Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 29, Issue , 2018, Pages 31-39

  Soto, José R ^a   Escobedo, Francisco J ^b   Khachatryan, Hayk ^c   Adams, Damian C ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO   (Colombia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Best worst choice; Costs; Discrete choice experimentation; Ecosystem service valuation; Socio ecological scales

Indexed keywords

EID: 85035030816     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.009     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Adams, D.C., Bwenge, F., Lee, D.J., Larkin, S., Alavalapati, J.R.R., Public preferences for controlling upland invasive plants in state parks: application of a choice model. Forest Policy Econ. 13:6 (2011), 465–472.
2. Allen, K.E., Moore, R., Moving beyond the exchange value in the nonmarket valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 18 (2016), 78–86.
3. Barrena, J., Nahuelhual, L., Báez, A., Schiappacasse, I., Cerda, C., Valuing cultural ecosystem services: agricultural heritage in Chiloé island, southern Chile. Ecosyst. Serv. 7 (2014), 66–75.
4. Bertram, C., Rehdanz, K., The role of urban green space for human well-being. Ecol. Econ. 120 (2015), 139–152.
5. Campbell, D., Erdem, S., Position bias in best-worst scaling surveys: a case study on trust in institutions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 97 (2015), 526–545.
6. Chen, W.Y., Hua, J., Citizens' distrust of government and their protest responses in a contingent valuation study of urban heritage trees in Guangzhou, China. J. Environ. Manage. 155 (2015), 40–48.
7. Coast, J., Salisbury, C., De Berker, D., Noble, A., Horrocks, S., Peters, T.J., Flynn, T.N., Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. Br. J. Dermatol. 155:2 (2006), 387–392.
8. Dobbs, C., Escobedo, F., Zipperer, W., A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landscape Urban Planning 99 (2011), 196–206.
9. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., Christian, L.M., Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 3rd ed., 2009, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ.
10. Escobedo, F., Luley, C., Bond, J., Staudhammer, C., Bartel, C., A hurricane debris and damage assessment for Florida urban forests. Arboricult. Urban For. 35:2 (2009), 100–106.
11. Escobedo, F.J., Kroeger, T., Wagner, J.E., Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 159:8 (2011), 2078–2087.
12. Escobedo, F.J., Adams, D.C., Timilsina, N., Urban forest structure effects on property value. Ecosyst. Serv. 12 (2015), 209–217.
13. Flynn, T.N., Louviere, J.J., Peters, T.J., Coast, J., Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J. Health Econ. 26 (2007), 171–189.
14. Flynn, T., Louviere, J., Peters, T., Coast, J., Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using Best-Worst Scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Med. Res. Methodology 8 (2008), 76–88.
15. Giergiczny, M., Kronenberg, J., From valuation to governance: Using choice experiment to value street trees. Ambio 43:4 (2014), 492–501.
16. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86 (2013), 235–245.
17. Greene, W.H., Econometric analysis. 2003, Prentice Hall, NY, New York.
18. Haab, T.C., McConnell, K.E., Referendum models and negative willingness to pay: alternative solutions. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 32:2 (1997), 251–270.
19. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H., Applied Choice Analysis. 2015, Cambridge University Press.
20. Horn, J., Escobedo, F.J., Hinkle, R., Hostetler, M., Timilsina, N., The role of composition, invasives, and maintenance emissions on urban forest carbon stocks. Environ. Manage. 55:2 (2015), 431–442.
21. Khachatryan, H., Campbell, B., Hall, C., Behe, B., Yue, C., Dennis, J., The effects of individual environmental concerns and willingness to pay for sustainable plant attributes. HortScience 49:1 (2014), 69–75.
22. Khachatryan, H., Suh, D.H., Zhou, G., Dukes, M., 2016. Sustainable urban landscaping: consumer preferences and willingness to pay for turfgrass fertilizers. Can. J. Agric. Econ. (accepted).
23. Koeser, A.K., Klein, R.W., Hasing, G., Northrop, R.J., Factors driving professional and public urban tree risk perception. Urban Forest. Urban Greening 14:4 (2015), 968–974.
24. Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 69:6 (2010), 1228–1236.
25. Kreye, M.M., Adams, D.C., Escobedo, F.J., Soto, J.R., Does policy process influence public values for forest-water resource protection in Florida?. Ecol. Econ. 129 (2016), 122–131.
26. Latinopoulos, D., Mallios, Z., Latinopoulos, P., Valuing the benefits of an urban park project: A contingent valuation study in Thessaloniki, Greece. Land Use Policy 55 (2016), 130–141.
27. Lo, A.Y., Jim, C.Y., Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: implications for contingent valuation method. Ecol. Econ. 114 (2015), 58–66.
28. Louviere, J., Flynn, T., Carson, R.T., Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J. Choice Model 3:3 (2010), 57–72.
29. Louviere, J., Hensher, D., Swait, J., Stated Choice Methods—Analysis and Application. 2000, Cambridge University Press.
30. Louviere, J.J., Islam, T., A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best–worst scaling. J. Bus. Res. 61:9 (2008), 903–911.
31. Louviere, J.J., Flynn, T.N., Marley, A.A.J., Best Worst Scaling: Theory. 2015, Cambridge University Press, Methods and Applications.
32. Lusk, J.L., Parker, N., Consumer preferences for fat in ground beef. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 41:1 (2009), 75–90.
33. Lusk, J.L., Briggeman, B.C., Food values. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91:1 (2009), 184–196.
34. Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M.D., Green, J.R., Microeconomic theory. 1995, Oxford University Press, New York.
35. Pandit, R., Laband, D.N., Energy savings from tree shade. Ecol. Econ. 69:6 (2010), 1324–1329.
36. Siriwardena, S.D., Boyle, K.J., Holmes, T.P., Wiseman, P.E., The implicit value of tree cover in the US: A meta-analysis of hedonic property value studies. Ecol. Econ. 128 (2016), 68–76.
37. Soto, J.R., Adams, D.C., Escobedo, F.J., Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA. For. Policy Econ. 63 (2016), 35–42.
38. Tadaki, M., Allen, W., Sinner, J., Revealing ecological processes or imposing social rationalities? The politics of bounding and measuring ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 118 (2015), 168–176.
39. Timilsina, N., Staudhammer, C., Escobedo, F.J., Lawrence, A., Tree biomass, wood waste yield, and carbon storage changes in an urban forest. Landscape Urban Planning 127 (2014), 18–27.
40. Train, K.E., Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
41. US Census Bureau, 2014. United States Census Bureau. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. (Accessed December 1, 2016 from) http://factfinder.census.gov.
42. Wyman, M., Escobedo, F., Stein, T., Orfanedes, M., Northrop, R., Community leader perceptions towards coastal urban forests and hurricanes in Florida. South. J. Appl. For. 36 (2012), 152–158.
43. Zhao, M., Escobedo, F.J., Staudhammer, C., Spatial patterns of a subtropical, coastal urban forest: Implications for land tenure, hurricanes, and invasives. Urban For. Urban Green. 9 (2010), 205–214.