IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i11p3149-d237112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Public’s Preferences toward Sustainable Planning under Climate and Land Use Change in Forest Parks

Author

Listed:
  • Chun-Lin Lee

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Chinese Culture University, No.55, Hwa-Kang Rd., Yang-Ming-Shan, Taipei 11114, Taiwan)

  • Chiung-Hsin Wang

    (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University, No.1, Sec.2, Da Hsueh Rd., Shoufeng, Hualien 97401, Taiwan)

  • Chun-Hung Lee

    (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University, No.1, Sec.2, Da Hsueh Rd., Shoufeng, Hualien 97401, Taiwan)

  • Supasit Sriarkarin

    (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University, No.1, Sec.2, Da Hsueh Rd., Shoufeng, Hualien 97401, Taiwan
    Department of Forest Management, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand)

Abstract

Balancing the goals of sustainable planning under climate and land use change (CLUC) with ecosystem service functions is a huge challenge for the management and programming of protected areas today. We construct a new evaluation framework towards the perspectives of sustainable land management based on the choice experiment (CE) model, and apply it to investigate the public’s preferences for the forest parks in Taiwan. This study found that implementing organic farming, increasing species populations, increasing the acreage of secondary forest area, and developing an integrated framework for ecotourism would best satisfy the public’s preferences for sustainable land use management. Second, we identify that the heterogeneity of the public’s preferences for forest park management varies depending on whether individuals are (1) members of environmental groups, (2) agricultural landowners, and (3) residents of the municipality. Third, we find integrated land use programs generate the highest welfare values among scenarios comprising different financial attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Chun-Lin Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang & Chun-Hung Lee & Supasit Sriarkarin, 2019. "Evaluating the Public’s Preferences toward Sustainable Planning under Climate and Land Use Change in Forest Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:11:p:3149-:d:237112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3149/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3149/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    2. Hsing-Sheng Tai, 2015. "Cross-Scale and Cross-Level Dynamics: Governance and Capacity for Resilience in a Social-Ecological System in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, February.
    3. Westerberg, Vanja Holmquist & Lifran, Robert & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2010. "To restore or not? A valuation of social and ecological functions of the Marais des Baux wetland in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2383-2393, October.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    5. Guimarães, Mª. Helena & Madureira, Lívia & Nunes, Luís Catela & Santos, José Lima & Sousa, Carlos & Boski, Tomasz & Dentinho, Tomaz, 2014. "Using Choice Modeling to estimate the effects of environmental improvements on local development: When the purpose modifies the tool," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 79-90.
    6. Allen, Karen E. & Moore, Rebecca, 2016. "Moving beyond the exchange value in the nonmarket valuation of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 78-86.
    7. Guy M. Robinson & Bingjie Song, 2018. "Transforming the Peri-Urban Fringe in China: The Example of Xi’an-Xianyang," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, October.
    8. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    9. Rambonilaza, Tina & Brahic, Elodie, 2016. "Non-market values of forest biodiversity and the impact of informing the general public: Insights from generalized multinomial logit estimations," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 93-100.
    10. Piotr Krajewski, 2019. "Monitoring of Landscape Transformations within Landscape Parks in Poland in the 21st Century," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-22, April.
    11. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    12. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    13. Emily Boyd & Esteve Corbera & Manuel Estrada, 2008. "UNFCCC negotiations (pre-Kyoto to COP-9): what the process says about the politics of CDM-sinks," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 95-112, June.
    14. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    15. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    16. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    17. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    18. Zandersen, Marianne & Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Nainggolan, Doan & Gyldenkærne, Steen & Winding, Anne & Greve, Mogens Humlekrog & Termansen, Mette, 2016. "Potential and economic efficiency of using reduced tillage to mitigate climate effects in Danish agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 14-22.
    19. J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
    20. Chia-Hsin Wu & Yueh-Hsin Lo & Juan A. Blanco & Shih-Chieh Chang, 2015. "Resilience Assessment of Lowland Plantations Using an Ecosystem Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-22, March.
    21. Juutinen, Artti & Mitani, Yohei & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Shoji, Yasushi & Siikamäki, Pirkko & Svento, Rauli, 2011. "Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1231-1239, April.
    22. Garrod, Guy & Ruto, Eric & Willis, Ken & Powe, Neil, 2012. "Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 104-111.
    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. Yung-Chieh Wang & Shyang-Woei Lin & Chun-Hung Lee, 2020. "Conducting an Evaluation Framework for Disaster Management under Adaptive Organization Change in a School System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    3. Chun-Hung Lee & Yun-Ju Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Assessment of the Economic Value of Ecological Conservation of the Kenting Coral Reef," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Iván Pérez-Rubio & Daniel Flores & Christian Vargas & Francisco Jiménez & Iker Etxano, 2021. "To What Extent Are Cattle Ranching Landholders Willing to Restore Ecosystem Services? Constructing a Micro-Scale PES Scheme in Southern Costa Rica," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.

    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. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Cheng Zong & Kun Cheng & Chun-Hung Lee & Nai-Lun Hsu, 2017. "Capturing Tourists’ Preferences for the Management of Community-Based Ecotourism in a Forest Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Guimarães, Maria Helena & Nunes, Luís Catela & Madureira, Lívia & Santos, José Lima & Boski, Tomasz & Dentinho, Tomaz, 2015. "Measuring birdwatchers preferences: A case for using online networks and mixed-mode surveys," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 102-113.
    4. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    5. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    7. Catalina M. Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," DEA Working Papers 65, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.
    8. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    9. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    10. Rocchi, L. & Cortina, C. & Paolotti, L. & Massei, G. & Fagioli, F.F. & Antegiovanni, P. & Boggia, A., 2019. "Provision of ecosystem services from the management of Natura 2000 sites in Umbria (Italy): Comparing the costs and benefits, using choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 13-20.
    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. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    13. Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Producers' valuation of animal welfare practices: Does herd size matter?," DARE Discussion Papers 1801, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    14. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    15. Bakti Hasan-Basri & Mohd Zaini Abd Karim & Normizan Bakar, 2015. "Willingness To Pay For Recreational Attributes Of Public Parks: A Choice Experiment Approach," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-18, December.
    16. 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).
    17. Aslam, Uzma & Termansen, Mette & Fleskens, Luuk, 2017. "Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 103-112.
    18. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    19. Kloos, Julia & Tsegai, Daniel W., 2009. "Preferences for domestic water services in the Middle Olifants sub-basin of South Africa," Discussion Papers 49970, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    20. repec:sss:wpaper:201407 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:11:p:3149-:d:237112. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.