IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/kucawp/146522.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • De Valck, Jeremy
  • Vlaeminck, Pieter
  • Liekens, Inge
  • Aertsens, Joris
  • Chen, Wendy
  • Vranken, Liesbet

Abstract

An updated version of this working paper is published as: De Valck, J., Vlaeminck, P., Broekx, S., Liekens, I., Aertsens, J., Chen, W., and Vranken, L., (2014). Benefits of clearing forest plantations to restore nature? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 65–75. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.006

Suggested Citation

  • De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:kucawp:146522
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/146522
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R.K. Blamey & J.W. Bennett & J.J. Louviere & M.D. Morrison & J.C. Rolfe, 2002. "Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(2), pages 167-186, October.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, May.
    3. Vincent Colson & Serge Garcia & Jacques Rondeux & Philippe Lejeune, 2010. "Maps and determinants of woodland visiting in Wallonia," Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2010-03, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA.
    4. N. D. Hanley & R. J. Ruffell, 1993. "The Contingent Valuation Of Forest Characteristics: Two Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 218-229.
    5. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.
    6. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    7. Sergio Colombo & Javier Calatrava-Requena & Nick Hanley, 2007. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer with Preference Heterogeneity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 135-151.
    8. Pouta, Eija & Rekola, Mika & Kuuluvainen, Jari & Li, Chuan-Zhong & Tahvonen, Olli, 2002. "Willingness to pay in different policy-planning methods: insights into respondents' decision-making processes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 295-311, February.
    9. Andy Jones & Jan Wright & Ian Bateman & Marije Schaafsma, 2010. "Estimating Arrival Numbers for Informal Recreation: A Geographical Approach and Case Study of British Woodlands," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 2(2), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June.
    11. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    12. John Loomis & Armando Gonzalez-Caban & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(4), pages 499-506.
    13. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2007. "Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 807-814, September.
    14. Hausman, Jerry A. & Leonard, Gregory K. & McFadden, Daniel, 1995. "A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model Assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 1-30, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Thomas Broberg, 2010. "Income Treatment Effects in Contingent Valuation: The Case of the Swedish Predator Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 1-17, May.
    17. Ready, Richard C. & Malzubris, J nis & Senkane, Silva, 2002. "The relationship between environmental values and income in a transition economy: surface water quality in Latvia," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(01), pages 147-156, February.
    18. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    19. Roy Brouwer & Frank Spaninks, 1999. "The Validity of Environmental Benefits Transfer: Further Empirical Testing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 95-117, July.
    20. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R. & Stein, Taylor V. & Carter, Douglas R. & Denny, Christine B., 2002. "Visitor Preferences And Values For Water-Based Recreation: A Case Study Of The Ocala National Forest," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(03), December.
    21. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    22. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, March.
    23. Jacob A. Mincer, 1974. "Schooling, Experience, and Earnings," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number minc74-1.
    24. Atakelty Hailu & Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall, 2000. "Complements, Substitutes, Budget Constraints and Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(1), pages 51-68, May.
    25. Englin, Jeffrey & Mendelsohn, Robert, 1991. "A hedonic travel cost analysis for valuation of multiple components of site quality: The recreation value of forest management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 275-290, November.
    26. Pepermans, Guido, 2011. "Do Flemish Households Value Renewables?," Working Papers 2011/05, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    27. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Louviere, Jordan, 2002. "Stated values and reminders of substitute goods: Testing for framing effects with choice modelling," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(1), March.
    28. Stenger, Anne & Harou, Patrice & Navrud, Ståle, 2009. "Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 1-14, January.
    29. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083.
    30. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
    31. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2006. "Directional heterogeneity in distance profiles in hedonic property value models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 26-45, January.
    32. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    33. Jacob A. Mincer, 1974. "Introduction to "Schooling, Experience, and Earnings"," NBER Chapters,in: Schooling, Experience, and Earnings, pages 1-4 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    34. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Conzalex-Roa, M.C., 2005. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24747, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    35. Richard Blundell & Lorraine Dearden & Barbara Sianesi, 2005. "Evaluating the effect of education on earnings: models, methods and results from the National Child Development Survey," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(3), pages 473-512.
    36. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    37. 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.
    38. Luzar, E. Jane & Cosse, Kelli J., 1998. "Willingness to pay or intention to pay: The attitude-behavior relationship in contingent valuation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 427-444.
    39. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    40. Elena Ojea & Paulo Nunes & Maria Loureiro, 2010. "Mapping Biodiversity Indicators and Assessing Biodiversity Values in Global Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 329-347, November.
    41. Riccardo Scarpa & Susanne Menzel, 2005. "Protection Motivation Theory and Contingent Valuation: Perceived Realism, Threat and WTP Estimates for Biodiversity Protection," Working Papers 2005.26, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    42. 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.
    43. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Needham, Mark D. & Morzillo, Anita T. & Moehrke, Caitlin, 2012. "Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 271-281.
    44. Chuan-zhong Li & Jari Kuuluvainen & Eija Pouta & Mika Rekola & Olli Tahvonen, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 361-374, November.
    45. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    46. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    47. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    48. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    49. John B. Loomis, 2000. "Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 312-321.
    50. Turner, R. Kerry & Paavola, Jouni & Cooper, Philip & Farber, Stephen & Jessamy, Valma & Georgiou, Stavros, 2003. "Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 493-510, October.
    51. 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.
    52. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    53. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R. & Stein, Taylor V. & Carter, Douglas R. & Denny, Christine B., 2002. "Visitor Preferences and Values for Water-Based Recreation: A Case Study of the Ocala National Forest," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(03), pages 547-559, December.
    54. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    choice experiment; nature; restoration; ecosystem services; preference heterogeneity; Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:kucawp:146522. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/alkulbe.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.