM, Hess S (2008) Approximation of Bayesian efficiency in experimental choice designs. J Choice Model 1(1):98–127
7. Broch SW, Strange N, Jacobsen JB, Wilson KA (2013) Farmers’ willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution. Ecol Econ 92:78–86
8. Campbell D (2007) Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J Agric Econ 58(3):467–483
9. Campbell D, Hutchinson G, Scarpa R (2009) Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environ Plan A 41(1):97–111
10. Campbell D, Scarpa R, Hutchinson WG (2008) Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Lett Sp Resour Sci 1(2–3):117–126
11. Chiou L, Walker JL (2007) Masking identification of discrete choice models under simulation methods. J Econom 141(2):683–703
12. Czajkowski M, Bartczak A, Giergiczny M, Navrud S, Żylicz T (2014) Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management. For Policy Econ 39:1–12
13. Czajkowski M, Budziński W (2015) An insight into the numerical simulation bias – a comparison of efficiency and performance of different types of quasi Monte Carlo simulation methods under a wide range of experimental conditions. In: Environmental Choice Modelling Conference, Copenhagen
14. Czajkowski M, Giergiczny M, Greene WH (2014) Learning and fatigue effects revisited. Investigating the effects of accounting for unobservable preference and scale heterogeneity. Land Econ 90(2):323–350
15. Ferrini S, Scarpa R (2007) Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a monte carlo study. J Environ Econ Manag 53(3):342–363
16. Garrod G, Ruto E, Willis K, Powe N (2012) Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of environmental stewardship: a latent-class approach. Ecol Econ 76:104–111
17. Garrod G, Willis K (1992) The amenity value of woodland in great Britain: a comparison of economic estimates. Environ Resour Econ 2(4):415–434
18. Hanley N, Shaw WD, Wright RE (eds) (2003) The new economics of outdoor recreation. Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham
19. Hensher DA, Greene WH, Rose JM (2006) Deriving willingness-to-pay estimates of travel-time savings from individual-based parameters. Environ Plann A 38(12):2365–2376
20. Hess S (2010) Conditional parameter estimates from mixed logit models: distributional assumptions and a free software tool. J Choice Modell 3(2):134–152
21. Johnston RJ, Ramachandran M, Schultz ET, Segerson K, Besedin EY (2011) Characterizing spatial pattern in ecosystem service values when distance decay doesn’t apply: choice experiments and local indicators of spatial association. Paper number 103374 provided by Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in its series 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24–26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
22. Jørgensen SL, Olsen SB, Ladenburg J, Martinsen L, Svenningsen SR, Hasler B (2013) Spatially induced disparities in users’ and non-users’ WTP for water quality improvements–testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecol Econ 92:58–66
23. Munro A, Hanley N (1999) Information, uncertainty and contingent valuation. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Contingent valuation of environmental preferences: assessing theory and practice in the USA, Europe, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford
24. Nielsen AB, Olsen SB, Lundhede T (2007) An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc Urban Plann 80:63–71
25. Sándor Z, Wedel M (2001) Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers’ prior beliefs. J Market Res 38(4):430–444
26. Scarpa R, Rose JM (2008) Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, What to Report and Why. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 52(3):253–282
27. Schläpfer F, Hanley N (2003) Do local landscape patterns affect the demand for landscape amenities protection? J Agric Econo 54(1):21–34
28. Termansen M, Zandersen M, McClean CJ (2008) Spatial substitution patterns in forest recreation. Reg Sci Urban Econ 38(1):81–97
29. Timmins C, Murdock J (2007) A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models. J Environ Econ Manag 53(2):230–249
30. Timmins C, Schlenker W (2009) Reduced-form versus structural modeling in environmental and resource economics. Annu Rev Resour Econ 1(1):351–380
31. Wood S, Wood MS (2007) The mgcv package. www.r-project.org
32. Yao RT, Scarpa R, Turner JA, Barnard TD, Rose JM, Palma JHN, Harrison DR (2014) Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand’s planted forests: socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay. Ecol Econ 98:90–101