IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sgc/wpaper/80.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing New Forest Sites over Time: the Case of Afforestation and Recreation in Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Marianne Zandersen
  • Mette Termansen
  • Frank S. Jensen

Abstract

We estimate changes in the total recreative value over a 20 year time period of a large newly established forest, using mixed specification of a random utility models and geographic information system. The models are estimated using data from two identical surveys in 1977 and 1997. We conduct three different spatial value transfers and test these on the new forest. Results suggest that the new forest increased the recreative value nearly 70 times over the 20 years, primarily due the maturing of the forest and changed patterns of behaviour. The value transfer to the new forest range between an underestimate of 57% and an overestimate of 349%, depending on the sampling of the choice set used as study sites in the transfer.

Suggested Citation

  • Marianne Zandersen & Mette Termansen & Frank S. Jensen, 2005. "Valuing New Forest Sites over Time: the Case of Afforestation and Recreation in Denmark," Working Papers FNU-80, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Aug 2005.
    • Handle: RePEc:sgc:wpaper:80
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/Workingpaper80.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2005
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoshiaki Kaoru & V. Kerry Smith & Jin Long Liu, 1995. "Using Random Utility Models to Estimate the Recreational Value of Estuarine Resources," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(1), pages 141-151.
    2. Kling, Catherine L. & Bockstael, Nancy & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1987. "Estimating the Value of Water Quality Improvements in a Recreational Demand Framework," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1594, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Peter Feather & Daniel Hellerstein, 1997. "Calibrating Benefit Function Transfer to Assess the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 151-162.
    4. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
    10. Mette Termansen & Colin J McClean & Hans Skov-Petersen, 2004. "Recreational Site Choice Modelling Using High-Resolution Spatial Data," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(6), pages 1085-1099, June.
    11. Downing, Mark & Ozuna, Teofilo Jr., 1996. "Testing the Reliability of the Benefit Function Transfer Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 316-322, May.
    12. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    13. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    14. Kirchhoff, Stefanie & Colby, Bonnie G. & LaFrance, Jeffrey T., 1997. "Evaluating the Performance of Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Inquiry," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 75-93, May.
    15. Dadi Kristofersson & Ståle Navrud, 2005. "Validity Tests of Benefit Transfer – Are We Performing the Wrong Tests?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 279-286, March.
    16. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 1996. "Count Data Models and the Problem of Zeros in Recreation Demand Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 89-102.
    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. Zandersen, Marianne & Termansen, Mette & Jensen, Frank S., 2007. "Evaluating approaches to predict recreation values of new forest sites," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 103-128, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Genty, Aurélien, 2005. "Du concept à la fiabilité de la méthode du transfert en économie de l’environnement : un état de l’art," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 77.
    4. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.
    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. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Stanley, Tom D., 2006. "Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 372-378, December.
    7. Brander, Luke M. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Kuik, Onno & Markandya, Anil & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Schaafsma, Marije & Wagtendonk, Alfred, 2010. "Scaling up Ecosystem Services Values: Methodology, Applicability and a Case Study," Sustainable Development Papers 60689, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    8. McArthur, David Philip & Kleppe, Gisle & Thorsen, Inge & Ubøe, Jan, 2011. "The spatial transferability of parameters in a gravity model of commuting flows," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 596-605.
    9. Jeong, Hyojin & Haab, Timothy C., 2004. "The Economic Value Of Marine Recreational Fishing: Applying Benefit Transfer To Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (Mrfss)," Working Papers 28322, Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics.
    10. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2007. "What Determines Prediction Errors In "Benefits Transfer" Models?," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7967, Agricultural Economics Society.
    11. Stellin, Giuseppe & Candido, Alice, 2006. "The Transfer of Benefit Measures: The Applicability Conditions and the Results," Conference Papers 6627, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    12. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2010. "Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 205-216, August.
    13. Rosenberger, Randall S., 2001. "Testing the Validity of Benefit Transfers: A Site Correspondence Model," Western Region Archives 321686, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    14. Termansen, Mette & McClean, Colin J. & Jensen, Frank Søndergaard, 2013. "Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 48-57.
    15. Kim, Sooil & Haab, Timothy C., 2005. "Generalized Estimation Methods for Non-i.i.d. Binary Data: An Application to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19138, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. 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.
    17. Gebeyehu Fetene & Søren Olsen & Ole Bonnichsen, 2014. "Disentangling the Pure Time Effect From Site and Preference Heterogeneity Effects in Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Investigation of Transferability," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(4), pages 583-611, December.
    18. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    19. Chris Dumas & Pete Schuhmann & John C. Whitehead, 2004. "Measuring the Economic Benefits of Water Quality Improvement with the Benefit Transfer Method: An Introduction for Non-Economists," Working Papers 04-12, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    recreation; random utility model; GIS;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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

    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:sgc:wpaper:80. 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: Uwe Schneider (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zmhamde.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.