IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0616.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Divergence in Stakeholders’ Preferences: Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Forest Landscapes Preferences in Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Nordén, Anna

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

  • Coria, Jessica

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

  • Jönsson, Anna Maria

    (Lund University)

  • Lagergren, Fredrik

    (Lund University)

  • Lehsten, Veiko

    (Lund University)

Abstract

A great deal of biodiversity can be found in private forests, and protecting it requires taking into consideration the preferences of key stakeholders. In this study, we examine and compare the valuation of forest attributes across the general public, private non-industrial forest owners and forest officials in Sweden by conducting a choice experiment. Our results indicate that citizens have a positive valuation of biodiversity protection. Moreover, their valuation is statistically higher than those of forest owners, implying that there is room for compensation. Interestingly, our results suggest that both forest owners and forest officials have a strong orientation towards production, with higher valuation than the general public of the common management practice of similar age and clear felling. Even though the Swedish Forestry Act regards production and environmental goals as equally important, we find that forest officials prefer management practices that promote production rather than biodiversity protection.

Suggested Citation

  • Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2015. "Divergence in Stakeholders’ Preferences: Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Forest Landscapes Preferences in Sweden," Working Papers in Economics 616, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0616
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/38408
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Danny Campbell & Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2014. "Heterogeneity in the WTP for recreational access: distributional aspects," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(8), pages 1200-1219, August.
    2. Per-Olov Johansson, 1996. "Commodity prices as payment vehicles in valuation experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(2), pages 247-254, September.
    3. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Collins, Andrew T., 2016. "On determining priors for the generation of efficient stated choice experimental designs," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 10-14.
    4. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    5. Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 94-103.
    6. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    7. Johansson, Johanna & Lidestav, Gun, 2011. "Can voluntary standards regulate forestry? -- Assessing the environmental impacts of forest certification in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 191-198, March.
    8. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    9. Gritten, David & Mola-Yudego, Blas & Delgado-Matas, Cristóbal & Kortelainen, Jarmo, 2013. "A quantitative review of the representation of forest conflicts across the world: Resource periphery and emerging patterns," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 11-20.
    10. 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.
    11. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    12. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
    13. Fischer, Joern & Abson, David J. & Butsic, Van & Chappell, M. Jahi & Ekroos, Johan & Hanspach, Jan & Kuemmerle, Tobias & Smith, Henrik G. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2014. "Land sparing versus land sharing: Moving forward," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(3), pages 149-157.
    14. William H. Greene & David A. Hensher, 2013. "Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1897-1902, May.
    15. Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Henrik Jaldell, 2012. "Do administrators have the same priorities for risk reductions as the general public?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 79-95, August.
    16. Louise Eriksson & Annika M. Nordlund & Kerstin Westin, 2013. "The general public's support for forest policy in Sweden: a value belief approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(6), pages 850-867, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    19. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Villalobos, Laura, 2016. "Evaluation of the Impact of Forest Certification on Environmental Outcomes in Sweden," Working Papers in Economics 657, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    20. 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.
    21. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    22. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    23. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2001. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 203-222, November.
    24. Ovaskainen, Ville & Neuvonen, Marjo & Pouta, Eija, 2012. "Modelling recreation demand with respondent-reported driving cost and stated cost of travel time: A Finnish case," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 303-317.
    25. 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.
    26. Mario Soliño & Begoña A Farizo, 2014. "Personal Traits Underlying Environmental Preferences: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-7, February.
    27. Varela, Elsa & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Giergiczny, Marek & Riera, Pere & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Testing the single opt-out reminder in choice experiments: An application to fuel break management in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 212-222.
    28. Gregory L. Poe & Eric K. Severance-Lossin & Michael P. Welsh, 1994. "Measuring the Difference (X — Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 904-915.
    29. Abbie A. Rogers, 2013. "Public and Expert Preference Divergence: Evidence from a Choice Experiment of Marine Reserves in Australia," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 346-370.
    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. Danley, Brian & Bjärstig, Therese & Sandström, Camilla, 2021. "At the limit of volunteerism? Swedish family forest owners and two policy strategies to increase forest biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    2. Riccardo Scarpa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2017. "A Monte Carlo Evaluation of the Logit-Mixed Logit under Asymmetry and Multimodality," Working Papers in Economics 17/23, University of Waikato.
    3. Augustynczik, Andrey Lessa Derci & Gutsch, Martin & Basile, Marco & Suckow, Felicitas & Lasch, Petra & Yousefpour, Rasoul & Hanewinkel, Marc, 2020. "Socially optimal forest management and biodiversity conservation in temperate forests under climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    4. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2018. "Difference in Preferences or Multiple Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 131-141.
    5. Lodin, Isak & Brukas, Vilis, 2021. "Ideal vs real forest management: Challenges in promoting production-oriented silvicultural ideals among small-scale forest owners in southern Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    6. Takuya Takahashi & Takahiro Tsuge & Shingo Shibata, 2022. "Innovativeness of Japanese Forest Owners Regarding the Monetization of Forest Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-11, February.
    7. Viola Di Cori & Cristiano Franceschinis & Nicolas Robert & Davide Matteo Pettenella & Mara Thiene, 2021. "Moral Foundations and Willingness to Pay for Non-Wood Forest Products: A Study in Three European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Marr, Eric Joseph & Howley, Peter, 2018. "Woodlots, wetlands or wheat fields? Agri-environmental land allocation preferences of stakeholder organisations in England and Ontario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 673-681.
    9. Raviv, Orna & Tchetchik, Anat & Lotan, Alon & Izhaki, Ido & Zemah Shamir, Shiri, 2021. "Direct and indirect valuation of air-quality regulation service as reflected in the preferences towards distinct types of landscape in a biosphere reserve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    10. Bondemark, Anders & Andersson, Henrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2023. "Do the distributional preferences of national infrastructure planners diverge from those of the public?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    11. Breyne, Johanna & Dufrêne, Marc & Maréchal, Kevin, 2021. "How integrating 'socio-cultural values' into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    12. Zhaohui Zhang & Krishna P. Paudel & Kamal Upadhyaya, 2023. "Preference for rural living environment improvement initiatives in China," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 82(1), pages 61-78, January.
    13. Morello, Thiago & Anderson, Liana & Silva, Sonaira, 2022. "Innovative fire policy in the Amazon: A statistical Hicks-Kaldor analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    14. Degnet, Mohammed B. & Hansson, Helena & Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke A. & Roos, Anders, 2022. "The role of personal values and personality traits in environmental concern of non-industrial private forest owners in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    15. Acharya, Ram Prasad & Maraseni, Tek & Cockfield, Geoff, 2020. "Assessing the financial contribution and carbon emission pattern of provisioning ecosystem services in Siwalik forests in Nepal: Valuation from the perspectives of disaggregated users," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    16. Baker, K. & Baylis, K. & Bull, G.Q. & Barichello, R., 2019. "Are non-market values important to smallholders' afforestation decisions? A psychometric segmentation and its implications for afforestation programs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 1-13.
    17. Lagergren, Fredrik & Jönsson, Anna Maria, 2017. "Ecosystem model analysis of multi-use forestry in a changing climate," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 209-224.
    18. Gandino, E., 2018. "Co-designing the solution space for rural regeneration in a new World Heritage site: A Choice Experiments approachAuthor-Name: Ferretti, V," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1077-1091.
    19. Hoogstra-Klein, M.A. & Brukas, V. & Wallin, I., 2017. "Multiple-use forestry as a boundary object: From a shared ideal to multiple realities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 247-258.

