Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 109, Issue , 2019, Pages

  Tavárez, Héctor ^a   Elbakidze, Levan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO   (Puerto Rico)

^b WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Puerto Rico; Recreational enhancements; Urban forest; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; PUERTO RICO; RECREATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS; URBAN FORESTS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

FORESTRY;

BUNDLES; COSTS; ECONOMICS; FORESTRY; FORESTS; PLANNING; PUERTO RICO; RECREATION;

EID: 85071366558     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102004     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Abildtrup, J., Garcia, S., Olsen, S.B., Stenger, A., Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol. Econ. 92 (2013), 67–77.
2. Adams, D.C., Bwenge, A.N., Lee, D.J., Larkin, S.L., Alavalapati, J.R., Public preferences for controlling upland invasive plants in state parks: application of a choice model. Forest Policy Econ. 13:6 (2011), 465–472.
3. Alpízar, F., Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P., Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ. Issues 8 (2003), 83–110.
4. Barrio, M., Loureiro, M.L., A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecol. Econ. 69:5 (2010), 1023–1030.
5. Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, W.M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R., Swanson, S., Economic Valuation With Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. 2002, Edward Elgar, Massachusetts, USA.
6. Birol, E., Karousakis, K., Koundouri, P., Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Sci. Total Environ. 365 (2006), 105–122.
7. Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29 (1999), 293–301.
8. Boncinelli, F., Riccioli, F., Marone, E., Do forests help to keep my body mass index low?. Forest Policy Econ. 54 (2015), 11–17.
9. Brey, R., Riera, P., Mogas, J., Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: an application to Spanish forests. Ecol. Econ. 64:2 (2007), 305–312.
10. Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., Brown, T.C., A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell MA.
11. Chiabai, A., Travisi, C.M., Markandya, A., Ding, H., Nunes, P.A., Economic assessment of forest ecosystem services losses: cost of policy inaction. Environ. Resour. Econ. 50:3 (2011), 405–445.
12. Chiesura, A., The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68 (2004), 129–138.
13. Christie, M., Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. J. For. Econ. 13 (2007), 75–102.
14. CPBSP (Ciudadanos Pro Bosque San Patricio), Su Historia y su gente: Bosque San Patricio. Retrieved from: http://www.bosquesanpatricio.org/files/documentos/Bosque_San_Patricio_Historial_del_Terreno.pdf, 2003.
15. Czajkowski, M., Bartczak, A., Budziński, W., Giergiczny, M., Hanley, N., Preference and WTP stability for public forest management. Forest Policy Econ. 71 (2016), 11–22.
16. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J., A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41 (2002), 393–408.
17. Domínguez-Torreiro, M., Soliño, M., Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas. Ecol. Econ. 70:12 (2011), 2523–2531.
18. DRNA (Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources), Bosque de Puerto Rico: Bosque de San Patricio. Hojas de Nuestro Ambiente. Report P-026. Retrieved from: http://www.bosquesanpatricio.org/files/documentos/Boletin_DRNA_Bosque_SP.pdf, 2008.
19. Dwyer, J.F., McPherson, E.G., Schroeder, H.W., Rowntree, R.A., Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J. Arboric. 18:5 (1992), 227–234.
20. Elbakidze, L., Nayga, R.M., The adding-up test in an incentivized value elicitation mechanism: The role of the income effect. Environ. Resour. Econ. 71:3 (2018), 625–644.
21. Escobedo, F.J., Kroeger, T., Wagner, J.E., Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 159 (2011), 2078–2087.
22. Ferraro, P.J., Lawlor, K., Mullan, K.L., Pattanayak, S.K., Forest figures: Ecosystem services valuation and policy evaluation in developing countries. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 6:1 (2011), 20–44.
23. Giergiczny, M., Czajkowski, M., Żylicz, T., Angelstam, P., Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecol. Econ. 119 (2015), 8–23.
24. Gill, D.A., Schuhmann, P.W., Oxenford, H.A., Recreational diver preferences for reef fish attributes: economic implications of future change. Ecol. Econ. 111 (2015), 48–57.
25. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D., Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86 (2013), 235–245.
26. Greene, W.H., Econometric Analysis. 7th ed., 2012, Prentice Hall, NJ, USA.
27. Gürlük, S., The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Forest Policy Econ. 9:3 (2006), 209–218.
28. Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., Adamowicz, V., Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 11:3–4 (1998), 413–428.
29. Hausman, J., McFadden, D., Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52:5 (1984), 1219–1240.
30. Hensher, D., Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: An initial assessment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 34 (2006), 7–44.
31. Hoyos, D., The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1595–1603.
32. Irvine, S., Johnson, L., Peters, K., Community gardens and sustainable land use planning: a case study of the Alex Wilson Community Garden. Local Environ. 4 (1999), 33–46.
33. Jacobson, M., Shr, Y.H., Dalemans, F., Magaju, C., Ciannella, R., Using a choice experiment approach to assess production tradeoffs for developing the croton value chain in Kenya. Forest Policy Econ. 86 (2018), 76–85.
34. Japelj, A., Mavsar, R., Hodges, D., Kovač, M., Juvančič, L., Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Forest Policy Econ. 71 (2016), 71–79.
35. Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal by urban trees in Guangzhou (China). J. Environ. Manag. 88 (2008), 665–676.
36. Jin, J., Wang, Z., Ran, S., Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecol. Econ. 57 (2006), 430–441.
37. Johnston, R.J., Boyle, K.J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T.A., Tourangeau, R., Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4:2 (2017), 319–405.
38. Juutinen, A., Kosenius, A., Ovaskainen, Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment. J. For. Econ. 20 (2014), 396–412.
39. Kanchanaroek, Y., Termansen, M., Quinn, C., Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application. Ecol. Econ. 93 (2013), 363–373.
40. Lancaster, K., A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74 (1966), 132–157.
41. Louviere, J., Hensher, D., Swait, J., Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Application. 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
42. Majumdar, S., Deng, J., Zhang, Y., Pierskalla, C., Using contingent valuation to estimate the willingness of tourists to pay for urban forests: a study in Savannah, Georgia. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 10 (2011), 275–280.
43. Malone, T., Lusk, J.L., Consequences of participant inattention with an application to carbon taxes for meat products. Ecol. Econ. 145 (2018), 218–230.
44. Malone, T., Lusk, J.L., Releasing the trap: a method to reduce inattention bias in survey data with application to us beer taxes. Econ. Inq. 57:1 (2019), 584–599.
45. McFadden, D., Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka, P., (eds.) Frontiers in Econometrics, 1974, Academic Press, New York.
46. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), Ecosystems And Human Well-being: Synthesis. 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
47. Meyerhoff, J., Liebe, U., Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ. 85 (2009), 515–528.
48. Munro, A., Hanley, N.D., Information, uncertainty and contingent valuation. Bateman, I., Wilis, K.G., (eds.) Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries, 2001, Oxford University Press, Oxford. New York, United States.
49. Ninan, K.N., Inoue, M., Valuing forest ecosystem services: what we know and what we don't. Ecol. Econ. 93 (2013), 137–149.
50. Olschewski, R., Bebi, P., Teich, M., Hayek, U.W., Grêt-Regamey, A., Avalanche protection by forests — a choice experiment in the Swiss Alps. Forest Policy Econ. 17 (2012), 19–24.
51. Park, T., Loomis, J.B., Creel, M., Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits from dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Econ. 67 (1991), 64–73.
52. Pattanayak, S.K., Butry, D.T., Spatial complementarity of forests and farms: accounting for ecosystem services. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87:4 (2005), 995–1008.
53. Penn, J., Hu, W., Cox, L., Kozloff, L., Values for recreational beach quality in Oahu, Hawaii. Mar. Resour. Econ. 31:1 (2016), 47–62.
54. Puerto Rico Planning Board, Socio-economic data, by municipality. 2017, Puerto Rico Government, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
55. Richards, T.J., Hamilton, S.F., Allender, W.J., Social networks and new product choice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 96:2 (2014), 489–516.
56. Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., Michener, C.D., Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. PNAS 101 (2004), 12579–12582.
57. Riera, P., Signorello, G., Thiene, M., Mahieu, P.A., Navrud, S., Kaval, P., Dragoi, S., Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines. J. For. Econ. 18 (2012), 259–270.
58. Roberts, D.C., Boyer, T.A., Lusk, J.L., Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty. Ecol. Econ. 66:4 (2008), 584–593.
59. Rolfe, J., Bennett, J., Louviere, J., Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecol. Econ. 35:2 (2000), 289–302.
60. Rosenberger, R.S., Needham, M.D., Morzillo, A.T., Moehrke, C., Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest. J. For. Econ. 18 (2012), 271–281.
61. Saldivar-Tanaka, L., Krasny, M.E., Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: the case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agric. Hum. Values 21 (2004), 399–412.
62. Schuhmann, P.W., Casey, J.F., Horrocks, J.A., Oxenford, H.A., Recreational SCUBA divers' willingness to pay for marine biodiversity in Barbados. J. Environ. Manag. 121 (2013), 29–36.
63. Sheremet, O., Ruokamo, E., Juutinen, A., Svento, R., Hanley, N., Incentivising participation and spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem service schemes: forest disease control programs in Finland. Ecol. Econ. 152 (2018), 260–272.
64. Termansen, M., McClean, C.J., Jensen, F.S., Modeling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services. Ecol. Econ. 92 (2013), 48–57.
65. Train, K.E., Discrete Choice Methods With Simulations. 2nd edition, 2009, Cambridge University Press, NY, USA.
66. Tyrväinen, L., Mäntymaa, E., Ovaskainen, V., Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland. Forest Policy Econ. 47 (2014), 4–13.
67. Upton, V., Dhubháin, A.N., Bullock, C., preferences and values for afforestation: the effects of location and respondent understanding on forest attributes in a labeled choice experiment. Forest Policy Econ. 23 (2012), 17–27.
68. U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts. 2018.
69. 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.
70. Vujcic, M., Tomicevic-Dubljevic, J., Urban forest benefits to the younger population: The case study of the city of Belgrade, Serbia. Forest Policy Econ. 96 (2018), 54–62.
71. Wielgus, J., Gerber, L.R., Sala, E., Bennett, J., Including risk in stated-preference economic valuations: Experiments of choices for marine recreation. J. Environ. Manag. 90:11 (2009), 3401–3409.
72. Wuepper, D., Clemm, A., Wree, P., The preference for sustainable coffee and a new approach for dealing with hypothetical bias. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 158 (2019), 475–486.