IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v92y2013icp67-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation

Author

Listed:
  • Abildtrup, Jens
  • Garcia, Serge
  • Olsen, Søren Bøye
  • Stenger, Anne

Abstract

In this study, we analyze the preferences for recreational use of forests in Lorraine (Northeastern France), applying stated preference data. Our approach allows us to estimate individual-specific preferences for recreational use of different forest types. These estimates are used in a second stage of the analysis where we test whether preferences depend on access to recreation sites. We find that there is significant preference heterogeneity with respect to most forest attributes. The spatial analysis shows that preferences for forests with parking and picnic facilities are correlated with having access to such forests while for the other attributes considered (dominant tree species, trekking paths and presence of lake and rivers) we find no correlation between stated preferences and accessibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:92:y:2013:i:c:p:67-77
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800913000086
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timmins, Christopher & Murdock, Jennifer, 2007. "A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 230-249, March.
    2. Danny Campbell & W George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 41(1), pages 97-111, January.
    3. Norton, Bryan & Costanza, Robert & Bishop, Richard C., 1998. "The evolution of preferences: Why 'sovereign' preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 193-211, February.
    4. von Haefen, Roger H. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2008. "Identifying demand parameters in the presence of unobservables: A combined revealed and stated preference approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 19-32, July.
    5. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2007. "Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 610-623, September.
    6. Patrick Bayer & Christopher Timmins, 2007. "Estimating Equilibrium Models Of Sorting Across Locations," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(518), pages 353-374, March.
    7. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Using mixed logit models to derive individual-specific WTP estimates for landscape improvements under agri-environmental schemes: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Working Papers 0607, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    8. Troy, Austin & Wilson, Matthew A., 2006. "Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 435-449, December.
    9. Ando, Amy W. & Shah, Payal, 2010. "Demand-side factors in optimal land conservation choice," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 203-221, April.
    10. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    11. Kling, Catherine L. & Bockstael, Nancy & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1987. "Estimating the Value of Water Quality Improvements in a Recreational Demand Framework," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1594, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    12. Roback, Jennifer, 1982. "Wages, Rents, and the Quality of Life," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(6), pages 1257-1278, December.
    13. Train, K. & Weeks, M., 2004. "Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0443, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    14. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Francesco Marangon, 2008. "Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(2), pages 145-162, June.
    15. David A Hensher & William H Greene & John M Rose, 2006. "Deriving willingness-to-pay estimates of travel-time savings from individual-based parameters," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 38(12), pages 2365-2376, December.
    16. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    17. Erik Meijer & Jan Rouwendal, 2006. "Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 227-244.
    18. H. Allen Klaiber & Daniel J. Phaneuf, 2009. "Do Sorting and Heterogeneity Matter for Open Space Policy Analysis? An Empirical Comparison of Hedonic and Sorting Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1312-1318.
    19. Allen Klaiber, H. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2010. "Valuing open space in a residential sorting model of the Twin Cities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 57-77, September.
    20. Mette Termansen & Colin J McClean & Hans Skov-Petersen, 2004. "Recreational site choice modelling using high-resolution spatial data," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 36(6), pages 1085-1099, June.
    21. Walsh, Randy, 2007. "Endogenous open space amenities in a locational equilibrium," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 319-344, March.
    22. Lucie Schmidt & Paul N. Courant, 2006. "Sometimes Close Is Good Enough: The Value Of Nearby Environmental Amenities," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 931-951.
    23. Kerry Smith, V. & Sieg, Holger & Spencer Banzhaf, H. & Walsh, Randall P., 2004. "General equilibrium benefits for environmental improvements: projected ozone reductions under EPA's Prospective Analysis for the Los Angeles air basin," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 559-584, May.
    24. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    25. Kuminoff, Nicolai V., 2009. "Decomposing the structural identification of non-market values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 123-139, March.
    26. Murdock, Jennifer, 2006. "Handling unobserved site characteristics in random utility models of recreation demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 1-25, January.
    27. Holger Sieg & V. Kerry Smith & H. Spencer Banzhaf & Randy Walsh, 2004. "Estimating The General Equilibrium Benefits Of Large Changes In Spatially Delineated Public Goods," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 45(4), pages 1047-1077, November.
    28. Hess, Stephane & Hensher, David A., 2010. "Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 781-790, July.
    29. Danny Campbell & Riccardo Scarpa & W. Hutchinson, 2008. "Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 117-126, December.
    30. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2013. "Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 78-86.
    31. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2008. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9787111235767, April.
    32. JunJie Wu & Richard M. Adams & Andrew J. Plantinga, 2004. "Amenities in an Urban Equilibrium Model: Residential Development in Portland, Oregon," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 19-32.
    33. 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.
    34. 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.
    35. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    36. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    37. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    38. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    39. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64, pages 416-416.
