IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecstat/estat_0336-1454_2002_num_357_1_7672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Les pertes d’usage récréatif du patrimoine forestier après les tempêtes de 1999 : le cas de la forêt de Fontainebleau

Author

Listed:
  • Sylvie Scherrer

Abstract

[spa] Las pérdidas de uso recreativo del patrimonio forestal después de las tormentas de 1999: el caso del bosque de Fontainebleau . . Nunca los bosques franceses habían sufrido tantos estragos como los que se debieron a las tormentas Lothar y Martin de diciembre de 1999: las tres cuartas partes de los departamentos fueron afectadas, unas 50 000 hectáreas fueron devastadas y el volumen de árboles derribados fue superior en más de doce veces que tras la tormenta de 1982 que afectó a unos 31 departamentos. Además de los perjuicios biológicos y de los daños comerciales, las tormentas de 1999 tuvieron también consecuencias sobre la frecuentación de los bosques. Es posible medir, en términos monetarios, las pérdidas de uso recreativo del patrimonio forestal debidas a esas tormentas al escoger unos métodos que permiten medir el valor de los bienes medioambientales, la mejora de su calidad mediante la instauración de medidas de restauración o de preservación, o su degradación debida a un daño (contaminación o acontecimiento climático). Entre esos métodos, el método de evaluación contingente (MEC) está supeditado a la realización de unas encuestas de terreno para medir el valor que visitantes y vecinos le otorgan a un sitio o a la variación de su calidad. Al coger como ejemplo el macizo forestal de Fontainebleau, las pérdidas de uso del patrimonio forestal se midieron básandose en el precio que los usuarios estarían dispuestos a pagar (el consentimiento a pagar) para contribuir a la restauración del bosque. La pérdida del uso recreativo del patrimonio forestal relacionada con los daños causados por las tormentas de diciembre de 1999 fue valorada en unos 200-240 francos (unos 30,50-36,6 euros) por persona y por año. Por visita, se valoraría entre unos 13 y 18 francos (2-2,75 euros). [fre] Les pertes d’usage récréatif du patrimoine forestier après les tempêtes de 1999: le cas de la forêt de Fontainebleau . . Jamais les forêts françaises n’avaient subi autant de destructions que celles provoquées par les tempêtes Lothar et Martin de décembre 1999: les trois quarts des départements ont été touchés, 500 000 hectares de forêt ont été dévastés et le volume des bois abattus a été 12 fois plus important qu’après la tempête de 1982, où 31 départements avaient été sinistrés. À côté des atteintes biologiques et des dommages marchands, les tempêtes de 1999 ont également eu des conséquences sur la fréquentation des forêts. Il est possible de mesurer, en termes monétaires, les pertes d’usage récréatif du patrimoine forestier consécutives à ces tempêtes grâce à la mise en oeuvre de méthodes permettant d’apprécier la valeur d’un bien environnemental, l’amélioration de sa qualité par la mise en place de mesures de restauration ou de préservation, ou sa dégradation à la suite d’un dommage (pollution ou événement climatique). Parmi elles, la méthode d’évaluation contingente (MEC) passe par la réalisation d’enquêtes de terrain pour évaluer la valeur que les visiteurs et les riverains accordent à un site ou à la variation de sa qualité. En choisissant pour exemple le massif forestier de Fontainebleau, les pertes d’usage du patrimoine forestier ont été mesurées à partir du prix que les usagers seraient prêts à payer (le consentement à payer) pour contribuer à la remise en état de la forêt. La perte d’usage récréatif du patrimoine forestier liée aux dommages causés par les tempêtes de décembre 1999 a ainsi été évaluée aux alentours de 200-240 francs (30,50-36,60 euros) par personne et par an. Par visite, elle s’inscrirait dans une fourchette allant de 13 à 18 francs (2-2,75 euros). [eng] The Loss of Recreational Forest Use Following the 1999 Storms: The Case of Fontainebleau Forest . . Never have the French forests suffered such destruction as that inflicted by the Lothar and Martin storms of December 1999. Three-quarters of France’s départements . were hit, 500 000 hectares of forest were devastated and the volume of felled wood was twelve times higher than after the 1982 storm, when 31 départements . were struck. In addition to the biological damage and market losses, the 1999 storms also affected forest frequentation. The loss of recreational forest use following these storms can be measured by methods that assess the value of an environmental good, the improvement in its quality due to rehabilitation or conservation measures, and its deterioration following damage (pollution or a climatic event). One of these methods, the contingent valuation method (CVM), conducts field surveys to evaluate the value that visitors and residents place on a site and on the variation in its quality. The loss of recreational forest use is measured for the example of Fontainebleau forest based on the price that users would be willing to pay (willingness to pay) to contribute to rehabilitating the forest. The loss of recreational forest use due to the damage caused by the December 1999 storms is hence valued at approximately 200 to 240 French francs (30.50 to 36.60 euros) per person per year. On a per visit basis, this would be a bracket of 13 to 18 French francs (2 to 2.75 euros). [ger] Die Verluste an Erholungswert des Waldbestands nach den Stürmen von 1999 am Beispiel des Walds von Fontainebleau . . Nie zuvor wurden in den französischen Wäldern derart viele Verwüstungen angerichtet wie durch die Stürme Lothar und Martin im Dezember 1999: drei Viertel der Departements waren davon betroffen; 500 000 Hektar Wald wurden verwüstet, und es musste 12-mal so viel Holz wie nach dem Sturm von 1982, der in 31 Departements Schäden verursacht hatte, gefällt werden. Die Stürme von 1999 hatten nicht nur biologische und wirtschaftliche Schäden, sondern wirkten sich auch auf die Anzahl der Waldbesucher aus. Finanziell beziffern lassen sich die durch diese Stürme verursachten Verluste an Erholungswert des Waldbestandes anhand von Methoden, mit denen der Wert eines Umweltguts, die Verbesserung seiner Qualität durch Aufforstungs– und Erhaltungsmaßnahmen oder seine Beschädigung (durch Verschmutzung oder klimatische Ereignisse) evaluiert werden können. Bei der so genannten Kontingenzmethode werden vor Ort Umfragen durchgeführt, um den Wert zu ermitteln, den die Besucher und Anrainer einem Wald oder seiner Qualität beimessen. Beispielsweise wurden im Wald von Fontainebleau die Verluste an Erholungswert anhand des Preises gemessen, den die Besucher zu zahlen bereit wären (Zahlungsbereitschaft), um zur Aufforstung des Waldes beizutragen. Die durch die Stürme von Dezember 1999 erlittenen Verluste an Erholungswert wurden somit auf 200-240 Franc (30,50-36,60 Euro) pro Person und pro Jahr geschätzt. Pro Besuch wäre dies ein Betrag zwischen 13 und 18 Franc (2-2,75 Euro).

