Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland

Journal of Forest Economics

Volumn 33, Issue , 2018, Pages 14-24

  Mäntymaa, Erkki ^a   Juutinen, Artti ^a,b   Tyrväinen, Liisa ^a   Karhu, Jouni ^a   Kurttila, Mikko ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Attribute based contingent valuation; Forest landscapes; Nature based tourism; Payments for ecosystem services; Private forests; Willingness to accept compensation

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; COMMERCE; ECOSYSTEMS; LEISURE INDUSTRY; TOURISM;

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; FOREST LANDSCAPE; NATURE-BASED TOURISM; PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; PRIVATE FORESTS; WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT;

FORESTRY;

COMPENSATION SYSTEM; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

AREA; BIODIVERSITY; COMMERCE; COMPENSATION; ECOSYSTEMS; FINLAND; FORESTRY; PROTECTION;

FINLAND;

EID: 85054446845     PISSN: 11046899     EISSN: 16181530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2018.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Act on changes in Forest Act, 1085/2013. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Available: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2013/20131085. (Accessed 12 June 2018).
2. Act on Metsähallitus, 234/2016. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Available: https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2016/20160234. (Accessed 12 June 2018S).
3. Amacher, G.S., Conway, M.C., Sullivan, J., Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: is there anything left to study?. J. For. Econ. 9 (2003), 137–164, 10.1078/1104-6899-00028 (Accessed 6 June 2018).
4. Bell, S., Simpson, S., Tyrväinen, L., Sievänen, T., Pröbstl, U., (eds.) European Forest Recreation and Tourism: A Handbook, 2008, Taylor and Francis Group, London.
5. Blaine, T.W., Lichtkoppler, F.R., Jones, K.R., Zondag, R.H., An assessment of household willingness to pay for curbside recycling: a comparison of payment card and referendum approaches. J. Environ. Manag. 76 (2005), 15–22.
6. Boon, T.E., Meilby, H., Thorsen, B.J., An empirically based typology of private forest owners in Denmark: improving communication between authorities and owners. Scand. J. For. Res. 19 (2004), 45–55, 10.1080/14004080410034056 (Accessed 21 November 2017).
7. Boxall, P., Adamowicz, W., Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 23 (2002), 421–446.
8. Christensen, T., Pedersen, A.B., Nielsen, H.O., Mørkbak, M.R., Hasler, B., Denver, S., Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones – a choice experiment study. Ecol. Econ. 70 (2011), 1558–1564, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.021 (Accessed 21 May 2018).
9. Dominguez, G., Shannon, M., A wish, a fear and a complaint: understanding the (dis)engagement of forest owners in forest management. Eur. J. For. Res. 130 (2011), 435–450.
10. Facts about Ruka and Kuusamo, 2017. http://www.ruka.fi/en/facts. (Accessed 10 August 2017).
11. Finnish Bioeconomy Strategy, 2014. Sustainable growth from bioeconomy – The Finnish bioeconomy strategy. Ministry of Employment and the Economy, Edita Publishing Ltd., 32 p. http://biotalous.fi/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The_Finnish_Bioeconomy_Strategy_110620141.pdf. (Accessed 10 January 2018).
12. Finnish statistical yearbook of forestry 2014. Official Statistics of Finland, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Tammerprint Oy, Tampere. 428 p. http://stat.luke.fi/sites/default/files/vsk14_koko_julkaisu.pdf. (Accessed 10 January 2018).
13. Fredman, P., Tyrväinen, L., Introduction. Fredman, P., Tyrväinen, L., (eds.) Frontiers in Nature-Based Tourism. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour, 10, 2010, 177–189.
14. Gorriz, E., Vedel, S.E., Stenger, A., The role of private forest owners’ motivations and attitudes. Thorsen, B.J., Mavsar, R., Tyrväinen, L., Prokofieva, I., Stenger, A., (eds.) The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services: Assessing Costs of Provision and Designing Economic Instruments for Ecosystem Services. What Science Can Tell Us 5, Volume II, 2014, European Forest Institute, Joensuu, 26–29 http://www.efi.int/files/attachments/publications/efi_wsctu_5_vol-2_en_net.pdf (Accessed 22 January 2018).
15. Greene, W.H., LIMDEP Version 10 Econometric Modeling Guide. 2012, Econometric Software Inc., Plainview, NY.
16. Gundersen, V., Frivold, L., Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urb. For. Urb. Green. 7 (2008), 241–258.
