Local consequences of national policies - A spatial analysis of preferences for forest access reduction

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 73, Issue , 2016, Pages 68-77

  Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg ^a   Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark ^a   Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Preference heterogeneity; Recreation; Self selection; Spatial heterogeneity; WTP

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; SURVEYS;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; PREFERENCE HETEROGENEITY; RECREATION; SELF-SELECTION; SPATIAL HETEROGENEITY;

FORESTRY;

EID: 84985961235     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.010     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Abildtrup, J., Garcia, S., Olsen, S.B., Stenger, A., Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol. Econ. 92 (2013), 67–77.
2. Baerenklau, K.A., A latent class approach to modeling endogenous spatial sorting in zonal recreation demand models. Land Econ. 86 (2010), 800–816.
3. Bakhtiari, F., Jacobsen, J.B., Lundhede, T.H., Strange, N., Thorsen, B.J., Boman, M., Valuation of biodiversity protection across borders: limits to the public good?. Fifth World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists 2014, Istanbul June 28–July 2, 2014, 2014.
4. Bakhtiari, F., Jacobsen, J.B., Jensen, F.S., Willingness to travel to avoid recreation conflicts in Danish forests. Urban For. Urban Green. 13 (2014), 662–671.
5. Bateman, I.J., Bringing the real world into economic analyses of land use value: incorporating spatial complexity. Land Use Policy 26:Supplement 1 (2009), S30–S42.
6. Bateman, I.J., Day, B.H., Georgiou, S., Lake, I., The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol. Econ. 60 (2006), 450–460.
7. Broch, S.W., Strange, N., Jacobsen, J.B., Wilson, K.A., Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution. Ecol. Econ. 92 (2013), 78–86.
8. Brouwer, R., Martin-Ortega, J., Berbel, J., Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Econ. 86 (2010), 552–568.
9. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W.G., Scarpa, R., Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environ. Plann. A 41 (2009), 97–111.
10. Campbell, D., Vedel, S.E., Thorsen, B.J., Jacobsen, J.B., Heterogeneity in the WTP for recreational access: distributional aspects. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 57 (2014), 1200–1219.
11. Czajkowski, M., Budzinski, W., Campbell, D., Giergiczny, M., Hanley, N., Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management. Forthcom. Environ. Resour. Econ., 2016, 10.1007/s10640-016-0044-0.
12. Degenhardt, B., Frick, J., Buchecker, M., Gutscher, H., Influences of personal, social, and environmental factors on workday use frequency of the nearby outdoor recreation areas by working people. Leis. Sci. 33 (2011), 420–440.
13. DGA, http://download.kortforsyningen.dk/, 2014.
14. DØRS, Rekreative værdier [Outdoor recreative values]. In Økonomi og Miljø Danish Economic Councils, 2004, 103–192.
15. Edwards, D.M., Jay, M., Jensen, F.S., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagne, C., Peace, A., Weiss, G., Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecol. Soc., 17, 2012, 27.
16. Haab, T.C., McConnell, K.E., Valuing Environmental and Natiral resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. 2002, Edward Elgar Publishing.
17. Hanley, N., Schläpfer, F., Spurgeon, J., Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J. Environ. Manag. 68 (2003), 297–304.
18. Jacobsen, J.B., Lundhede, T.H., Thorsen, B.J., Valuation of Wildlife Populations above Survival Biodiversity and Conservation. 21, 2012, 543–563.
19. Jacobsen, J.B., Lundhede, T.H., Thorsen, B.J., The effects of current income and expected change in future income on stated preferences for environmental improvements. J. For. Econ. 19 (2013), 206–219.
20. Jensen, F.S., Outdoor values in 592 forests and other nature areas. Forest & Landscape, 2003, Hørsholm, Denmark.
21. Jensen, F.S., Friluftsliv i skovene 2008 [outdoor recreation in the forests 2008]. Videnblade Planlægning og Friluftsliv 6 (2012), 1–64.
22. Jensen, F.S., Koch, N.E., Friluftsliv i skovene 1976/77 - 1993/94 [Outdoor recreation in the forests 1976/77 - 1993/1994]. Research Series No. 20, 1997, Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Hørsholm 87- 89822-89-7.
23. Jensen, F.S., Koch, N.E., Twenty-five years of forest recreation research in Denmark and its influence on forest policy. Scand. J. For. Res. 19 (2004), 93–102.
24. Jensen, C.U., Panduro, T.E., Lundhede, T.H., The vindication of Don Quixote: the impact of noise and visual pollution from wind turbines. Land Econ. 90 (2014), 668–682.