Suggested Citation

  • Sylvie Scherrer, 2002. "Les pertes d’usage récréatif du patrimoine forestier après les tempêtes de 1999 : le cas de la forêt de Fontainebleau," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 357(1), pages 153-172.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_2002_num_357_1_7672
    DOI: 10.3406/estat.2002.7672
    Note: DOI:10.3406/estat.2002.7672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.2002.7672
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/estat_0336-1454_2002_num_357_1_7672
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/estat.2002.7672?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bradley Jorgensen & Geoffrey Syme & Brian Bishop & Blair Nancarrow, 1999. "Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 131-150, July.
    2. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    3. M. Morrison & R. Blamey & J. Bennett, 2000. "Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 407-422, August.
    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. Elsasser, Peter & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Montagné, Claire & Stenger, Anne, 2009. "A bibliography and database on forest benefit valuation studies from Austria, France, Germany, and Switzerland - A possible base for a concerted European approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 93-107, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    3. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    4. Bigerna, Simona & Choudhary, Piyush & Kumar Jain, Nikunj & Micheli, Silvia & Polinori, Paolo, 2022. "Avoiding unanticipated power outages: households’ willingness to pay in India," MPRA Paper 114160, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2008. "Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 433-446, April.
    6. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen, 2014. "A Meta-study Investigating the Sources of Protest Behaviour in Stated Preference Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(1), pages 35-57, May.
    8. Jones, Nikoleta & Sophoulis, Costas M. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2008. "Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2478-2491, December.
    9. Mohammed Alemu & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen & Carsten Jensen, 2013. "Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-attendance in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 333-359, March.
    10. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    11. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    12. Halkos, George E. & Jones, Nikoleta, 2012. "Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 90-99.
    13. Lee, Sang Hun & Kang, Hyun Gook, 2016. "Integrated framework for the external cost assessment of nuclear power plant accident considering risk aversion: The Korean case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 111-123.
    14. Arabatzis, G. & Malesios, Ch., 2011. "An econometric analysis of residential consumption of fuelwood in a mountainous prefecture of Northern Greece," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 8088-8097.
    15. Soliño, Mario & Prada, Albino & Vázquez, María X., 2010. "Designing a forest-energy policy to reduce forest fires in Galicia (Spain): A contingent valuation application," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 217-233, August.
    16. Halkos, George, 2012. "Assessing the economic value of protecting artificial lakes," MPRA Paper 39557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Osiolo, Helen Hoka, 2017. "Willingness to pay for improved energy: Evidence from Kenya," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 104-112.
    18. Halkos, George & Jones, Nikoleta, 2011. "Social factors influencing the decision to pay for the protection of biodiversity: A case study in two national parks of Northern Greece," MPRA Paper 34581, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. 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.
    20. Darima Fotheringham & Michael A. Wiles, 2023. "The effect of implementing chatbot customer service on stock returns: an event study analysis," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 802-822, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_2002_num_357_1_7672. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/estat .

    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.