IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nev/wpaper/wp200807.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing Forest Protection Programs to Maximize Economic Benefit

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher C. Moore
  • Thomas P. Holmes

Abstract

The hemlock woolly adelgid is an invasive insect that is infesting and destroying hemlock forests in the northeastern United States. Mitigation efforts are taking place on public lands throughout the affected area. This study examines one such effort in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Economic benefits from hemlock ecosystem services are estimated using contingent valuation and are shown to outweigh the costs of mitigation. The estimated benefit function is also used in an optimization routine to examine the current allocation of conservation resources. Results show that a reallocation of mitigation effort would result in large gains in net economic benefit.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher C. Moore & Thomas P. Holmes, 2008. "Valuing Forest Protection Programs to Maximize Economic Benefit," NCEE Working Paper Series 200807, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2008.
    • Handle: RePEc:nev:wpaper:wp200807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/working-paper-valuing-forest-protection-programs-maximize-economic-benefit
    File Function: First version, 2008
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    2. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    3. Wu, JunJie & Boggess, William G., 1999. "The Optimal Allocation of Conservation Funds," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 302-321, November.
    4. Stephen Polasky & Jeffrey D. Camm & Brian Garber-Yonts, 2001. "Selecting Biological Reserves Cost-Effectively: An Application to Terrestrial Vertebrate Conservation in Oregon," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 68-78.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    3. Ando, Amy W. & Getzner, Michael, 2006. "The roles of ownership, ecology, and economics in public wetland-conservation decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 287-303, June.
    4. Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Contingent Valuation Elicitation Effects: Revisiting the Payment Card," 2001 Conference (45th), January 23-25, 2001, Adelaide, Australia 125686, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Groeneveld, Rolf, 2005. "Economic considerations in the optimal size and number of reserve sites," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 219-228, January.
    6. Catherine M. Chambers & Paul E. Chambers & John C. Whitehead, 1998. "Contingent Valuation of Quasi-Public Goods: Validity, Reliability, and Application To Valuing a Historic Site," Public Finance Review, , vol. 26(2), pages 137-154, March.
    7. Johst, Karin & Drechsler, Martin & Watzold, Frank, 2002. "An ecological-economic modelling procedure to design compensation payments for the efficient spatio-temporal allocation of species protection measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 37-49, April.
    8. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    9. Marina Farr & Natalie Stoeckl & Michelle Esparon & Silva Larson & Diane Jarvis, 2016. "The Importance of Water Clarity to Great Barrier Reef Tourists and Their Willingness to Pay to Improve it," Tourism Economics, , vol. 22(2), pages 331-352, April.
    10. Collins, Alan R. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2007. "Protest Adjustments in the Valuation of Watershed Restoration Using Payment Card Data," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    12. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    13. Polasky, Stephen & Costello, Christopher & Solow, Andrew, 2005. "The Economics of Biodiversity," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 29, pages 1517-1560, Elsevier.
    14. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    15. Moore, Christopher C. & Holmes, Thomas P. & Bell, Kathleen P., 2011. "An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 35-52, January.
    16. Jean-Michel Salles, 2011. "Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: why linking economic values with Nature?," Working Papers 11-24, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2011.
    17. Drechsler, Martin & Wätzold, Frank & Johst, Karin & Shogren, Jason F., 2010. "An agglomeration payment for cost-effective biodiversity conservation in spatially structured landscapes," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 261-275, April.
    18. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    19. Newbold, Stephen C. & Weinberg, Marca, 2003. "Wetlands, Wildlife, And Water Quality: Targeting And Trade Offs," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22013, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Heidi J. Albers & Amy W. Ando, 2003. "Could State-Level Variation in the Number of Land Trusts Make Economic Sense?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(3), pages 311-327.

    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:nev:wpaper:wp200807. 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: Cynthia Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nepgvus.html .

    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.