IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v118y2020ics1389934119305714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizens' preferences for research programs on forest genetic resources: A case applied to Pinus pinaster Ait. in Spain

Author

Listed:
  • Soliño, M.
  • Alía, R.
  • Agúndez, D.

Abstract

Research on operational programs for the conservation and improvement of forest genetic resources is associated with use and non-use values, given that such research not only generates new knowledge but also incorporates both commercial benefits and benefits related to the conservation of genetic material for reproduction. This article applies a discrete choice experiment that allows analyzing the preferences of Spanish society for operational programs for the breeding and conservation of P. pinaster. Such programs are financed mainly by public research funds, and it would be advisable to include citizens' preferences regarding programs for the conservation and improvement of forest genetic resources. The analysis quantifies the trade-offs between the various characteristics of the program, such as production improvements, biotic and abiotic risks, genetic diversity, and the biodiversity of pine forests. The results show that society is willing to pay for research in these directions, above all research on greater resistance to biotic risks. Likewise, the study shows how research on transgenic forest resources is not socially accepted, thus adding to the arguments in favor of the current prohibition in Spain on marketing this type of forest reproductive material. Finally, considering the current R&D budget and the average tax collection in Spain, the WTP seems to be biased upwards. In this sense, an analysis of individual's response time as a proxy of carelessness was performed.

Suggested Citation

  • Soliño, M. & Alía, R. & Agúndez, D., 2020. "Citizens' preferences for research programs on forest genetic resources: A case applied to Pinus pinaster Ait. in Spain," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:118:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119305714
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934119305714
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102255?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fadong Chen & Urs Fischbacher, 2016. "Response time and click position: cheap indicators of preferences," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(2), pages 109-126, November.
    2. Mark J. Koetse, 2017. "Effects of payment vehicle non-attendance in choice experiments on value estimates and the WTA–WTP disparity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 225-245, July.
    3. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    4. Begoña A. Farizo & John Joyce & Mario Soliño, 2014. "Dealing with Heterogeneous Preferences Using Multilevel Mixed Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(1), pages 181-198.
    5. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    6. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1628-1637, July.
    7. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    8. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    9. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2018. "A More Flexible Model or Simply More Effort? On the Use of Correlated Random Parameters in Applied Choice Studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 419-429.
    10. Stenger, Anne & Harou, Patrice & Navrud, Ståle, 2009. "Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 1-14, January.
    11. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-14.
    12. Martínez-Jauregui, María & White, Piran C.L. & Touza, Julia & Soliño, Mario, 2019. "Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    14. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    15. Ian Krajbich & Bastiaan Oud & Ernst Fehr, 2014. "Benefits of Neuroeconomic Modeling: New Policy Interventions and Predictors of Preference," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 501-506, May.
    16. Loomis, John J. & Knaus, Michael & Dziedzic, Maurício, 2019. "Integrated quantification of forest total economic value," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 335-346.
    17. Nielsen, Jytte Seested, 2011. "Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: A comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 119-129, January.
    18. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    19. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    20. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    21. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    22. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth & Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2002. "Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    23. F. Bailey Norwood & Jayson L. Lusk, 2011. "Social Desirability Bias in Real, Hypothetical, and Inferred Valuation Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 528-534.
    24. Jin, Jianjun & Wan, Xinyu & Lin, Yongsheng & Kuang, Foyuan & Ning, Jing, 2019. "Public willingness to pay for the research and development of solar energy in Beijing, China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    25. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Kenneth Train, 2012. "Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-31, January.
    26. Erlend Dancke Sandorf, 2019. "Did You Miss Something? Inattentive Respondents in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1197-1235, August.
    27. Mylene Lagarde, 2013. "Investigating Attribute Non‐Attendance And Its Consequences In Choice Experiments With Latent Class Models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 554-567, May.
    28. Richard C. Ready & Patricia A. Champ & Jennifer L. Lawton, 2010. "Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 363-381.
    29. Joan Font & Magdalena Wojcieszak & Clemente J. Navarro, 2015. "Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63, pages 153-172, April.
    30. Varela, Elsa & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Giergiczny, Marek & Riera, Pere & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Testing the single opt-out reminder in choice experiments: An application to fuel break management in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 212-222.
    31. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    32. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    33. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    34. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    35. Carolina González & Nancy Johnson & Matin Qaim, 2009. "Consumer Acceptance of Second‐Generation GM Foods: The Case of Biofortified Cassava in the North‐east of Brazil," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 604-624, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Salimova, Guzel & Ableeva, Alisa & Lubova, Tatiana & Sharafutdinov, Aidar & Araslanbaev, Irek, 2022. "Multidimensional modeling of the economy of forest management and reforestation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 472(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martínez-Jauregui, María & White, Piran C.L. & Touza, Julia & Soliño, Mario, 2019. "Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    4. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. John C. Whitehead & Daniel K. Lew, 2020. "Estimating recreation benefits through joint estimation of revealed and stated preference discrete choice data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2009-2029, April.
    6. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    7. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. Kassie, Girma T. & Zeleke, Fresenbet & Birhanu, Mulugeta Y. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2020. "Reminder Nudge, Attribute Nonattendance, and Willingness to Pay in a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304208, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Aanesen, Margrethe & Navrud, Ståle, 2016. "Valuing unfamiliar and complex environmental goods: A comparison of valuation workshops and internet panel surveys with videos," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 50-61.
    11. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    12. Tesfaye, Abonesh & Hansen, James & Kassie, Girma Tesfahun & Radeny, Maren & Solomon, Dawit, 2019. "Estimating the economic value of climate services for strengthening resilience of smallholder farmers to climate risks in Ethiopia: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 157-168.
    13. Teferi, Ermias Tesfaye & Kassie, Girma T. & Pe, Mario Enrico & Fadda, Carlo, 2020. "Are farmers willing to pay for climate related traits of wheat? Evidence from rural parts of Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    14. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    15. Zhifeng Gao & Lisa A. House & Jing Xie, 2016. "Online Survey Data Quality and Its Implication for Willingness-to-Pay: A Cross-Country Comparison," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(2), pages 199-221, June.
    16. Zhang, Jing & Reed Johnson, F. & Mohamed, Ateesha F. & Hauber, A. Brett, 2015. "Too many attributes: A test of the validity of combining discrete-choice and best–worst scaling data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 1-13.
    17. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Faccilongo, Nicola & Roselli, Luigi, 2019. "Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    18. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    19. Misal, Haleema & Varela, Elsa & Voulgarakis, Apostolos & Rovithakis, Anastasios & Grillakis, Manolis & Kountouris, Yiannis, 2023. "Assessing public preferences for a wildfire mitigation policy in Crete, Greece," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    20. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:118:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119305714. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.