IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v23y2012icp17-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences and values for afforestation: The effects of location and respondent understanding on forest attributes in a labelled choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Upton, Vincent
  • Dhubháin, Áine Ní
  • Bullock, Craig

Abstract

Location can be a defining element of the preferences and values that the public holds for forests. Irish forest policy has undergone a number of developments in recent years with a current emphasis on sustainable forest management, which requires accounting for a wider suite of forest benefits and incorporating public preferences into forest management. This study employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to investigate public preferences and values for management approaches to an extensive afforestation programme. Each afforestation alternative was labelled with a locational description to add to the realism of the study and to investigate their effect on preferences for forest management. In addition, a respondent's ability to identify tree types was tested and included in the analysis. The Irish public holds strong, positive views for afforestation and forest management, in particular for recreational access, which is influenced by forest location. In addition, a respondent's ability to identify tree types is shown to have a significant impact on how they treat this attribute in the DCE.

Suggested Citation

  • Upton, Vincent & Dhubháin, Áine Ní & Bullock, Craig, 2012. "Preferences and values for afforestation: The effects of location and respondent understanding on forest attributes in a labelled choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 17-27.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:23:y:2012:i:c:p:17-27
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934112001311
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.006?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. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    3. 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), pages 1-30.
    4. Andrew Mill, Greig & van Rensburg, Tom M. & Hynes, Stephen & Dooley, Conor, 2007. "Preferences for multiple use forest management in Ireland: Citizen and consumer perpectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 642-653, January.
    5. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    6. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 521-535, December.
    7. Raquel Espino & Juan Ortúzar & Concepción Román, 2006. "Confidence Interval for Willingness to Pay Measures in Mode Choice Models," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 81-96, June.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    11. Alejandro Caparrós & José L. Oviedo & Pablo Campos, 2008. "Would You Choose Your Preferred Option? Comparing Choice and Recoded Ranking Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(3), pages 843-855.
    12. K.G. Willis & G.D. Garrod, 1998. "Biodiversity values for alternative management regimes in remote UK coniferous forests: an iterative bidding polychotomous choice approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 157-166, September.
    13. MacMillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Lienhoop, Nele, 2006. "Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 299-307, November.
    14. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    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. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    17. 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.
    18. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2006. "Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments And Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 144-159, January.
    19. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    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. Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Jin, Yan, 2022. "Understanding planting preferences – A case-study of the afforestation choices of farmers in Ireland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    2. 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).
    3. McGrath, Luke & Hynes, Stephen & McHale, John, 2019. "Augmenting the World Bank's estimates: Ireland's genuine savings through boom and bust," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Dong-Hyeon Kim & Byeong-Il Ahn & Eui-Gyeong Kim, 2016. "Metropolitan Residents’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for a Life Zone Forest for Mitigating Heat Island Effects during Summer Season in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    5. Anastasia V. Kistova & Julia S. Zamaraeva & Natalia N. Pimenova & Ksenia V. Reznikova & Natalia P. Koptseva & Natalia N. Seredkina, 2016. "Regional Peculiarities in Modernization Processes within the Territories of Central Siberia," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 6(4), pages 857-865.
    6. Sagebiel, Julian & Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Spatially explicit demand for afforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 190-199.
    7. Ciesielski, Mariusz & Stereńczak, Krzysztof, 2021. "Using Flickr data and selected environmental characteristics to analyse the temporal and spatial distribution of activities in forest areas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    8. Janová, Jitka & Hampel, David & Kadlec, Jiří & Vrška, Tomáš, 2022. "Motivations behind the forest managers’ decision making about mixed forests in the Czech Republic," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    9. Anastasia V. Kistova & Julia S. Zamaraeva & Natalia N. Pimenova & Ksenia V. Reznikova & Natalia P. Koptseva & Natalia N. Seredkina, 2016. "Regional Peculiarities in Modernization Processes within the Territories of Central Siberia," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 6(4), pages 857-865.
    10. Grilli, Gianluca & Jonkisz, Jaroslaw & Ciolli, Marco & Lesinski, Jerzy, 2016. "Mixed forests and ecosystem services: Investigating stakeholders' perceptions in a case study in the Polish Carpathians," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 11-17.
    11. Jacobson, Michael & Shr, Yau-Huo & Dalemans, Floris & Magaju, Christine & Ciannella, Rodrigo, 2018. "Using a choice experiment approach to assess production tradeoffs for developing the croton value chain in Kenya," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 76-85.
    12. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "PES for the poor? Preferences of potential buyers of forest ecosystem services for including distributive goals in the design of payments for conserving the dry spiny forest in Madagascar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 71-79.
    13. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Kniivilä, Matleena & Pitiot, Maja & Horne, Paula, 2019. "Location of forest plantations in Mozambique: Gains and losses in water, firewood and land availability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    14. Diriye, Abdishakur W. & Jama, Osman M. & Diriye, Jama Warsame & Abdi, Abdulhakim M., 2022. "Public preference for sustainable land use policies – Empirical results from multinomial logit model analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    15. Duesberg, Stefanie & Ní Dhubháin, Áine, 2019. "Forest intensification in Ireland: Developing an approximation of social acceptability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 368-386.
    16. Kilcline, Kevin & Dhubháin, Áine Ní & Heanue, Kevin & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary, 2021. "Addressing the challenge of wood mobilisation through a systemic innovation lens: The Irish forest sector innovation system," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    17. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.

    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. 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.
    2. Ruokamo, Enni, 2016. "Household preferences of hybrid home heating systems – A choice experiment application," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 224-237.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Anna Bartczak & Marek Giergiczny & Stale Navrud & Tomasz Żylicz, 2013. "Providing Preference-Based Support for Forest Ecosystem Service Management in Poland," Working Papers 2013-05, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny & Hynes, Stephen & van Rensburg, Tom M., 2011. "The effect of using labelled alternatives in stated choice experiments: an exploration focusing on farmland walking trails in Ireland," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108792, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny & Hynes, Stephen & van Rensburg, Thomas, 2012. "Labelling effects in discrete choice experiments," Working Papers 148831, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    7. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    8. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    9. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    10. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    11. 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.
    12. Alejandra R. Enríquez & Angel Bujosa Bestard, 2020. "Measuring the economic impact of climate-induced environmental changes on sun-and-beach tourism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 203-217, May.
    13. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 521-535, December.
    14. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    15. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    16. Julia Martin-Ortega & Giacomo Giannoccaro & Julio Berbel, 2011. "Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1615-1633, April.
    17. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    18. Morten Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2010. "Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 537-551, April.
    19. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.

    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:23:y:2012:i:c:p:17-27. 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.