IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v98y2014icp90-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay

Author

Listed:
  • Yao, Richard T.
  • Scarpa, Riccardo
  • Turner, James A.
  • Barnard, Tim D.
  • Rose, John M.
  • Palma, João H.N.
  • Harrison, Duncan R.

Abstract

Planted forests are increasingly recognised for the provision of habitats for species threatened with extinction. Despite this development, a limited number of empirical studies have been undertaken to estimate the economic value of this ecosystem service. New Zealand's planted forests provide habitat to at least 118 threatened species. These forests can be managed to increase the abundance of many of these species. We present findings from survey data obtained in a discrete choice experiment designed to estimate the non-market values for a proposed biodiversity enhancement programme in New Zealand's planted forests. We used a two-stage modelling process. First we estimated the individual specific willingness to pay values and then we explored their socio-economic and spatial determinants. The first stage modelling process, which used a random parameters logit model with error components, suggested that willingness to pay was higher for increasing the abundance of native bird than for non-bird species. The second stage model used a least squares panel random-effects regression. Results from this method suggested that socioeconomic characteristics, such as attitudes toward the programme and distance from large planted forests, influenced willingness to pay for biodiversity enhancement.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:98:y:2014:i:c:p:90-101
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800913003649
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. 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.
    2. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    3. Ian Bateman & Ian Langford & Naohito Nishikawa & Iain Lake, 2000. "The Axford Debate Revisited: A Case Study Illustrating Different Approaches to the Aggregation of Benefits Data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 291-302.
    4. Morse-Jones, Sian & Bateman, Ian J. & Kontoleon, Andreas & Ferrini, Silvia & Burgess, Neil D. & Turner, R. Kerry, 2012. "Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 9-18.
    5. Dhakal, Bhubaneswor & Yao, Richard T. & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim, 2012. "Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 34-44.
    6. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 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), September.
    7. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Testing for geographic scope and scale effects with choice modelling: Application to the Great Barrier Reef," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1069, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    8. Scarpa, Riccardo & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-250, May.
    9. 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.
    10. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2012. "Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National Values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 347-365, November.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    14. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    15. Garrod, G. D. & Willis, K. G., 1997. "The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 45-61, April.
    16. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2006. "Directional heterogeneity in distance profiles in hedonic property value models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 26-45, January.
    17. Joseph A. Herriges & Daniel J. Phaneuf, 2002. "Inducing Patterns of Correlation and Substitution in Repeated Logit Models of Recreation Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1076-1090.
    18. 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.
    19. repec:feb:framed:0073 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Johnston, Robert J. & Roheim, Cathy A., 2006. "A Battle of Taste and Environmental Convictions for Ecolabeled Seafood: A Contingent Ranking Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(02), August.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. von Haefen, Roger H., 2003. "Incorporating observed choice into the construction of welfare measures from random utility models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 145-165, March.
    24. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    25. Ryan, Mandy & Wordsworth, Sarah, 2000. "Sensitivity of Willingness to Pay Estimates to the Level of Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(5), pages 504-524, November.
    26. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2009. "Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 297-317, March.
    27. Mazur, Kasia & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "Location differences in communities’ preferences for environmental improvements in selected NSW catchments: A Choice Modelling approach," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47946, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    28. Alavalapati, Janaki R. R. & Stainback, George A. & Carter, Douglas R., 2002. "Restoration of the longleaf pine ecosystem on private lands in the US South: an ecological economic analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 411-419, March.
    29. 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.
    30. 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.
    31. Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2007. "Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 420-429.
    32. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    33. Hensher, David A., 2008. "Empirical approaches to combining revealed and stated preference data: Some recent developments with reference to urban mode choice," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 23-29, January.
    34. Samiran Banerjee & James Murphy, 2005. "The scope test revisited," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(10), pages 613-617.
