IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sss/wpaper/2015-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management

Author

Listed:
  • Mikolaj Czajkowski

    () (University of Warsaw, Department of Economic Sciences, Poland)

  • Wiktor Budzinski

    () (University of Warsaw, Department of Economic Sciences, Poland)

  • Danny Campbell

    () (University of Stirling, Stirling Management School, Economics Division, UK)

  • Marek Giergiczny

    () (University of Warsaw, Department of Economic Sciences, Poland)

  • Nick Hanley

    () (Department of Geography and Sustainable Development, University of St. Andrews)

Abstract

The paper investigates spatial heterogeneity of the public’s preferences for the implementation of a new country-wide forest management and protection program in Poland. Spatial econometric methods and high resolution geographical information system (GIS) data related to forest characteristics are used to explain individual-specific willingness to pay (WTP) values, derived from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) study. We find that respondents’ WTP is higher the closer they live to their nearest forest, and the scarcer forests are in the area where they live. Interestingly, the more highly ecologically valuable forests in respondents’ area, the more they prefer extending areas of national forest protection. In addition, we investigate spatial patterns in individual-specific WTP scores and in latent class membership probabilities, finding that preferences are indeed spatially clustered. We argue that this clustering should be taken into account in both benefits analysis and policy-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikolaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budzinski & Danny Campbell & Marek Giergiczny & Nick Hanley, 2015. "Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2015-07, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
  • Handle: RePEc:sss:wpaper:2015-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/dept-of-geography-and-sustainable-development/pdf-s/DP%202015%2007%20Czajkowski%20et%20al.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timmins, Christopher & Murdock, Jennifer, 2007. "A revealed preference approach to the measurement of congestion in travel cost models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 230-249, March.
    2. Danny Campbell & W George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 41(1), pages 97-111, January.
    3. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    4. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 0(Issue 3), pages 1-30.
    5. Chiou, Lesley & Walker, Joan L., 2007. "Masking identification of discrete choice models under simulation methods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(2), pages 683-703, December.
    6. David A Hensher & William H Greene & John M Rose, 2006. "Deriving willingness-to-pay estimates of travel-time savings from individual-based parameters," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 38(12), pages 2365-2376, December.
    7. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2014. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 324-351.
    8. Danny Campbell & Riccardo Scarpa & W. Hutchinson, 2008. "Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 117-126, December.
    9. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2013. "Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 78-86.
    10. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    11. Christopher Timmins & Wolfram Schlenker, 2009. "Reduced-Form Versus Structural Modeling in Environmental and Resource Economics," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 351-380, September.
    12. Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Ladenburg, Jacob & Martinsen, Louise & Svenningsen, Stig Roar & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 58-66.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random-Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    16. Kenneth A. Baerenklau, 2010. "A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Endogenous Spatial Sorting in Zonal Recreation Demand Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 800-816.
    17. 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.
    18. Guy Garrod & Ken Willis, 1992. "The amenity value of woodland in Great Britain: A comparison of economic estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(4), pages 415-434, July.
    19. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    20. Baerenklau, Kenneth A. & González-Cabán, Armando & Paez, Catrina & Chavez, Edgar, 2010. "Spatial allocation of forest recreation value," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 113-126, April.
    21. Nick Hanley & W. Douglass Shaw & Robert E. Wright (ed.), 2003. "The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2712.
    22. Felix Schläpfer & Nick Hanley, 2003. "Do Local Landscape Patterns Affect the Demand for Landscape Amenities Protection?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 21-34.
    23. Garrod, Guy & Ruto, Eric & Willis, Ken & Powe, Neil, 2012. "Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 104-111.
    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. Myyrä, Sami, 2016. "Latent farmer groups in yield insurance markets and implications for policy measures," 156th Seminar, October 4, 2016, Wageningen, The Netherlands 249986, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marianne Zandersen & Uzma Aslam & Ioannis Angelidis & Thomas Becker & Wiktor Budziński & Katarzyna Zagórska, 2018. "Recreational Value of the Baltic Sea: a Spatially Explicit Site Choice Model Accounting for Environmental Conditions," Working Papers 2018-11, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    3. Sagebiel, Julian & Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "A simple method to account for spatially-different preferences in discrete choice experiments," 150th Seminar, October 22-23, 2015, Edinburgh, Scotland 212640, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Cristiano Franceschinis & Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & John Rose & Michele Moretto & Raffaele Cavalli, 2016. "Exploring the Spatial Heterogeneity of Individual Preferences for Ambient Heating Systems," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, May.
    5. repec:eee:forpol:v:93:y:2018:i:c:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    discrete choice experiment; contingent valuation; willingness to pay; spatial heterogeneity of preferences; forest management; passive protection; litter; tourist infrastructure; mixed logit; Kriging; spatial-lag;

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • 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:sss:wpaper:2015-07. 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: (Eoin McLaughlin). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/eestauk.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.