Spatially explicit demand for afforestation

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 78, Issue , 2017, Pages 190-199

  Sagebiel, Julian ^a   Glenk, Klaus ^b   Meyerhoff, Jürgen ^c,d  

^a Institute for Ecological Economy Research (I W)   (Germany)

^b SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

^c TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^d KIEL INSTITUTE FOR THE WORLD ECONOMY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cultural ecosystem services; Discrete choice experiment; Land use changes; Spatial preference heterogeneity; Stated preferences; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEMS; FORECASTING; FORESTRY; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; LAND USE; REFORESTATION;

DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; LAND-USE CHANGE; PREFERENCE HETEROGENEITY; STATED PREFERENCES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ECONOMICS;

FORESTATION; GIS; LAND USE; REGULATIONS;

EID: 85012225061     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.021     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., Louviere, J., Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80 (1998), 64–75, 10.2307/3180269.
2. Barrio, M., Loureiro, M.L., A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1023–1030, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.016.
3. Bliemer, M.C.J., Rose, J.M., Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 58 (2013), 199–214, 10.1016/j.trb.2013.09.010.
4. BMELV, Forest strategy 2020. Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, 2011.
5. BMUB, Indikatorenbericht 2014 zur Nationalen Strategie zur Biologischen Vielfalt. German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, 2015 (Berlin).
6. 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. Land Use 92 (2013), 78–86, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.017.
7. Brouwer, R., Lienhoop, N., Oosterhuis, F., Incentivizing afforestation agreements: institutional-economic conditions and motivational drivers. J. For. Econ. 21 (2015), 205–222, 10.1016/j.jfe.2015.09.003.
8. Burgdorf, M., Disaggregation von Bevölkerungsdaten mittels ATKIS Basis DLM. Angew. Geoinformatik, 2010, 2010.
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. Plan. A 41 (2009), 97–111, 10.1068/a4038.
10. Campbell, D., Scarpa, R., Hutchinson, W., Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci. 1 (2008), 117–126, 10.1007/s12076-008-0012-6.
11. ChoiceMetrics, NGene 1.1.1 User Manual & Reference Guide. 2012.
12. Colombo, S., Hanley, N., How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Econ. 84 (2008), 128–147.
13. Czajkowski, M., Budziński, W., Campbell, D., Giergiczny, M., Hanley, N., Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management. Environ. Resour. Econ., 2016, 1–23, 10.1007/s10640-016-0044-0.
14. de Ayala, A., Hoyos, D., Mariel, P., Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European landscape convention. J. For. Econ. 21 (2015), 79–96, 10.1016/j.jfe.2015.01.002.
15. EC, A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector. No COM(2013) 659 final, 2013, European Commission, Brussels.
16. FAO, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main Report, FAO Forestry Paper. 2010, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
17. Giergiczny, M., Czajkowski, M., Żylicz, T., Angelstam, P., Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecol. Econ. 119 (2015), 8–23, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.032.
18. Gimona, A., van der Horst, D., Mapping hotspots of multiple landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. Landsc. Ecol. 22 (2007), 1255–1264, 10.1007/s10980-007-9105-7.
19. Glenk, K., Lago, M., Moran, D., Public preferences for water quality improvements: implications for the implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive in Scotland. Water Policy 13 (2011), 645–662, 10.2166/wp.2011.060.
20. Hensher, D., Greene, W., The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30 (2003), 133–176, 10.1023/A:1022558715350.
21. Hjerpe, E., Hussain, A., Phillips, S., Valuing type and scope of ecosystem conservation: a meta-analysis. J. For. Econ. 21 (2015), 32–50, 10.1016/j.jfe.2014.12.001.
22. Hoffmann, J., Kiesel, J., Strauss, D.-D., Greef, J.-M., Wenkel, K.-O., Vogelindikator für die Agrarlandschaft auf der Grundlage der Abundanzen der Brutvogelarten im Kontext zur räumlichen Landschaftsstruktur. Landbauforschung Völkenrode 57 (2007), 333–347.
23. Hole, A.R., Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata J. 7 (2007), 388–401.
24. Johnston, R.J., Jarvis, D., Wallmo, K., Lew, D.K., Multiscale spatial pattern in nonuse willingness to pay: applications to threatened and endangered marine species. Land Econ. 91 (2015), 739–761, 10.3368/le.91.4.739.
25. Johnston, R.J., Ramachandran, M., Modeling spatial patchiness and hot spots in stated preference willingness to pay. Environ. Resour. Econ. 59 (2014), 363–387, 10.1007/s10640-013-9731-2.