17. Hänninen, H., Karppinen, H., Leppänen, J., 2011. Finnish forest owner 2010. (Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2010. In Finnish) Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 208. 94 p. http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp208.htm. (Accessed 4 October 2017).
18. Hänninen, H., Leppänen, J., Ovaskainen, V., Uusivuori, J., Viitala, E.J., Metsätalouden uusi kannustinjärjestelmä – Teoriaa, käytäntöjä ja ehdotukset (New incentive system of forestry – Theory, practices and suggestions, in Finnish). Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 5/2017. 93 p. 2017 (Accessed 22 January 2018) https://jukuri.luke.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/538067/luke-luobio_5_2017.pdf?sequence=1.
19. Hartman, R., The harvesting decision where a standing forest has value. Econ. Inq. 14 (1976), 52–58.
20. Häyrinen, L., Mattila, O., Berghäll, S., Närhi, M., Toppinen, A., Exploring the future use of forests: perceptions from non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Scand. J. For. Res. 32 (2017), 327–337, 10.1080/02827581.2016.1227472 (Accessed 19 June 2018).
21. Healey, P., Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. 1997, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, 338.
22. Heckman, J.J., Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47 (1979), 153–161.
23. Horne, P., Forest owners’ acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation – a choice experiment based approach. Silva Fenn. 40 (2006), 169–178.
24. Hynes, S., Hanley, N., Scarpa, R., Effects on welfare measures of alternative means of accounting for preference heterogeneity in recreational demand models. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 90:4 (2008), 1011–1027, 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01148.x.
25. Koskela, E., Ollikainen, M., Optimal private and public harvesting under spatial and temporal interdependence. For. Sci. 47 (2001), 484–496.
26. Juutinen, A., Mäntymaa, E., Mönkkönen, M., Svento, R., Voluntary agreements in protecting privately owned forests in Finland – to buy or to lease?. For. Policy Econ. 10 (2008), 230–239.
27. Juutinen, A., Mäntymaa, E., Ollikainen, M., Landowners’ conservation motives and the size of information rents in environmental bidding systems. J. For. Econ. 19 (2013), 128–148.
28. Juutinen, A., Kosenius, A.-K., Ovaskainen, V., Tolvanen, A., Tyrväinen, L., Heterogeneous preferences for recreation-oriented management in commercial forests: the role of citizens’ socioeconomic characteristics and recreational profiles. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 60 (2017), 399–418.
29. Kaltenborn, B.P., Haaland, H., Sandell, K., The public right of access – some challenges to sustainable tourism development in Scandinavia. J. Sustain. Tour. 9 (2001), 417–433, 10.1080/09669580108667412 (Accessed 4 May 2018).
30. Karppinen, H., Korhonen, M., Do forest owners share the public's values? An application of Schwartz's value theory. Silva Fenn. 47 (2013), 1–16.
31. Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., Ovaskainen, V., Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. For. Sci. 42 (1996), 300–309.
32. Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., Hänninen, H., Uusivuori, J., Effects of gender and length of land tenure on timber supply in Finland. J. For. Econ. 20 (2014), 363–379, 10.1016/j.jfe.2014.10.002 (Accessed 7 June 2018).
33. Langpap, C., Wu, J., Voluntary conservation of endangered species: when does no regulatory assurance mean no conservation?. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 47 (2004), 435–457.
34. Leppänen, J., Finnish family forest owner 2010 survey. Scand. For. Econ. 43 (2010), 184–195.
35. Lienhoopa, N., Brouwer, R., Agri-environmental policy valuation: farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes. Land Use Policy 42 (2015), 568–577, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.017 (Accessed 25 May 2018).
36. Lindhjem, H., Mitani, Y., Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: a contingent valuation approach. J. For. Econ. 18 (2012), 290–302.
37. Lynch, L., Lovell, S.J., Combining spatial and survey data to explain participation in agricultural land preservation programs. Land Econ. 79 (2003), 259–276.
38. Majumdar, I., Teeter, L., Butler, B., Characterizing family forest owners: a cluster analysis approach. For. Sci. 54 (2008), 176–184.
39. Mäntymaa, E., Juutinen, A., Mönkkönen, M., Svento, R., Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest conservation: a case of privately owned forests in Finland. For. Policy Econ. 11 (2009), 498–507.
