IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v68y2017i3d10.1007_s10640-016-0044-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management

Author

Listed:
  • Mikołaj Czajkowski

    (University of Warsaw)

  • Wiktor Budziński

    (University of Warsaw)

  • Danny Campbell

    (University of Stirling)

  • Marek Giergiczny

    (University of Warsaw)

  • Nick Hanley

    (University of St Andrews)

Abstract

The paper investigates the spatial heterogeneity of public’s preferences for the implementation of a new country-wide forest management and protection program in Poland. Spatial econometric methods and high resolution geographical information system data related to forest characteristics are used to explain the variation in individual-specific willingness to pay (WTP) values, derived from a discrete choice experiment study. We find that respondents’ WTP is higher the closer they live to their nearest forest, and the scarcer forests are in the area where they live. Interestingly, the higher the ecological value of forests in respondents’ area, the more people prefer extending areas of national forest protection. We also investigate spatial patterns in individual-specific WTP scores and in latent class membership probabilities, finding that preferences are indeed spatially clustered. We argue that this clustering should be taken into account in forest management and policy-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikołaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Marek Giergiczny & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 705-727, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:68:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10640-016-0044-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-016-0044-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-016-0044-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-016-0044-0?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timmins, Christopher & Murdock, Jennifer, 2007. "A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 230-249, March.
    2. Danny Campbell & W George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 97-111, January.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Chiou, Lesley & Walker, Joan L., 2007. "Masking identification of discrete choice models under simulation methods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(2), pages 683-703, December.
    6. David A Hensher & William H Greene & John M Rose, 2006. "Deriving Willingness-to-Pay Estimates of Travel-Time Savings from Individual-Based Parameters," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(12), pages 2365-2376, December.
    7. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2014. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 324-351.
    8. Danny Campbell & Riccardo Scarpa & W. Hutchinson, 2008. "Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 117-126, December.
    9. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2013. "Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 78-86.
    10. 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.
    11. Christopher Timmins & Wolfram Schlenker, 2009. "Reduced-Form Versus Structural Modeling in Environmental and Resource Economics," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 351-380, September.
    12. Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Ladenburg, Jacob & Martinsen, Louise & Svenningsen, Stig Roar & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 58-66.
    13. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    14. I. Bateman & R. Brouwer & S. Ferrini & M. Schaafsma & D. Barton & A. Dubgaard & B. Hasler & S. Hime & I. Liekens & S. Navrud & L. De Nocker & R. Ščeponavičiūtė & D. Semėnienė, 2011. "Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across E," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 365-387, November.
    15. Munger, D. & L’Ecuyer, P. & Bastin, F. & Cirillo, C. & Tuffin, B., 2012. "Estimation of the mixed logit likelihood function by randomized quasi-Monte Carlo," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 305-320.
    16. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    18. Kenneth A. Baerenklau, 2010. "A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Endogenous Spatial Sorting in Zonal Recreation Demand Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 800-816.
    19. Termansen, Mette & Zandersen, Marianne & McClean, Colin J., 2008. "Spatial substitution patterns in forest recreation," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 81-97, January.
    20. Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y., 2011. "Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn’t Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. Guy Garrod & Ken Willis, 1992. "The amenity value of woodland in Great Britain: A comparison of economic estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(4), pages 415-434, July.
    22. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    23. Baerenklau, Kenneth A. & González-Cabán, Armando & Paez, Catrina & Chavez, Edgar, 2010. "Spatial allocation of forest recreation value," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 113-126, April.
    24. Nick Hanley & W. Douglass Shaw & Robert E. Wright (ed.), 2003. "The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2712.
    25. Felix Schläpfer & Nick Hanley, 2003. "Do Local Landscape Patterns Affect the Demand for Landscape Amenities Protection?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 21-34, March.
    26. 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)

    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. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    2. Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Urška Demšar & Nick Hanley, 2018. "Using Geographically Weighted Choice Models to Account for the Spatial Heterogeneity of Preferences," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 606-626, September.
    3. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    4. Cristiano Franceschinis & Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & John Rose & Michele Moretto & Raffaele Cavalli, 2016. "Exploring the Spatial Heterogeneity of Individual Preferences for Ambient Heating Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, May.
    5. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    6. Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2021. "Accounting for Spatial Heterogeneity of Preferences in Discrete Choice Models," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, March.
    7. Anthony PARIS & Pascal GASTINEAU & Pierre-Alexandre MAHIEU & Benoît CHEZE, 2020. "Citizen involvement in the energy transition: Highlighting the role played by the spatial heterogeneity of preferences in the public acceptance of biofuels," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2828, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    8. Bakhtiari, Fatemeh & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Strange, Niels & Boman, Mattias, 2018. "Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 11-20.
    9. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    10. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2016. "Local consequences of national policies - A spatial analysis of preferences for forest access reduction," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 68-77.
    11. Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(8), pages 1061-1076, December.
    12. Cécile Hérivaux & Philippe Le Coent, 2021. "Introducing Nature into Cities or Preserving Existing Peri-Urban Ecosystems? Analysis of Preferences in a Rapidly Urbanizing Catchment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-34, January.
    13. Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Ladenburg, Jacob & Martinsen, Louise & Svenningsen, Stig Roar & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 58-66.
    14. Artell, Janne & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2019. "Distance decay and regional statistics in international benefit transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Sandra Rousseau & Marieke Franck & Simon De Jaeger, 2020. "The Impact of Spatial Patterns in Road Traffic Externalities on Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 271-295, February.
    16. Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Klaus Glenk & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2014. "Choice modelling research in environmental and resource economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 27, pages 661-674, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2015. "Capturing More Relevant Measures of Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay: Using an Iterative Grid Search Algorithm to Quantify Proximate Environmental Impacts," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205450, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. DE VALCK, Jeremy & BROEKX, Steven & LIEKENS, Inge & DE NOCKER, Leo & VAN ORSHOVEN, Jos & VRANKEN, Liesbet, 2015. "Contrasting the collective social value of outdoor recreation and the substitutability of nature areas using hot spot mapping," Working Papers 208359, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    19. Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2018. "A Monte Carlo investigation of the effects of spatial heterogeneity of preferences for discrete choice models," Working Papers 2018-24, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    20. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "Reprint of ‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 283-294.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrete choice experiment; Contingent valuation; Willingness to pay; Spatial heterogeneity of preferences; Forest management; Passive protection; Litter; Tourist infrastructure; Mixed logit; Kriging; Spatial-lag;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kap:enreec:v:68:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10640-016-0044-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.