26. Johnston, R.J., Ramachandran, M., Modeling spatial patchiness and hot spots in stated preference willingness to pay. Environ. Resour. Econ. 59 (2013), 363–387, 10.1007/s10640-013-9731-2.
27. Lew, D., Wallmo, K., External tests of scope and embedding in stated preference choice experiments: an application to endangered species valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48 (2011), 1–23, 10.1007/s10640-010-9394-1.
28. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., Adamowicz, W., Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications, 4. print. ed., 2006, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
29. McFadden, D., Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka, P., (eds.) Frontiers in Econometrics, 1974, Academic Press, 105–142.
30. Meyerhoff, J., Do turbines in the vicinity of respondents' residences influence choices among programmes for future wind power generation?. J. Choice Model. 7 (2013), 58–71, 10.1016/j.jocm.2013.04.010.
31. MLUR, Richtlinien für die Förderung forstwirtschaftlicher Maßnahmen als Gemeinschaftsaufgabe “Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes”. Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein, 2012 (Flensburg).
32. MLUR, Siebter Waldbericht Berichtszeitraum 2003–2007. Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein, 2008 (Flensburg).
33. Plantinga, A.J., Wu, J., Co-benefits from carbon sequestration in forests: evaluating reductions in agricultural externalities from an afforestation policy in Wisconsin. Land Econ. 79 (2003), 74–85, 10.2307/3147106.
34. Powe, N.A., Bateman, I.J., Investigating insensitivity to scope: a split-sample test of perceived scheme realism. Land Econ. 80 (2004), 258–271.
35. Rolfe, J., Windle, J., Bennett, J., Benefit transfer: insights from choice experiments. Johnston, R.J., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R.S., Brouwer, R., (eds.) Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values The Economics of Non-market Goods and Resources, 2015, Springer, Netherlands, 191–208.
36. Scarpa, R., Rose, J.M., 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 (2008), 253–282.
37. 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, 10.3368/le.89.3.514.
38. Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., Rose, J., Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 79 (2012), 21–31, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.013.
39. Schmitz, K., Schmitz, P.M., Wronka, T.C., Valuation of landscape functions using choice experiments (in German). Ger. J. Agric. Econ. 52 (2003), 379–398.
40. Tietz, A., Ländliche Entwicklungsprogramme 2007 bis 2013 in Deutschland im Vergleich: Finanzen, Schwerpunkte, Maßnahmen, Landbauforschung Völkenrode Sonderheft. 2007, Bundesforschungsanst. für Landwirtschaft (FAL), Braunschweig.
41. Train, K.E., Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation. repr. ed., 2008, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
42. Tuhkanen, H., Piirsalu, E., Nõmmann, T., Karlõševa, A., Nõmmann, S., Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N., Valuing the benefits of improved marine environmental quality under multiple stressors. Sci. Total Environ. 551–552 (2016), 367–375, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.011.
43. Upton, V., Dhubháin, Á.N., Bullock, C., Preferences and values for afforestation: the effects of location and respondent understanding on forest attributes in a labelled choice experiment. Forest Policy Econ. 23 (2012), 17–27, 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.006.
44. Valatin, G., Price, C., How cost-effective is forestry for climate change mitigation?. Fenning, T., (eds.) Challenges and Opportunities for the World's Forests in the 21st Century Forestry Sciences, 2014, Springer, Netherlands, 297–339, 10.1007/978-94-007-7076-8_13.
45. van Zanten, B.T., Verburg, P.H., Koetse, M.J., van Beukering, P.J.H., Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: a meta-analysis of case studies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 132 (2014), 89–101, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.012.
46. Vecchiato, D., Tempesta, T., Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments. Forest Policy Econ. 26 (2013), 111–120, 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.001.
47. Veisten, K., Fredrik Hoen, H., Navrud, S., Strand, J., Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J. Environ. Manag. 73 (2004), 317–331, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.008.
48. Yemshanov, D., McKenney, D.W., Hatton, T., Fox, G., Investment attractiveness of afforestation in Canada inclusive of carbon sequestration benefits. Can. J. Agric. Econ./Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie 53 (2005), 307–323, 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2005.00021.x.