    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. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    2. Varela, Elsa & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Giergiczny, Marek & Riera, Pere & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Testing the single opt-out reminder in choice experiments: An application to fuel break management in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 212-222.
    3. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    4. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2018. "Difference in Preferences or Multiple Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 131-141.
    5. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.
    6. Martínez-Jauregui, María & White, Piran C.L. & Touza, Julia & Soliño, Mario, 2019. "Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    9. Choi, Andy S., 2011. "Implicit prices for longer temporary exhibitions in a heritage site and a test of preference heterogeneity: A segmentation-based approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 511-519.
    10. 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).
    11. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and decision-rule effect in modelling discrete directional choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-388.
    12. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    13. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    14. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    15. Zhao, Xiaoli & Cai, Qiong & Li, Shujie & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Public preferences for biomass electricity in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 242-253.
    16. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2004. "Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare - transportation of farm animals to slaughter versus the use of mobile abattoirs," Working Papers in Economics 149, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    17. 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.
    18. Nthambi, Mary & Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2021. "Quantifying Loss of Benefits from Poor Governance of Climate Change Adaptation Projects: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Farmers in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    19. 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).
    20. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2022. "The relative performance of ex‐ante and ex‐post measures to mitigate hypothetical and strategic bias in a stated preference study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 845-873, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    biodiversity; choice experiment; forest; preference divergence;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government 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:hhs:gunwpe:0616. 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: Ann-Christin Räätäri Nyström (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/naiguse.html .

    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.