25. Johnston, R.J., Duke, J.M., Willingness to pay for land preservation across states and jurisdictional scale: implications for benefit transfer. Land Econ. 85 (2009), 217–237.
26. Johnston, R.J., Ramachandran, M., Modeling spatial patchiness and hot spots in stated preference willingness to pay. Environ. Resour. Econ. 59 (2014), 363–387.
27. Johnston, R.J., Swallow, S.K., Bauer, D.M., Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods: considerations for rural land use. Land Econ. 78 (2002), 481–500.
28. Jorgensen, S.L., Olsen, S.B., Ladenburg, J., Martinsen, L., Svenningsen, S.R., Hasler, B., 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 (2013), 58–66.
29. Klaiber, H.A., Phaneuf, D.J., Valuing open space in a residential sorting model of the twin cities. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 60 (2010), 57–77.
30. Kuminoff, N.V., Smith, V.K., Timmins, C., The new economics of equilibrium sorting and policy evaluation using housing markets. J. Econ. Lit. 51 (2013), 1007–1062.
31. Loomis, J.B., Vertically summing public good demand curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Econ., 2000, 312–321.
32. McFadden, D., Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. J. Bus. 53 (1973), S13–S29.
33. McFadden, D., Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Zarembka, P., (eds.) Frontiers in Econometrics, 1974, Academic Press, New York, 105–142.
34. Moore, R., Provencher, B., Bishop, R.C., Valuing a spatially variable environmental resource: reducing non-point-source pollution in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Land Econ. 87 (2011), 45–59.
35. Nord-Larsen, Thomas, Kvist Johannsen, Vivian, Riis-Nielsen, Torben, Thomsen, Iben M., Schou, Erik, Kjell Suadicani og Bruno Bilde Jørgensen (2015): Skove og plantager 2014, Skov & Landskab, Frederiksberg. 2015 85 s. ill.
36. Nielsen, A.B., Olsen, S.B., Lundhede, T., An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature based forest management practices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 80 (2007), 63–71.
37. OIS, https://www.ois.dk/, 2010.
38. Panduro, T.E., Thorsen, B.J., Evaluating two model reduction approaches for large scale hedonic models sensitive to omitted variables and multicollinearity. Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci. 7 (2014), 85–102.
39. Pellegrini, P., Fotheringham, A., Modelling spatial choice: a review and synthesis in a migration context. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 26 (2002), 487–510.
40. Petersen, A.H., Strange, N., Anthon, S., Bjørner, T.B., Rahbek, C., 'Conserving what, where and how? Cost-efficient measures to conserve biodiversity in Denmark'. J. Nat. Conserv, 29, 2016, 33–44, 10.1016/j.jnc.2015.10.004.
41. Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., Rose, J., Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 79 (2012), 21–31.
42. Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., Gilbert, A., van den Bergh, J., Wagtendonk, A., Estimation of distance-decay functions to account for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in stated preference research. Land Econ. 89 (2013), 514–537.
43. Sen, A., Harwood, A.R., Bateman, I.J., Munday, P., Crowe, A., Brander, L., Raychaudhuri, J., Lovett, A.A., Foden, J., Provins, A., Economic assessment of the recreational value of ecosystems: methodological development and national and local application. Environ. Resour. Econ. 57 (2014), 233–249.
44. Statistics Denmark, Statistikbanken.dk. 2014.
45. Termansen, M., McClean, C.J., Jensen, F.S., Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services. Ecol. Econ. 92 (2013), 48–57.
46. Train, K., Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2003, Cambridge University Press.
47. Train, K.E., Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation. 2nd ed., 2009, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
48. Tyrväinen, L., Use and valuation of urban forest amenities in Finland. J. Environ. Manag. 62 (2001), 75–95.
49. Vedel, S.E., Thorsen, B.J., Jacobsen, J.B., First-movers, non-movers, and social gains from subsidising entry in markets for nature-based recreational goods. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009), 2363–2371.
50. von Haefen, R., Massey, D., Adamowicz, W., Serial nonparticipation in repeated discrete choice models. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87 (2005), 1061–1076.
51. Zandersen, M., Termansen, M., Jensen, F.S., Evaluating approaches to predict recreation values of new forest sites. J. For. Econ. 13 (2007), 103–128.
52. Zandersen, M., Termansen, M., Jensen, F.S., Testing benefits transfer of forest recreation values over a twenty-year time horizon. Land Econ. 83 (2007), 412–440.