An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs
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.
Volume (Year): 17 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/bibliographic|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Lienhoop, Nele, 2006. "Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 299-307, November.
- 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.
- Heckman, James, 2013.
"Sample selection bias as a specification error,"
Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
- Heckman, James J, 1979. "Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 153-161, January.
- 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.
- 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.
- Rollins, Kimberly & Lyke, Audrey, 1997. "The Case For Diminishing Marginal Existence Values," Working Papers 244747, University of Guelph, Department of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Karine Lamiraud & Konrade von Bremen & Cam Donaldson, 2009. "The impact of information on patient preferences in different delivery patterns : a contingent valuation study of prescription versus OTC drugs," Working Papers 0901, University of Lausanne, Institute of Health Economics and Management (IEMS).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
- Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- 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.
- 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)
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)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.