    40. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    41. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Gary Koop, 2002. "Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 449-466, July.
    42. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    43. Alan Randall, 1994. "Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 88-96.
    44. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2007. "Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 449-466.
    45. 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.
    46. Elena G. Irwin, 2002. "The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 465-480.
    47. Dennis Epple & Michael Peress & Holger Sieg, 2010. "Identification and Semiparametric Estimation of Equilibrium Models of Local Jurisdictions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 195-220, November.
    48. Elena G. Irwin & Nancy E. Bockstael, 2001. "The Problem of Identifying Land Use Spillovers: Measuring the Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 698-704.
    49. 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.
    50. Kenneth A. Baerenklau, 2010. "A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Endogenous Spatial Sorting in Zonal Recreation Demand Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 800-816.
    51. 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.
    52. Termansen, Mette & Zandersen, Marianne & McClean, Colin J., 2008. "Spatial substitution patterns in forest recreation," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 81-97, January.
    53. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2010. "Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 205-216, August.
    54. Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y., 2011. "Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn’t Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    55. Hess, Stephane & Bierlaire, Michel & Polak, John W., 2005. "Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 221-236.
    56. Michael S. Hand & Jennifer A. Thacher & Daniel W. McCollum & Robert P. Berrens, 2008. "Intra-Regional Amenities, Wages, and Home Prices: The Role of Forests in the Southwest," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 635-651.
    57. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    58. Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe, 2009. "Faut-il réguler l'encombrement des sites récréatifs ? Un modèle de choix discret avec participation," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 90(1), pages 51-77.
    59. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2008. "Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 616-625, April.
    60. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15.
    61. Baerenklau, Kenneth A. & González-Cabán, Armando & Paez, Catrina & Chavez, Edgar, 2010. "Spatial allocation of forest recreation value," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 113-126, April.
    62. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    63. Jean Cavailhès & Thierry Brossard & Jean-Christophe Foltête & Mohamed Hilal & Daniel Joly & François-Pierre Tourneux & Céline Tritz & Pierre Wavresky, 2009. "GIS-Based Hedonic Pricing of Landscape," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 571-590, December.
    64. Dan Rigby & Mike Burton, 2006. "Modeling Disinterest and Dislike: A Bounded Bayesian Mixed Logit Model of the UK Market for GM Food," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(4), pages 485-509, April.
    65. Felix Schläpfer & Nick Hanley, 2003. "Do Local Landscape Patterns Affect the Demand for Landscape Amenities Protection?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 21-34.
    66. Scarpa, Riccardo & Hutchinson, W. George & Chilton, Susan M. & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Importance of forest attributes in the willingness to pay for recreation: a contingent valuation study of Irish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 315-329, December.
    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. repec:eee:foreco:v:28:y:2017:i:c:p:33-41 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Marek Giergiczny & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 705-727, November.
    3. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    4. repec:eee:jeeman:v:85:y:2017:i:c:p:110-129 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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.
    6. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2015. "Capturing More Relevant Measures of Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay: Using an Iterative Grid Search Algorithm to Quantify Proximate Environmental Impacts," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205450, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association;Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2016. "Local consequences of national policies - A spatial analysis of preferences for forest access reduction," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 68-77.
    8. Cristiano Franceschinis & Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & John Rose & Michele Moretto & Raffaele Cavalli, 2016. "Exploring the Spatial Heterogeneity of Individual Preferences for Ambient Heating Systems," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, May.
    9. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2015. "Multifunctional recreation and nouveau heritage values in plantation forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 131-151.
    10. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    11. repec:eee:ecoser:v:26:y:2017:i:pa:p:183-196 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Fanus Asefaw Aregay & Liuyang Yao & Minjuan Zhao, 2016. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity for Integrated River Basin Management: The Case of the Shiyang River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(10), pages 1-17, September.
    13. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    14. repec:eee:ecolec:v:140:y:2017:i:c:p:22-29 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. 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.
    16. Boncinelli, Fabio & Riccioli, Francesco & Marone, Enrico, 2015. "Do forests help to keep my body mass index low?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 11-17.
    17. Daniel A. Brent & Katie Lorah, 2017. "The Geography of Civic Crowdfunding: Implications for Social Inequality and Donor-Project Dynamics," Departmental Working Papers 2017-09, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    18. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "Reprint of ‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 283-294.
    20. Laetitia Tuffery, 2016. "The recreational services value of the nearest periurban forest versus the global forest environment," Documents de recherche 16-06, Centre d'Études des Politiques Économiques (EPEE), Université d'Evry Val d'Essonne.
    21. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 130-141.
    22. repec:eee:ecolec:v:147:y:2018:i:c:p:11-20 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:92:y:2013:i:c:p:67-77. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.