IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/war/wpaper/2017-09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Bilateral Conservation Policies for the Białowieża Forest Unattainable? Analysis of Stated Preferences of Polish and Belarusian Public

Author

Listed:
  • Sviataslau Valasiuk

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Mikołaj Czajkowski

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Marek Giergiczny

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Tomasz Żylicz

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Knut Veisten

    (Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo)

  • Marine Elbakidze

    (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; Forest-Landscape-Society Network)

  • Per Angelstam

    (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; Forest-Landscape-Society Network)

Abstract

Transboundary nature protected areas constitute a considerable proportion of all the existing spatial forms of biodiversity protection. There is a considerable literature on allocation of funds to preserving nature shared by several countries, though less research on the economic benefits that citizens attach to protected transboundary land nature on the other side of the border. We are trying to find out and compare preferences towards increased protection of domestic and foreign segments of the Białowieża Forest, stated by samples of Polish and Belarusian citizens. Whilst Poles on average are willing to pay for an increased passive protection, on their side of the border, most Belarusians seem to be satisfied with the status quo. There is even an apparent mutual disutility derived from the perspective of co-financing bilateral passive protection programmes in the Białowieża Forest. The results can to some extent be explained by a strict border division, by differences in welfare or by behavioural reasons.

Suggested Citation

  • Sviataslau Valasiuk & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & Tomasz Żylicz & Knut Veisten & Marine Elbakidze & Per Angelstam, 2017. "Are Bilateral Conservation Policies for the Białowieża Forest Unattainable? Analysis of Stated Preferences of Polish and Belarusian Public," Working Papers 2017-09, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
  • Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2017-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/index.php/download_file/3409/
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thiene, Mara & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & De Salvo, Maria, 2012. "Scale and taste heterogeneity for forest biodiversity: Models of serial nonparticipation and their effects," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 355-369.
    2. Richard T. Carson & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 1993. "The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(5), pages 1263-1267.
    3. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    4. Heini Ahtiainen & Janne Artell & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Berit Hasler & Linus Hasselström & Anni Huhtala & Jürgen Meyerhoff & James C.R. Smart & Tore Söderqvist & Mohammed H. Alemu & Daija Angeli & Kim D, 2014. "Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction targets for the Baltic Sea - a contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 278-305, November.
    5. Margot Lutzenhiser & Noelwah R. Netusil, 2001. "The Effect Of Open Spaces On A Home'S Sale Price," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 19(3), pages 291-298, July.
    6. 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. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    7. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Buszko-Briggs, Malgorzata & Hanley, Nick, 2009. "Valuing changes in forest biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2910-2917, October.
    8. Rollins, Kimberly & Lyke, Audrey, 1998. "The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 324-344, November.
    9. Semmens, Darius J. & Diffendorfer, James E. & López-Hoffman, Laura & Shapiro, Carl D., 2011. "Accounting for the ecosystem services of migratory species: Quantifying migration support and spatial subsidies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2236-2242.
    10. Busch, Jonah, 2008. "Gains from configuration: The transboundary protected area as a conservation tool," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 394-404, October.
    11. Markowska, Agnieszka & Zylicz, Tomasz, 1999. "Costing an international public good: the case of the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 301-316, August.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, October.
    15. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
    16. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    17. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    18. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    19. Ahtiainen, Heini & Artell, Janne & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hasler, Berit & Hasselström, Linus & Hyytiäinen, Kari & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Smart, James C.R. & Söderqvist, Tore & Zimmer, Katrin & Khaleeva, J, 2013. "Public preferences regarding use and condition of the Baltic Sea—An international comparison informing marine policy," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 20-30.
    20. Élodie Brahic & Tina Rambonilaza, 2015. "The impact of information on public preferences for forest biodiversity preservation: a split-sample test with choice experiment method," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 125(2), pages 253-275.
    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. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    2. Vogdrup-Schmidt, Mathias & Abatayo, Anna Lou & Shogren, Jason F. & Strange, Niels & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Factors Affecting Support for Transnational Conservation Targeting Migratory Species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 156-164.
    3. Per Angelstam & Michael Manton & Taras Yamelynets & Ole Jakob Sørensen & Svetlana V. Kondrateva (Stepanova), 2020. "Landscape Approach towards Integrated Conservation and Use of Primeval Forests: The Transboundary Kovda River Catchment in Russia and Finland," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-27, May.
    4. Michael Manton & Evaldas Makrickas & Piotr Banaszuk & Aleksander Kołos & Andrzej Kamocki & Mateusz Grygoruk & Marta Stachowicz & Leonas Jarašius & Nerijus Zableckis & Jūratė Sendžikaitė & Jan Peters &, 2021. "Assessment and Spatial Planning for Peatland Conservation and Restoration: Europe’s Trans-Border Neman River Basin as a Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-27, February.
    5. Bakhtiari, Fatemeh & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Strange, Niels & Boman, Mattias, 2018. "Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 11-20.

    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    4. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    8. Sarfo, Yaw & Musshoff, Oliver & Weber, Ron & Danne, Michael, 2021. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Digital Credit: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Madagascar," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315029, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    10. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    11. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2011. "Advances in Discrete Choice: Mixture Models," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Houessionon, P. & Fonta, W. M. & Bossa, A. Y. & Sanfo, S. & Thiombiano, N. & Zahonogo, P. & Yameogo, T. B. & Balana, Bedru, "undated". "Economic valuation of ecosystem services from small-scale agricultural management interventions in Burkina Faso: a discrete choice experiment approach," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048370, International Water Management Institute.
    13. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato & Federico Nassivera & Maria Bugatti & Biancamaria Torquati, 2019. "Consumers Demand for Social Farming Products: An Analysis with Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, November.
    15. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    16. Kristine Pakalniete & Juris Aigars & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Solvita Strake & Ewa Zawojska & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Understanding the distribution of economic benefits from improving coastal and marine ecosystems," Working Papers 2016-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    17. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and decision-rule effect in modelling discrete directional choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-388.
    18. Rigby, Dan & Burton, Michael & Balcombe, Kelvin & Bateman, Ian & Mulatu, Abay, 2015. "Contract cheating & the market in essays," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 23-37.
    19. Faustin, Vidogbèna & Adégbidi, Anselme A. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Koudandé, Delphin O. & Agbo, Valentin & Zander, Kerstin K., 2010. "Peace, health or fortune?: Preferences for chicken traits in rural Benin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1848-1857, July.
    20. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    transboundary nature protected areas; passive protection; discrete choice experiment; willingness-to-pay; latent class model;
    All these keywords.

    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
    • 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:war:wpaper:2017-09. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.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 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: Marcin Bąba (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.html .

    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.