IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i23p13445-d695297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moral Foundations and Willingness to Pay for Non-Wood Forest Products: A Study in Three European Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Viola Di Cori

    (European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, Italy
    Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry Department, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

  • Cristiano Franceschinis

    (Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry Department, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

  • Nicolas Robert

    (European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, Italy)

  • Davide Matteo Pettenella

    (Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry Department, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

  • Mara Thiene

    (Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry Department, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

Abstract

Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) provide social and cultural services related to e.g., the tradition and social role of collecting berries, mushrooms and herbs. These services can be ranked among intangible outputs as a part of the recreational function of forests. However, their social value is only partially captured in non-forest activities. We used a Choice Experiment to explore individuals’ preferences towards NWFPs and associated services in Italy, Sweden, and Czechia. We estimated the individual marginal willingness to pay for the supply and maintenance of NWFPs. In addition, we analysed the determinants of people’s choices using the framework of the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT). The results show that people collect NWFPs mostly for self-consumption and recreation, rather than for livelihood or to sell them on the market. Despite this, they are willing to pay for sustainable forest management practices that favour NWFPs supply, as well as for forest conservation. Additionally, Care and Fairness traits in the MFT determine people’s willingness to pay for NWFPs. The results from this study highlight the value of the social component of non-wood forests products and the expenses related to picking. This is a first step towards a value chain analysis of the NWFPs.

Suggested Citation

  • Viola Di Cori & Cristiano Franceschinis & Nicolas Robert & Davide Matteo Pettenella & Mara Thiene, 2021. "Moral Foundations and Willingness to Pay for Non-Wood Forest Products: A Study in Three European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13445-:d:695297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13445/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13445/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chorus, Caspar G., 2015. "Models of moral decision making: Literature review and research agenda for discrete choice analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 69-85.
    2. Marini Govigli, Valentino & Górriz-Mifsud, Elena & Varela, Elsa, 2019. "Zonal travel cost approaches to assess recreational wild mushroom picking value: Trade-offs between online and onsite data collection strategies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 51-65.
    3. 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.
    4. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    5. Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen, 2007. "Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 75-102, August.
    6. Joffre Swait & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2020. "Antecedent Volition and Spatial Effects: Can Multiple Goal Pursuit Mitigate Distance Decay?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 243-270, February.
    7. Masiero, Mauro & Franceschinis, Cristiano & Mattea, Stefania & Thiene, Mara & Pettenella, Davide & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Ecosystem services’ values and improved revenue collection for regional protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 136-153.
    8. Welsch, Heinz, 2020. "Moral Foundations and Voluntary Public Good Provision: The Case of Climate Change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    9. Louviere, Jordan J., 1992. "Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 89-95, March.
    10. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    11. Rambonilaza, Tina & Brahic, Elodie, 2016. "Non-market values of forest biodiversity and the impact of informing the general public: Insights from generalized multinomial logit estimations," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 93-100.
    12. Brey, Raul & Riera, Pere & Mogas, Joan, 2007. "Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: An application to Spanish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 305-312, December.
    13. Élodie Brahic & Tina Rambonilaza, 2015. "The impact of information on public preferences for forest biodiversity preservation: a split-sample test with choice experiment method," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 125(2), pages 253-275.
    14. Górriz-Mifsud, Elena & Varela, Elsa & Piqué, Míriam & Prokofieva, Irina, 2016. "Demand and supply of ecosystem services in a Mediterranean forest: Computing payment boundaries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 53-63.
    15. Riccardo Scarpa & John M. Rose, 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 253-282, September.
    16. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    17. 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.
    18. Lovrić, Marko & Da Re, Riccardo & Vidale, Enrico & Prokofieva, Irina & Wong, Jennifer & Pettenella, Davide & Verkerk, Pieter Johannes & Mavsar, Robert, 2020. "Non-wood forest products in Europe – A quantitative overview," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    19. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    20. Janis L Dickinson & Poppy McLeod & Robert Bloomfield & Shorna Allred, 2016. "Which Moral Foundations Predict Willingness to Make Lifestyle Changes to Avert Climate Change in the USA?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-11, October.
    21. 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.
    22. Nannan Kang & Erda Wang & Yang Yu, 2019. "Valuing forest park attributes by giving consideration to the tourist satisfaction," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(5), pages 711-733, August.
    23. Petr Mariel & David Hoyos & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Thijs Dekker & Klaus Glenk & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Ulf Liebe & Søren Bøye Olsen & Julian Sagebiel & Mara Thiene, 2021. "Environmental Valuation with Discrete Choice Experiments," SpringerBriefs in Economics, Springer, number 978-3-030-62669-3, October.
    24. Carson, Richard T. & DeShazo, J.R. & Schwabe, Kurt A. & Vincent, Jeffrey R. & Ahmad, Ismariah, 2015. "Incorporating local visitor valuation information into the design of new recreation sites in tropical forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 338-349.
    25. Morey, Edward R. & Thiene, Mara, 2017. "Can Personality Traits Explain Where and With Whom You Recreate? A Latent-Class Site-Choice Model Informed by Estimates From Mixed-Mode LC Cluster Models With Latent-Personality Traits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 223-237.
    26. Bocci, Corinne & Sohngen, Brent & Lupi, Frank & Milian, Bayron, 2020. "Timber or carbon? Evaluating forest conservation strategies through a discrete choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    27. Engelman, Marc & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2018. "Hunters' trade-off in valuation of different game animals in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 73-81.
    28. Martínez de Aragón, Juan & Riera, Pere & Giergiczny, Marek & Colinas, Carlos, 2011. "Value of wild mushroom picking as an environmental service," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 419-424, July.
    29. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    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. Chiara D’Alpaos & Michele Moretto & Paolo Rosato, 2023. "Common-Property Resource Exploitation: A Real Options Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, June.

    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. 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).
    2. Vidale, E & Pettenella, D & Gatto, P & Secco, L, 23. "What can we sell behind timber production?," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 44, May.
    3. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian & Binner, Amy & Ferrini, Silvia & Fezzi, Carlo, 2019. "Structurally-consistent estimation of use and nonuse values for landscape-wide environmental change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    6. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Harrison, Duncan R. & Burns, Rhys J., 2019. "Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    8. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nicholas & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2013. "The Effects of Experience on Preference Uncertainty: Theory and Empirics for Public and Quasi-Public Environmental Goods," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2013-11, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    9. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2017. "A Monte Carlo Evaluation of the Logit-Mixed Logit under Asymmetry and Multimodality," Working Papers in Economics 17/23, University of Waikato.
    11. 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).
    12. Raviv, Orna & Tchetchik, Anat & Lotan, Alon & Izhaki, Ido & Zemah Shamir, Shiri, 2021. "Direct and indirect valuation of air-quality regulation service as reflected in the preferences towards distinct types of landscape in a biosphere reserve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    13. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    14. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Massenberg, Julian Richard & Lienhoop, Nele, 2022. "Between complexity and unfamiliarity: Preferences for soil-based ecosystem services," UFZ Discussion Papers 3/2022, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    15. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    16. Farolfi, Giulio & Johnston, Robert J., 2022. "Understanding Public Preferences for Shellfish Aquaculture Expansion: The Role of Production Technology and Environmental Impacts," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322131, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. 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.
    18. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    19. Catherine M.H. Keske & Greta Lohman & John B. Loomis, 2013. "Do Respondents Report Willingness-to-Pay on a per Person or per Group Basis? A High Mountain Recreation Example," Tourism Economics, , vol. 19(1), pages 133-145, February.
    20. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13445-:d:695297. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.