IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v113y2022ics0264837721006323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Immerzeel, Bart
  • Vermaat, Jan E.
  • Juutinen, Artti
  • Pouta, Eija
  • Artell, Janne

Abstract

Surface waters and their catchments provide societal benefits through cultural ecosystem services like recreation and appreciation of nature. The supply of cultural services depends on landscape characteristics like the extent of forested area, water clarity and the intensity of land use. These attributes vary spatially and will likely be influenced by a possible transition to a bioeconomy, i.e. a shift towards more use of renewable, biological resources like forestry products. Using a discrete choice experiment, we quantified survey respondents’ preferences and willingness to pay for changing landscape attributes in six Nordic catchments and explored how different characteristics of both the landscape and respondents affect these preferences. Results from a mixed logit (MXL) model analysis show preference for a more equal distribution of agriculture and forest, improved water clarity, increased area used for nature reserves, reduced flood frequency and increased employment from agriculture, forestry and fishery. Variation in preferences between study areas is significant in several of these attributes, and likely linked to respondent characteristics. Since these attributes can be affected by the transition to a bioeconomy, policy makers should take into account the effects of this transition on the supply of cultural services by considering the effects on welfare generated by cultural services when implementing land management policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:113:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721006323
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721006323
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105909?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. Sheremet, Oleg & Ruokamo, Enni & Juutinen, Artti & Svento, Rauli & Hanley, Nick, 2018. "Incentivising Participation and Spatial Coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Service Schemes: Forest Disease Control Programs in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 260-272.
    2. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Artti Juutinen & Anna-Kaisa Kosenius & Ville Ovaskainen & Anne Tolvanen & Liisa Tyrväinen, 2017. "Heterogeneous preferences for recreation-oriented management in commercial forests: the role of citizens’ socioeconomic characteristics and recreational profiles," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(3), pages 399-418, March.
    4. Grizzetti, B. & Liquete, C. & Antunes, P. & Carvalho, L. & Geamănă, N. & Giucă, R. & Leone, M. & McConnell, S. & Preda, E. & Santos, R. & Turkelboom, F. & Vădineanu, A. & Woods, H., 2016. "Ecosystem services for water policy: Insights across Europe," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 179-190.
    5. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    6. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    7. Eyvindson, Kyle & Repo, Anna & Mönkkönen, Mikko, 2018. "Mitigating forest biodiversity and ecosystem service losses in the era of bio-based economy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 119-127.
    8. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    9. Margaret V. du Bray & Rhian Stotts & Melissa Beresford & Amber Wutich & Alexandra Brewis, 2019. "Does ecosystem services valuation reflect local cultural valuations? Comparative analysis of resident perspectives in four major urban river ecosystems," Economic Anthropology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 21-33, January.
    10. Hanemann, W. Michael, 1982. "Applied Welfare Analysis with Qualitative Response Models," CUDARE Working Papers 7160, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    12. Larson, Lincoln R. & Keith, Samuel J. & Fernandez, Mariela & Hallo, Jeffrey C. & Shafer, C. Scott & Jennings, Viniece, 2016. "Ecosystem services and urban greenways: What's the public's perspective?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 111-116.
    13. Doherty, Edel & Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Buckley, Cathal, 2014. "Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 89-97.
    14. Irwa Issa & Sebastian Delbrück & Ulrich Hamm, 2019. "Bioeconomy from experts’ perspectives – Results of a global expert survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.
    17. Boerema, Annelies & Schoelynck, Jonas & Bal, Kris & Vrebos, Dirk & Jacobs, Sander & Staes, Jan & Meire, Patrick, 2014. "Economic valuation of ecosystem services, a case study for aquatic vegetation removal in the Nete catchment (Belgium)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 46-56.
    18. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    19. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across E," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
    20. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    21. 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.
    22. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2014. "Exploring social attitude and willingness to pay for water resources conservation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 54-62.
    23. Gregory L. Poe & Eric K. Severance-Lossin & Michael P. Welsh, 1994. "Measuring the Difference (X — Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 904-915.
    24. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    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. Stefano Bruzzese & Wasim Ahmed & Simone Blanc & Filippo Brun, 2022. "Ecosystem Services: A Social and Semantic Network Analysis of Public Opinion on Twitter," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-15, November.
    2. Lucia Rocchi & Anastasija Novikova & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2022. "Assessing Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Landscape Attributes in Lithuania," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Artell, Janne & Forsman, Jukka T. & Juutinen, Artti, 2023. "Is it more important to increase carbon sequestration, biodiversity, or jobs? A case study of citizens' preferences for forest policy in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. Yajuan Wang & Yongheng Rao & Hongbo Zhu, 2023. "Analyzing the Land Use and Cover Change Inside and Outside China’s Ecological Function Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, July.

    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. 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).
    2. Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Ahtiainen, Heini & Tienhaara, Annika & Pouta, Eija & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2017. "Role of information in the valuation of unfamiliar goods – the case of genetic resources in agriculture," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261423, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    5. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    6. Imran Khan & Hongdou Lei & Gaffar Ali & Shahid Ali & Minjuan Zhao, 2019. "Public Attitudes, Preferences and Willingness to Pay for River Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    9. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    10. Ndebele, Tom & Johnston, Robert J. & Newburn, David, 2020. "Transaction Costs and Household Adoption of Stormwater Best Management Practices," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304338, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    12. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    13. Bing Han & Shuang Ren & Jingjing Bao, 2020. "Mixed Logit Model Based on Improved Nonlinear Utility Functions: A Market Shares Solution Method of Different Railway Traffic Modes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-25, February.
    14. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    15. Anthony PARIS & Pascal GASTINEAU & Pierre-Alexandre MAHIEU & Benoît CHEZE, 2020. "Citizen involvement in the energy transition: Highlighting the role played by the spatial heterogeneity of preferences in the public acceptance of biofuels," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2828, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    16. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Badura, Tomas & Vačkářová, Davina, 2020. "Public preferences for post 2020 agri-environmental policy in the Czech Republic: A choice experiment approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    17. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.
    18. Rid, Wolfgang & Haider, Wolfgang & Ryffel, Andrea & Beardmore, Ben, 2018. "Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 203-217.
    19. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    20. Chad M. Botes & Alberto M. Zanni, 2021. "Trees, ground vegetation, sidewalks, cycleways: users’ preferences and economic values for different elements of an urban street—a case study in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 145-171, January.

    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:lauspo:v:113:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721006323. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.