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

20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis

  • Lindhjem, Henrik

Stated preference (SP) surveys have been conducted to value non-timber benefits (NTBs) from forests in Norway, Sweden and Finland for about 20 years. The paper first reviews the literature and summarises methodological traditions in SP research in the three countries. Second, a meta-regression analysis is conducted explaining systematic variation in Willingness-to-Pay (WTP). Two important conclusions emerge, with relevance for future research: (1) WTP is found to be insensitive to the size of the forest, casting doubt on the use of simplified WTP/area measures for complex environmental goods; and (2) WTP tends to be higher if people are asked as individuals rather than on behalf of their household.

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://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11467/1/MPRA_paper_11467.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 11467.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 15 Sep 2006
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in Journal of Forest Economics 12.4(2007): pp. 251-277
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:11467
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

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. T. D. Stanley, 2001. "Wheat from Chaff: Meta-analysis as Quantitative Literature Review," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 131-150, Summer.
  2. Jon Strand, 2005. "Individual and Household Values of Mortality Reductions with Intrahousehold Bargaining," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 217-236, September.
  3. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, K. E., 2003. "Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 537-545, August.
  4. 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.
  5. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
  6. Ian J. Bateman & Andrew P. Jones, 2003. "Contrasting Conventional with Multi-Level Modeling Approaches to Meta-Analysis: Expectation Consistency in U.K. Woodland Recreation Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 235-258.
  7. Rekola, Mika & Pouta, Eija, 2005. "Public preferences for uncertain regeneration cuttings: a contingent valuation experiment involving Finnish private forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 635-649, May.
  8. 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.
  9. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
  10. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
  11. Loomis, John B. & White, Douglas S., 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 197-206, September.
  12. Weisten, K. & Hoen, H.F. & Navrud, S. & Strand, J., 1993. "Valuing Biodiversity in Norwegian Forests: A Contingent Valuation Study with Multiple Bias Testing," Memorandum 07/1993, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
  13. Alistair Munro & Ian J. Bateman, 2006. "Household versus individual valuation: what’s the difference?," Royal Holloway, University of London: Discussion Papers in Economics 06/02, Department of Economics, Royal Holloway University of London, revised Feb 2006.
  14. Woodward, Richard T. & Wui, Yong-Suhk, 2001. "The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 257-270, May.
  15. T. D. Stanley & Stephen B. Jarrell, 2005. "Meta-Regression Analysis: A Quantitative Method of Literature Surveys," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 299-308, 07.
  16. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
  17. Kniivilä, Matleena & Ovaskainen, Ville & Saastamoinen, Olli & Kniivilä, Matleena, 2002. "Costs and benefits of forest conservation: regional and local comparisons in Eastern Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 131-150.
  18. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
  19. Pouta, Eija, 2004. "Attitude and belief questions as a source of context effect in a contingent valuation survey," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 229-242, April.
  20. 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.
  21. Walsh, Richard G. & Johnson, Donn M. & McKean, John R., 1989. "Issues In Nonmarket Valuation And Policy Application: A Retrospective Glance," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(01), July.
  22. Ram Shrestha & John Loomis, 2003. "Meta-Analytic Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Economic Values: Testing Out-of-Sample Convergent Validity," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(1), pages 79-100, May.
  23. Shrestha, Ram K. & Loomis, John B., 2001. "Testing a meta-analysis model for benefit transfer in international outdoor recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 67-83, October.
  24. Stina Hökby & Tore Söderqvist, 2003. "Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(3), pages 361-383, November.
  25. Smith, V. Kerry & Osborne, Laura L., 1996. "Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 287-301, November.
  26. John Quiggin, 1998. "Individual and Household Willingness to Pay for Public Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 58-63.
  27. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
  28. Knut Veisten & Hans Hoen & Jon Strand, 2004. "Sequencing and the Adding-up Property in Contingent Valuation of Endangered Species: Are Contingent Non-Use Values Economic Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(4), pages 419-433, December.
  29. Knut Veisten & St�le Navrud, 2006. "Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: Assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(7), pages 735-756.
  30. V. Smith & Subhrendu Pattanayak, 2002. "Is Meta-Analysis a Noah's Ark for Non-Market Valuation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 271-296, June.
  31. Paul M. Jakus & Becky Stephens & J. Mark Fly, 2006. "Temporal Reliability in Contingent Valuation (with a Restrictive Research Budget)," Chapters, in: Handbook on Contingent Valuation, chapter 11 Edward Elgar.
  32. Sayman, Serdar & Onculer, Ayse, 2005. "Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA-WTP disparity: A meta analytical framework," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 289-312, April.
  33. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Loomis, John B., 2000. "Panel Stratification In Meta-Analysis Of Economic Studies: An Investigation Of Its Effects In The Recreation Valuation Literature," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 32(03), December.
  34. Chuan-Zhong Li, 1996. "Semiparametric Estimation of the Binary Choice Model for Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 462-473.
  35. Pouta, Eija, 2005. "Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 539-550, May.
  36. Li Chuan-Zhong & Mattsson Leif, 1995. "Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 256-269, March.
  37. Ovaskainen, Ville & Kniivila, Matleena, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), December.
  38. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
  39. Robert J. Johnston & Elena Y. Besedin & Richard Iovanna & Christopher J. Miller & Ryan F. Wardwell & Matthew H. Ranson, 2005. "Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Aquatic Resource Improvements and Implications for Benefit Transfer: A Meta-Analysis," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(2-3), pages 221-248, 06.
  40. Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  41. 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, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 361-374, 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:pra:mprapa:11467. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)

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.