IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qed/wpaper/849.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Valuation of Forest characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Hanley
  • Robin Ruffell

Abstract

Most work on valuing the recreational benefits of public forests has concentrated on arriving at consumers surplus per visit figures, using either the travel cost method, or contingent valuation. We use both methods to try and explain the variation in consumers surplus across different forest types, by placing values on the physical characteristics of individual forests. These characteristics are also used to explain total visits to a given forest. Both maximum likelihood and ordinary least squares estimates are presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Hanley & Robin Ruffell, 1992. "The Valuation of Forest characteristics," Working Paper 849, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    • Handle: RePEc:qed:wpaper:849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/working_papers/papers/qed_wp_849.pdf
    File Function: First version 1992
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Bergstrom & John R. Stoll & Alan Randall, 1990. "The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 614-621.
    2. 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.
    3. John C. Bergstrom & John R. Stoll & Alan Randall, 1989. "Information Effects in Contingent Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(3), pages 685-691.
    4. Brown, Gardner M, Jr & Mendelsohn, Robert, 1984. "The Hedonic Travel Cost Method," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 66(3), pages 427-433, August.
    5. Hanley, Nick & Craig, Stephen, 1991. "Wilderness development decisions and the Krutilla-Fisher model: The case of Scotland's 'flow country'," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 145-164, November.
    6. V. Kerry Smith & Yoshiaki Kaoru, 1987. "The Hedonic Travel Cost Model: A View from the Trenches," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(2), pages 179-192.
    7. 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.
    8. Kevin J. Boyle, 1989. "Commodity Specification and the Framing of Contingent-Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(1), pages 57-63.
    9. V. Kerry Smith & Yoshiaki Kaoru, 1990. "Signals or Noise? Explaining the Variation in Recreation Benefit Estimates," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(2), pages 419-433.
    10. Bell, Frederick W. & Leeworthy, Vernon R., 1990. "Recreational demand by tourists for saltwater beach days," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 189-205, May.
    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. Nillesen, Eleonora & Wesseler, Justus & Cook, Averil, 2003. "Correcting for multiple destination trips in recreational use values using a mean-value approach; An application to Bellenden Ker National Park, Australia," Mansholt Working Papers 46733, Wageningen University, Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences.
    2. Timo Kuosmanen & Eleonora Nillesen & Justus Wesseler, 2004. "Does ignoring multidestination trips in the travel cost method cause a systematic bias?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(4), pages 629-651, December.
    3. 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, May.
    4. Serge Garcia & Julien Jacob, 2010. "La valeur récréative de la forêt en France : une approche par les coûts de déplacement," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 91(1), pages 43-71.
    5. Marianne Zandersen & Mette Termansen & Frank S. Jensen, 2005. "Benefit Transfer over Time of Ecosystem Values: the Case of Forest Recreation," Working Papers FNU-61, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Mar 2005.
    6. Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen, 2007. "Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 75-102, August.
    7. Zandersen, Marianne & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 109-130, January.

    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. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.
    2. 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, May.
    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. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2006. "Information, Wildlife Valuation, Conservation: Experiments And Policy," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 144-159, January.
    5. Randall, Alan & Hoehn, John P., 2000. "Valuing Injury To Natural Resources: The Effect Of Resource Quality Information On Perceptions And Contingent Values," Staff Paper Series 11507, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    6. Ribaudo, Marc O. & Hellerstein, Daniel, 1992. "Estimating Water Quality Benefits: Theoretical and Methodological Issues," Technical Bulletins 157031, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Nick Hanley & Clive Spash & Lorna Walker, 1995. "Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 249-272, April.
    8. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Whitehead, John C., 1998. "Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 179-196, June.
    10. W. George Hutchinson & Susan M. Chilton & John Davis, 1995. "Measuring Non‐Use Value Of Environmental Goods Using The Contingent Valuation Method: Problems Of Information And Cognition And The Application Of Cognitive Questionnaire Design Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 97-112, January.
    11. Lew, Daniel K., 1999. "Multi-Purpose Trip Valuation in Recreation Demand Models: Some Methodological Approaches," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 271486, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Bennett, Richard & Blaney, Ralph, 2002. "Social consensus, moral intensity and willingness to pay to address a farm animal welfare issue," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 501-520, August.
    13. Tanguay, Mark & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 1995. "An Economic Evaluation of Woodland Caribou Conservation Programs in Northwestern Saskatchewan," Project Report Series 24039, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    14. Nick Hanley, 1992. "Are there environmental limits to cost benefit analysis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 33-59, January.
    15. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    16. Alhassan, Mustapha & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Schoengold, Karina, 2017. "Effects of Information Framing on Smallholder Irrigation Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Groundwater Protection: The Case of Vea Irrigation Scheme in Ghana," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    18. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2020. "Nudging Acceptability for Wood Ash Recycling in Forests: A Choice Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    19. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    20. Salvador Barrios & Juan Nicolas Ibañez Rivas, 2013. "Tourism demand, climatic conditions and transport costs: an integrated analysis for EU regions," JRC Research Reports JRC80898, Joint Research Centre.

    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:qed:wpaper:849. 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: Mark Babcock (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/qedquca.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.