IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v17y2011i1p35-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs

Author

Listed:
  • Moore, Christopher C.
  • Holmes, Thomas P.
  • Bell, Kathleen P.

Abstract

The hemlock woolly adelgid is an invasive insect that is damaging hemlock forests in the eastern United States. Several control methods are available but forest managers are constrained by cost, availability, and environmental concerns. As a result forest managers must decide how to allocate limited conservation resources over heterogeneous landscapes. We develop an attribute-based contingent valuation approach that allows us to perform cost-benefit analysis on control programs and inform the distribution of mitigation effort over land units that provide different types of environmental services. We use this approach to examine conservation efforts on three land management units in the southern Appalachian Mountains: Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. Managers of these forests are focusing their efforts on specific conservation areas chosen for their importance to human-use or ecological services. The result is a network of sites that implicitly defines a tradeoff between ecological and human-use services. Our survey is designed to examine the public's perception of this tradeoff and estimate WTP for hemlock conservation programs. The estimated benefits of conserving hemlocks in the study area outweigh the cost of the mitigation programs by two orders of magnitude. We find that there is substantial support for protection of hemlock stands providing ecological services with very little human-use value. Further, we show that benefits from the current mitigation strategy could be increased by shifting effort to protect more ecological services at the expense of sites that generate primarily human-use value.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:foreco:v:17:y:2011:i:1:p:35-52
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1104-6899(10)00025-5
    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. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    2. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    3. John Loomis & Armando Gonzalez-Caban & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(4), pages 499-506.
    4. 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.
    5. Johnston, Robert J. & Roheim, Cathy A. & Donath, Holger & Asche, Frank, 2001. "Measuring Consumer Preferences For Ecolabeled Seafood: An International Comparison," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), July.
    6. MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Lienhoop, Nele, 2006. "Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 299-307, November.
    7. Daniel A. Haqen & James W. Vincent & Patrick G. Welle, 1992. "Benefits Of Preserving Old-Growth Forests And The Spotted Owl," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 10(2), pages 13-26, April.
    8. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    9. 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.
    10. Rollins, Kimberly & Lyke, Audrey, 1998. "The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 324-344, November.
    11. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    12. Provencher, Bill & Bishop, R.C.Richard C., 2004. "Does accounting for preference heterogeneity improve the forecasting of a random utility model? A case study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 793-810, July.
    13. Lamiraud, Karine & von Bremen, Konrade & Donaldson, Cam, 2009. "The impact of information on patient preferences in different delivery patterns: A contingent valuation study of prescription versus OTC drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 102-110, December.
    14. Payne, John W & Schkade, David A. & Desvousges, William H. & Aultman, Chris, 2000. "Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 95-115, July.
    15. Gwendolyn Aldrich & Kristine Grimsrud & Jennifer Thacher & Matthew Kotchen, 2007. "Relating environmental attitudes and contingent values: how robust are methods for identifying preference heterogeneity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(4), pages 757-775, August.
    16. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    17. 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.
    18. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    19. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401.
    20. Rowe, Robert D. & Schulze, William D. & Breffle, William S., 1996. "A Test for Payment Card Biases," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 178-185, September.
    21. Jenkins, Dylan H. & Sullivan, Jay & Amacher, Gregory S. & Nicholas, Niki S. & Reaves, Dixie W., 2002. "Valuing high altitude spruce-fir forest improvements: importance of forest condition and recreation activity," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 77-99.
    22. Brian Roach & Kevin J. Boyle & Michael Welsh, 2002. "Testing Bid Design Effects in Multiple-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 121-131.
    23. Brown, Kelly M. & Taylor, Laura O., 2000. "Do as you say, say as you do: evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 127-139, September.
    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. Sunderasan Srinivasan, 2015. "Economic valuation and option-based payments for ecosystem services," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(7), pages 1055-1077, October.
    2. Ruggiero Sardaro & Vincenzo Fucilli & Claudio Acciani, 2015. "Measuring the Value of Rural Landscape in Support of Preservation Policies," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(2), pages 125-138.
    3. Nikola Jovanoski, 2015. "Estimating the Value of Preserving the Doubs," IRENE Working Papers 15-02, IRENE Institute of Economic Research.
    4. Guo, Zhan & McDonnell, Simon, 2013. "Curb parking pricing for local residents: An exploration in New York City based on willingness to pay," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 186-198.
    5. repec:eee:ecoser:v:27:y:2017:i:pa:p:70-81 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:eee:ecoser:v:10:y:2014:i:c:p:97-110 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Meldrum, James R. & Champ, Patricia A. & Bond, Craig A., 2013. "Heterogeneous nonmarket benefits of managing white pine bluster rust in high-elevation pine forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 61-77.
    8. 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.
    9. Christopher Moore & Daniel Phaneuf & Walter Thurman, 2011. "A Bayesian Bioeconometric Model of Invasive Species Control: The Case of the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 1-26, September.
    10. repec:bla:jageco:v:68:y:2017:i:3:p:781-800 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:foreco:v:17:y:2011:i:1:p:35-52. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/description#description .

    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.