40. Mäntymaa, E., Ovaskainen, V., Juutinen, A., Tyrväinen, L., Integrating nature-based tourism and forestry in private lands under heterogeneous visitor preferences for forest attributes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 61 (2018), 724–746, 10.1080/09640568.2017.1333408.
41. Margaryan, L., Nature as a commercial setting: the case of nature-based tourism providers in Sweden. Cur. Iss. in Tour., 2016, 1–19, 10.1080/13683500.2016.1232378.
42. Markowski–Lindsay, M., Stevens, T., Kitteredge, D., Butler, B., Catanzaro, P., Dickinson, B., Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets. Ecol. Econ. 71 (2011), 180–190.
43. Martin-Ortega, J., Ojea, E., Roux, C., Payments for water ecosystem services in Latin America: a literature review and conceptual model. Ecosyst. Serv. 6 (2013), 122–132, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.008 (Accessed 21 May 2018).
44. Mitani, Y., Lindhjem, H., Forest owners’ participation in voluntary biodiversity conservation: what does it take to forgo forestry for eternity?. Land Econ. 91 (2015), 235–251.
45. Moore, C.C., Holmes, T.P., Bell, K.P., An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs. J. For. Econ. 17 (2011), 35–52.
46. Nape, S., Frykblom, P., Harrison, G.W., Lesley, J.C., Hypothetical bias and willingness to accept. Econ. Lett. 78 (2003), 423–430.
47. National Forest Inventory 9, VMI9: n kunnittaiset metsävarat 2016 (9th national inventory of forest resources, municipal forest resources, in Finnish). 2016 (Accessed 22 January 2018) http://www.metla.fi/cgi-bin/tilasto/vmi/vmi.cgi?VMI9.
48. Newman, D.H., Wear, D.N., Production economics of private forestry: a comparison of industrial and nonindustrial forest owners. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 75:August (3) (1993), 674–684, 10.2307/1243574 (Accessed 6 June 2018).
49. Nielsen, A., Jacobsen, J., Strange, N., Landowner participation in forest conservation programs: a revealed approach using register, spatial, and contract data. J. For. Econ. 30 (2018), 1–12.
50. Official Statistics of Finland, Operating Profit in Non-Industrial, Private Forestry by Region [Web Publication]. 2018, Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute Finland (Accessed 9 May 2018) http://statdb.luke.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/LUKE/LUKE__04%20Metsa__04%20Talous__18%20Yksityismetsatalouden%20liiketulos/?tablelist=true&rxid=001bc7da-70f4-47c4-a6c2-c9100d8b50db.
51. Ovaskainen, V., Abildtrup, J., Mäntymaa, E., Vedel, S.E., Thorsen, B.J., The stated preference approach to costs of provision. Thorsen, B.J., Mavsar, R., Tyrväinen, L., Prokofieva, I., Stenger, A., (eds.) The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services, Volume II: Assessing Costs of Provision and Designing Economic Instruments for Ecosystem Services. What Science Can Tell Us 5, 2014, European Forest Institute, Joensuu, 50–57 (Accessed 22 January 2018) http://www.efi.int/files/attachments/publications/efi_wsctu_5_vol-2_en_net.pdf.
52. Payments for Ecosystem Services, Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Best Practice Guide. 2013, Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs, London, 85 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/payments-for-ecosystem-services-pes-best-practice-guide (Accessed 22 January 2018).
53. Perman, R., Ma, Y., Common, M., Maddison, D., McGilvray, J., Natural Resource and Environmental Economics. fourth ed., 2011, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
54. Ribe, R., 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. J. Environ. Manag. 91 (2009), 245–260.
55. Roadmap for tourism, 2015. Achieving more together – Roadmap for growth and renewal in Finnish tourism 2015 – 2025. (Yhdessä enemmän – kasvua ja uudistumista Suomen matkailuun. In Finnish, summary in English) Ministry of Employment and the Economy reports 4/2015. 68 p. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-227-938-5. (Accessed 22 January 2018).
56. Sandell, K., Fredman, P., The right of public access – opportunity or obstacle for nature tourism in Sweden?. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 10:3 (2010), 291–3309, 10.1080/15022250.2010.502366 (Accessed 17 January 2018).
57. SAS Institute Inc, SAS/STAT® 14.1 User's Guide. 2015, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
58. Silvennoinen, H., Scenic beauty of forest stands and impact of management. (Metsämaiseman kauneus ja metsänhoidon vaikutus koettuun maisemaan metsikkötasolla. In Finnish). Diss. For., 242, 2017, 86, 10.14214/df.242 (Accessed 5 June 2018).
