IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management

  • Czajkowski, Mikołaj
  • Bartczak, Anna
  • Giergiczny, Marek
  • Navrud, Stale
  • Żylicz, Tomasz

The paper examines people's preferences for changes in selected ecosystem services resulting from new management strategies of forest areas in Poland. This study applies a generalized multinomial logit model to interpret the results of a discrete choice experiment administered to a representative sample of 1001 Poles. The questionnaire included three physical attributes: protecting the most ecologically valuable forest ecosystems, reducing litter in forests, and improving recreation infrastructure. The selection of these attributes was motivated by extensive qualitative research regarding to what indicators of biodiversity, nature protection and recreation possibilities people are most sensitive. The fourth attribute was monetary, that is, additional costs associated with the new programs that would have to be financed out of increased taxes. The results allowed for an estimation of implicit prices regarding the choice attributes and calculating welfare measures of specific forest management scenarios. The study revealed interesting connections between respondents' current forest recreation patterns and the importance they place on the various attributes of forests. The paper particularly focuses on respondents' unobserved and observed preference heterogeneity, as well as scale heterogeneity, and the study demonstrates how heterogeneity can improve the models and provide insight into how users and non-users of forests may benefit from introducing a particular policy.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934113002232
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Forest Policy and Economics.

Volume (Year): 39 (2014)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 1-12

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:39:y:2014:i:c:p:1-12
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

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.:

as in new window
  1. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
  2. John M. Rose & Riccardo Scarpa, 2007. "Designs Efficiency for Non-market Valuation with Choice Modelling: How to Measure It, What to Report and Why," Working Papers in Economics 07/21, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.
  3. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Soren Boye & Stenger, Anne, 2011. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity in Forest Recreation," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 120386, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  4. Buszko-Briggs, Malgorzata & Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nicholas, 2008. "Valuing Changes in Forest Biodiversity," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-17, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  5. Bartczak, Anna & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle & Zandersen, Marianne & Zylicz, Tomasz, 2008. "Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: The case of Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(7-8), pages 467-472, October.
  6. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-66, March.
  7. 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.
  8. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Milan Ščasný, 2008. "Study on Benefit Transfer in an International Setting. How to Improve Welfare Estimates in the Case of the Countries' Income Heterogeneity?," Working Papers 2008-09, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
  9. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Krawczyk, Michał, 2012. "Testing for hypothetical bias in willingness to support a reforestation program," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 282-289.
  13. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521747387 is not listed on IDEAS
  14. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
  15. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
  16. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
  17. Edwards, David & Jay, Marion & Jensen, Frank S. & Lucas, Beatriz & Marzano, Mariella & Montagné, Claire & Peace, Andrew & Weiss, Gerhard, 2012. "Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: Towards a pan-European perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 12-19.
  18. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 521-535, December.
  19. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
  20. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
  21. Anna Bartczak & Jeffrey Englin & Arwin Pang, 2012. "When are Forest Visits Valued the Most? An Analysis of the Seasonal Demand for Forest Recreation in Poland," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(2), pages 249-264, June.
  22. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, 03.
  23. 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 145-71, November.
  24. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521766555 is not listed on IDEAS
  25. 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 715-19, November.
  26. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2007. "Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 610-623, September.
  27. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:39:y:2014:i:c:p:1-12. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.