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

Valuing Changes in Forest Biodiversity

  • Buszko-Briggs, Malgorzata
  • Czajkowski, Mikolaj
  • Hanley, Nicholas

The paper offers an innovative approach to valuation of biodiversity. Instead of the prevailing approach of using only one indicator of biodiversity (usually number of species) we provide evidence that it is possible to provide attributes describing complex characteristics of biodiversity based on sound ecological knowledge. We argue that our approach managed to value the multi‐level changes in the biological diversity, by using the attributes which described structural, species and functional diversity at the same time. Our study shows that it even complex indicators of multi‐level biodiversity might be successfully communicated to respondents in a comprehensible and meaningful way. The empirical application of the method is provided based on a choice experiment study conducted in Białowieża Forest, Poland. The results underline the importance to use multilevel indicators and question validity of only species‐level indicators. Interestingly, the respondents appreciated passive protection regimes, resulting in preservation of natural ecological processes. In addition, the respondents seemed to be concerned by means, and not only the results of protection programmes. Finally, some conclusions for future applications and policy making are drawn.

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://hdl.handle.net/1893/570
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Stirling, Division of Economics in its series Stirling Economics Discussion Papers with number 2008-17.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Jul 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:stl:stledp:2008-17
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Division of Economics, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland FK9 4LA

Phone: +44 (0)1786 467473
Fax: +44 (0)1786 467469
Web page: http://www.econ.stir.ac.uk/

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. 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.
  2. Garrod, G. D. & Willis, K. G., 1997. "The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 45-61, April.
  3. Hanley, Nicholas & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2008. "Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation?," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-03, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  4. David Pearce, 2007. "Do we really care about Biodiversity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 313-333, May.
  5. Małgorzata Buszko-Briggs & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2008. "Valuing Changes in Forest Biodiversity," Working Papers 2008-02, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
  6. Nijkamp, Peter & Vindigni, Gabriella & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2008. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: A comparative study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 217-231, September.
  7. Hensher, David A. & Greene, William H., 2002. "Specification and estimation of the nested logit model: alternative normalisations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-17, January.
  8. Sergio Colombo & Javier Calatrava-Requena & Nick Hanley, 2007. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer with Preference Heterogeneity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 135-151.
  9. 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.
  10. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Conzalex-Roa, M.C., 2005. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24747, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  11. Hanemann, W. Michael, 1982. "Applied Welfare Analysis with Qualitative Response Models," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt7982f0k8, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
  12. Heberlein, Thomas A. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Schaeffer, Nora Cate, 2005. "Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-22, July.
  13. Bartczak, Anna & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle & Zandersen, Marianne & Zylicz, Tomasz, 2008. "Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: The case of Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(7-8), pages 467-472, October.
  14. E. Roy Weintraub & Evelyn L. Forget, 2007. "Introduction," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 39(5), pages 1-6, Supplemen.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-33, March.
  18. Jette Jacobsen & John Boiesen & Bo Thorsen & Niels Strange, 2008. "What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 247-263, March.
  19. Edward B. Barbier, 2007. "Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 22, pages 177-229, 01.
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:stl:stledp:2008-17. 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: (Liam Delaney)

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.