IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v131y2021ics1389934121001787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urban forests valuation and environmental disposition: The case of Puerto Rico

Author

Listed:
  • Tavárez, Héctor
  • Elbakidze, Levan

Abstract

Contingent valuation is used to examine the influence of environmental engagement and beliefs on willingness to pay (WTP) for urban forest preservation. We survey surrounding residents of two urban forest sites in Puerto Rico with distinct environmental experiences and beliefs about ecosystem services. We find that WTP for preserving the urban forest where the surrounding residents are involved in forest management is $118/year. On the other hand, WTP for preserving a larger urban forest where surrounding residents are not engaged in management is $81/year. In addition to the respondents' characteristics and environmental engagement, WTP also depends on the beliefs about urban forest ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2021. "Urban forests valuation and environmental disposition: The case of Puerto Rico," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:131:y:2021:i:c:s1389934121001787
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102572
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934121001787
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102572?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. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1057-1061.
    3. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    4. Khanal, Yajnamurti & Devkota, Bishnu Prasad, 2020. "Farmers' responsibilization in payment for environmental services: Lessons from community forestry in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    5. Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & David T. Butry, 2005. "Spatial Complementarity of Forests and Farms: Accounting for Ecosystem Services," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(4), pages 995-1008.
    6. 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.
    7. Wang, Hua & Shi, Yuyan & Kim, Yoonhee & Kamata, Takuya, 2013. "Valuing water quality improvement in China: A case study of Lake Puzhehei in Yunnan Province," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 56-65.
    8. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    9. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2017. "Environmental attitude, motivations and values for marine biodiversity protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-70.
    10. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1628-1637, July.
    11. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    12. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    13. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    14. Bucholtz, Shawn & Geoghegan, Jacqueline & Lynch, Lori, 2003. "Capitalization of Open Spaces into Housing Values and the Residential Property Tax Revenue Impacts of Agricultural Easement Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-13, April.
    15. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. George Parsons & Kelley Myers, 2017. "Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: an application to an endangered shorebird species," Chapters, in: Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods, chapter 2, pages 17-42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Vesely, Eva-Terezia, 2007. "Green for green: The perceived value of a quantitative change in the urban tree estate of New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 605-615, August.
    18. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma J. & Philips, Zoe N. & Covey, Judith & Smith, Richard D., 2007. "On the numerical forms of contingent valuation responses," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 462-476, August.
    19. Vujcic, Maja & Tomicevic-Dubljevic, Jelena, 2018. "Urban forest benefits to the younger population: The case study of the city of Belgrade, Serbia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 54-62.
    20. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    21. 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.
    22. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    23. 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.
    24. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    25. Lindberg, Kreg & Johnson, Rebecca L. & Berrens, Robert P., 1997. "Contingent Valuation Of Rural Tourism Development With Tests Of Scope And Mode Stability," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(1), pages 1-17, July.
    26. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    27. Shin, Dong Won & McCann, Laura, 2018. "Enhancing Adoption Studies: The Case of Residential Stormwater Management Practices in the Midwest," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 32-65, April.
    28. Zhongmin, Xu & Guodong, Cheng & Zhiqiang, Zhang & Zhiyong, Su & Loomis, John, 2003. "Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 345-358, March.
    29. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    30. Luis Santiago & John Loomis, 2009. "Recreation benefits of natural area characteristics at the El Yunque National Forest," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(4), pages 535-547.
    31. Bienabe, Estelle & Hearne, Robert R., 2006. "Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 335-348, December.
    32. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    33. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    34. Choi, Andy S. & Fielding, Kelly S., 2013. "Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: A case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 24-32.
    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. Liangjin Yao & Zhigao Wang & Xiaohao Zhan & Weizhi Wu & Bo Jiang & Jiejie Jiao & Weigao Yuan & Jinru Zhu & Yi Ding & Tingting Li & Shaozong Yang & Chuping Wu, 2022. "Assessment of Species Composition and Community Structure of the Suburban Forest in Hangzhou, Eastern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-12, April.
    2. Riyadh Mundher & Shamsul Abu Bakar & Suhardi Maulan & Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof & Syuhaily Osman & Ammar Al-Sharaa & Hangyu Gao, 2022. "Exploring Awareness and Public Perception towards the Importance of Visual Aesthetics for Preservation of Permanent Forest Reserve (PFR) in Malaysia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, August.

    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. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Héctor Tavárez & Oscar Abelleira & Levan Elbakidze, 2024. "Environmental awareness and willingness to pay for biodiversity improvement in Puerto Rico," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(1), pages 154-166, March.
    3. Mavra Stithou & Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Danny Campbell, 2012. "Estimating the Value of Achieving “Good Ecological Status”in the Boyne River Catchmentin Ireland Using Choice Experiments," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 397-422.
    4. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    5. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    6. 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.
    7. Sharma, Sadikshya & Kreye, Melissa M., 2022. "Social value of bird conservation on private forest lands in Pennsylvania, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    8. John C. Whitehead, "undated". "A Comment on “An Adding Up Test on Contingent Valuations of River and Lake Quality”," Working Papers 17-01_R, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    9. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    11. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    12. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2024. "Limited Substitutability, Relative Price Changes and the Uplifting of Public Natural Capital Values," CESifo Working Paper Series 11156, CESifo.
    13. Grilli, Gianluca & Notaro, Sandra & Campbell, Danny, 2018. "Including Value Orientations in Choice Models to Estimate Benefits of Wildlife Management Policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 70-81.
    14. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    15. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    16. John C. Whitehead, 2024. "They doth protest too much, methinks: Reply to “Reply to Whitehead”," Working Papers 24-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    17. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    18. Vásquez-Lavín, Felipe & Carrasco, Moisés & Barrientos, Manuel & Gelcich, Stefan & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D., 2021. "Estimating discount rates for environmental goods: Are People’s responses inadequate to frequency of payments?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    19. Héctor Tavárez & Alicia Barriga, 2023. "Economic Viability of Developing Passive Recreational Opportunities in Puerto Rico: Insights for Sustainable Forest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-17, October.
    20. Dardanoni, Valentino & Guerriero, Carla, 2021. "Young people' s willingness to pay for environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    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:forpol:v:131:y:2021:i:c:s1389934121001787. 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/forpol .

    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.