59. Smith, V.K., Osborne, L.L., Do contingent valuation estimates pass a “scope” test? A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 31 (1996), 287–301.
60. Sustainable Innovatio, 2013. Sustainable Innovation in Food and Bio-based Industries – BIONAER, Work programme 2012–2021. The Research Council of Norway, 33 p. https://www.forskningsradet.no/prognett-bionaer/Programme_description/1253971968649. (Accessed 22 January 2018).
61. Swedish Research and Innovation Strategy, 2012. Swedish Research and Innovation Strategy for a Bio-based Economy. Formas, The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Plan., Report: R3:2012, 36 p. http://www.formas.se/PageFiles/5074/Strategy_Biobased_Ekonomy_hela.pdf. (Accessed 22 January 2018).
62. Thorsen, B.J., Mavsar, R., Tyrväinen, L., Prokofieva, I., Stenger, A., (eds.) The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services. Volume II: Assessing Cost of Provision and Designing Economic Instruments for Ecosystem Services. What Science Can Tell Us 5, 2014, European Forest Institute, Joensuu, 90 (Accessed 22 January 2018) http://www.efi.int/files/attachments/publications/efi_wsctu_5_vol-2_en_net.pdf.
63. Tikkanen, J., Hokajärvi, R., Hujala, T., Kurttila, M., Ex ante evaluation of a PES system: safeguarding recreational environments for nature-based tourism. J. Rur. Stud. 52 (2017), 42–55.
64. Tyrväinen, L., Buchecker, M., Vuletic, D., Degenhart, B., Evaluating the economic and social benefits of forest recreation and nature tourism. Bell, S., Simpson, S., Tyrväinen, L., Sievänen, T., Pröbstl, U., (eds.) European Forest Recreation and Tourism: A Handbook., 2008, Taylor and Francis Group Plc, London, 35–64.
65. Tyrväinen, L., Mäntymaa, E., Ovaskainen, V., Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands: the case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland. For. Policy Econ. 47 (2014), 4–13.
66. Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Hallikainen, V., Effect of the season and forest management on the visual quality of the nature-based tourism environment: a case from Finnish Lapland. Scand. J. For. Res. 32 (2017), 349–359.
67. Tyrväinen, L., Plieninger, T., Sanesi, G., How does the forest-based bioeconomy relate to amenity values?. Winkel, G., (eds.) Towards a Sustainable European Forest-Based Bioeconomy – Assessment and the Way Forward. What Science Can Tell Us 8, 2017, European Forest Institute, Joensuu, 92–100 (Accessed 22 January 2018) http://www.efi.int/files/attachments/publications/wsctu_8_2017.pdf.
68. Uusivuori, J., Kuuluvainen, J., The harvesting decisions when a standing forest with multiple age-classes has value. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87 (2005), 61–76.
69. Vainio, A., Paloniemi, R., Adapting to the gender order: voluntary conservation by forestowners in Finland. Land use policy 35 (2013), 247–256, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.05.017 (Accessed 6 June 2018).
70. Valkeapää, A., Karppinen, H., Citizens’ view of legitimacy in the context of Finnish forest policy. For. Policy Econ. 28 (2013), 52–59.
71. Vedel, S., Jacobsen, J., Thorsen, B., Contracts for afforestation and the role of monitoring for landowners’ willingness to accept. For. Policy Econ. 51 (2015), 29–37, 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.007 (Accessed 28 June 2017).
72. Vedel, S., Jacobsen, J., Thorsen, B., Forest owners’ willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality. Ecol. Econ. 113 (2015), 15–24, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.014 (Accessed 28 June 2017).
73. Villanueva, A.J., Gómez-Limónb, J.A., Arriazaa, M., Rodríguez-Entrena, M., The design of agri-environmental schemes: farmers’ preferences in southern Spain. Land use policy 46 (2015), 142–154, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.009 (Accessed 21 May 2018).
74. Villanueva, A.J., Glenk, K., Rodrıguez-Entrena, M., Protest responses and willingness to accept: ecosystem services providers’ preferences towards incentive-based schemes. J. Agric. Econ. 68:3 (2017), 801–821, 10.1111/1477-9552.12211 (Accessed 21 May 2018).
75. Xiao, C., McCright, A.M., Gender differences in environmental concern: revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA. Environ. Behav. 47:1 (2015), 17–37, 10.1177/0013916513491571 (Accessed 6 June 2018).
76. Yuan, Y., Boyle, K.J., You, W., Sample selection, individual heterogeneity, and regional heterogeneity in valuing farmland conservation easements. Land Econ. 91 (2015), 627–649.
77. Zelezny, L.C., Chua, P.-P., Aldrich, C., Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. J. Soc. Issues 65:3 (2000), 443–457, 10.1111/0022-4537.00177 (Accessed 6 June 2018).