    35. Pamela Kaval & Richard Yao & Frank Scrimgeour, 2009. "The Economic Value of Biodiversity in New Zealand: Results from a Household Survey," Working Papers in Economics 09/05, University of Waikato.
    36. Axsen, Jonn & Mountain, Dean C. & Jaccard, Mark, 2009. "Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt02n9j6cv, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    37. Geoffrey N. Kerr & Basil M. H. Sharp, 2010. "Choice experiment adaptive design benefits: a case study ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(4), pages 407-420, October.
    38. 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.
    39. Raunikar, Ronald & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2006. "Willingness to pay for forest amenities: The case of non-industrial owners in the south central United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 132-143, January.
    40. Matta, Jagannadha R. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R. & Stainback, George A., 2009. "Effect of conserving habitat for biodiversity on optimal management of non-industrial private forests in Florida," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 223-235, December.
    41. Travisi, Chiara Maria & Nijkamp, Peter, 2008. "Valuing environmental and health risk in agriculture: A choice experiment approach to pesticides in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607, November.
    42. Ronald J. Sutherland & Richard G. Walsh, 1985. "Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 281-291.
    43. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Liebe, Ulf & Hartje, Volkmar, 2009. "Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: Evidence from two choice experiments in Germany," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 37-58, January.
    44. Herriges, Joseph A. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2002. "Inducing Patterns Correlation and Substitution in Repeated Logit Model of Recreation Demand," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5035, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    45. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Needham, Mark D. & Morzillo, Anita T. & Moehrke, Caitlin, 2012. "Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 271-281.
    46. 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.
    47. Pallab Mozumder & Robert P. Berrens, 2007. "Investigating hypothetical bias: induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism with uncertainty," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(10), pages 705-709.
    48. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    49. Tait, Peter & Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Bicknell, Kathryn, 2012. "Nonmarket valuation of water quality: Addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 15-21.
    50. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    51. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April.
    52. Axsen, Jonn & Mountain, Dean C. & Jaccard, Mark, 2009. "Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 221-238, August.
    53. Guy D. Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis, 2002. "Estimating the Benefits of Traffic Calming on Through Routes: A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 36(2), pages 211-231, May.
    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. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline & Burdon, Daryl & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Austen, Melanie C., 2014. "Valuing conservation benefits of an offshore marine protected area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 229-241.
    2. Jones, Nikoleta & Clark, Julian R.A. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2015. "Social capital and willingness-to-pay for coastal defences in south-east England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 74-82.
    3. 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.
    4. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, 2016, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. repec:eee:jeeman:v:85:y:2017:i:c:p:110-129 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    8. Miller, Sini & Tait, Peter & Saunders, Caroline, 2015. "Estimating indigenous cultural values of freshwater: A choice experiment approach to Māori values in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 207-214.
    9. Ryley, Tim J. & A. Stanley, Peter & P. Enoch, Marcus & M. Zanni, Alberto & A. Quddus, Mohammed, 2014. "Investigating the contribution of Demand Responsive Transport to a sustainable local public transport system," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 364-372.
    10. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Saayman, Melville & Krugell, Waldo F. & Saayman, Andrea, 2016. "Willingness to pay: Who are the cheap talkers?," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 96-111.
    13. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline, 2017. "Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 64-74.
    14. repec:eee:ecolec:v:137:y:2017:i:c:p:1-12 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Caporale, Diana & De Lucia, Caterina, 2015. "Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia Region (Southern Italy)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1378-1390.
    16. 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.
    17. Garces-Voisenat, Juan-Pedro & Mukherjee, Zinnia, 2016. "Paying for green energy: The case of the Chilean Patagonia," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 397-414.
    18. Yao, Richard T. & Harrison, Duncan R. & Velarde, Sandra J. & Barry, Luke E., 2016. "Validation and enhancement of a spatial economic tool for assessing ecosystem services provided by planted forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 122-131.
    19. Akter, Sonia & Kompas, Tom & Ward, Michael B., 2015. "Application of portfolio theory to asset-based biosecurity decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 73-85.

    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:98:y:2014:i:c:p:90-101. 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.