IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v149y2018icp254-264.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protecting Imperiled Wildlife Species on Private Lands: Forest Owner Values and Response to Government Interventions

Author

Listed:
  • Kreye, Melissa M.
  • Adams, Damian C.
  • Ober, Holly K.

Abstract

Forest owners in Florida are often natural advocates of wildlife conservation. Unfortunately, some landowners choose to remain silent about imperiled species on their lands, which challenges government efforts to track species recovery. It is often assumed that landowner resistance towards wildlife regulations is economic in nature. However, when motivations for certain management behaviors are not economic in nature, the effectiveness of governmental regulations and incentives are not well understood. This paper is the first to investigate the economic and intrinsic motivations of family forest owners to protect imperiled wildlife species by defining landownership as a cultural ecosystem service, giving rise to personal identity benefits. We used a choice experiment format and Likert scale questions to characterize the personal identity constructs of family forest owners and their response to wildlife policies. We found many family forest owners are skeptical of government involvement, despite offers of a cost-share and a regulatory assurance. We conclude that when costs are low, or not well understood, forest owners' are more often motivated by the cultural values that uphold their personal identity constructs. Key in explaining changes in forest owner welfare was the importance placed on autonomy in making management decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Ober, Holly K., 2018. "Protecting Imperiled Wildlife Species on Private Lands: Forest Owner Values and Response to Government Interventions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 254-264.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:149:y:2018:i:c:p:254-264
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800917305438
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.016?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. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    2. Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    5. 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.
    6. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    7. Langpap, Christian & Wu, JunJie, 2004. "Voluntary conservation of endangered species: when does no regulatory assurance mean no conservation?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 435-457, May.
    8. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    9. Mauricio Sillano & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(3), pages 525-550, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Jagannadha R. Matta & Janaki R. R. Alavalapati & D. Evan Mercer, 2009. "Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation Beyond the Best Management Practices: Are Forestland Owners Interested?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 132-143.
    12. Robert Ryan & Donna Erickson & Raymond De Young, 2003. "Farmers' Motivations for Adopting Conservation Practices along Riparian Zones in a Mid-western Agricultural Watershed," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(1), pages 19-37.
    13. David Colman, 1994. "Ethics And Externalities: Agricultural Stewardship And Other Behaviour: Presidential Address," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 299-311, September.
    14. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    15. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff & Louviere, Jordan, 2000. "Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 289-302, November.
    16. Melissa M. Kreye & Elizabeth F. Pienaar & José R. Soto & Damian C. Adams, 2017. "Creating Voluntary Payment Programs: Effective Program Design and Ranchers’ Willingness to Conserve Florida Panther Habitat," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(3), pages 459-480.
    17. Langpap, Christian & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2012. "Endangered species conservation on private land: Assessing the effectiveness of habitat conservation plans," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 1-15.
    18. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    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. Regmi, Arun & Kreye, Melissa M. & Kreye, Jesse K., 2023. "Forest landowner demand for prescribed fire as an ecological management tool in Pennsylvania, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    2. Danley, Brian & Bjärstig, Therese & Sandström, Camilla, 2021. "At the limit of volunteerism? Swedish family forest owners and two policy strategies to increase forest biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    3. Sharma, Sadikshya & Kreye, Melissa M., 2022. "Social value of bird conservation on private forest lands in Pennsylvania, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    4. Meier, Justin T. & Kilgore, Michael A. & Frey, Gregory E. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Blinn, Charles R., 2019. "A comparison of participants and non-participants of state forest property tax programs in the United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 10-16.

    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. Useche, Pilar & Blare, Trent, 2014. "The Sustainable Choice: How Gendered Difference in the Importance of Ecological Benefits Affect Production Decisions of Smallholder Cacao Producing Households in Ecuador," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 174285, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. 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).
    3. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    4. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Röhrig, Nina & Hassler, Markus & Roesler, Tim, 2020. "Capturing the value of ecosystem services from silvopastoral systems: Perceptions from selected Italian farms," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    6. Teratanavat, Ratapol P. & Hooker, Neal H., 2005. "Exploring Consumer Valuation and Preference Heterogeneity for Functional Foods Using a Choice Experiment: A Case Study of Tomato Juice Containing Soy in Ohio," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19556, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Colman, David & Pascual, Unai & Hodge, Ian, 2010. "Evolution of Land Conservation Policy," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188082, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    11. 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.
    12. Jae-hyuck Lee & HaeOk Choi, 2020. "An Analysis of Public Complaints to Evaluate Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-11, February.
    13. Taro Ohdoko & Kentaro Yoshida, 2012. "Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 147-169, April.
    14. Martin Achtnicht, 2012. "German car buyers’ willingness to pay to reduce CO 2 emissions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 679-697, August.
    15. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    16. Carroll, James & Aravena, Claudia & Denny, Eleanor, 2016. "Low energy efficiency in rental properties: Asymmetric information or low willingness-to-pay?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 617-629.
    17. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2014. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 324-351.
    18. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2012. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited. The Impact of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity on Perceived Ordering Effects in Multiple Choice Task Discrete Choice Experiments," Working Papers 2012-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    19. 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.
    20. Mulatu, Dawit Woubishet & Alvsilver, Jessica & Siikamäki, Juha, 2019. "Valuing Residents’ Preferences for Improved Urban Green Space Ecosystem Services in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia," EfD Discussion Paper 19-2, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:149:y:2018:i:c:p:254-264. 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/ecolecon .

    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.