IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ssfesf/199242.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of tree disease mitigation: what are people willing to pay for, and what do they actually get?

Author

Listed:
  • Price, C.

Abstract

Some problems found in stated preference approaches to environmental valuation are particularly serious in valuing tree disease. Respondents seem to include regulating and supporting service values, which they are ill-qualified to do. Cultural service values for respondents are distorted by the questionnaire itself, making them invalid for the population over whom valuations are aggregated. The element of citizen valuation can be captured in contingent referenda, but this too tends to include inappropriate elements. More reliable benefit estimates are derivable from actual day-to-day purchase of cultural services, transferred to the context of tree disease.

Suggested Citation

  • Price, C., 2014. "Perceptions of tree disease mitigation: what are people willing to pay for, and what do they actually get?," 2014, Number 45, May 22-24, 2014, Uppsala, Sweden, Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, vol. 2014(45), pages 1-8, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ssfesf:199242
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.199242
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/199242/files/Price_%20C.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.199242?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ovaskainen, Ville & Kniivila, Matleena, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1-16.
    2. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Thomas D. Crocker, 1985. "On the Value of the Condition of a Forest Stock," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 64(3), pages 244-254.
    4. Ville Ovaskainen & Matleena Kniivilä, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 379-394, December.
    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. Hjerpe, Evan & Hussain, Anwar & Phillips, Spencer, 2015. "Valuing type and scope of ecosystem conservation: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 32-50.
    2. van der Pol, Thomas & Weikard, Hans-Peter & van Ierland, Ekko, 2012. "Can altruism stabilise international climate agreements?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 112-120.
    3. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2010. "Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 357-369, June.
    4. Bethany Cooper & Michael Burton & Lin Crase, 2019. "Willingness to Pay to Avoid Water Restrictions in Australia Under a Changing Climate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 823-847, March.
    5. Marina Farr & Natalie Stoeckl & Michelle Esparon & Silva Larson & Diane Jarvis, 2016. "The Importance of Water Clarity to Great Barrier Reef Tourists and Their Willingness to Pay to Improve it," Tourism Economics, , vol. 22(2), pages 331-352, April.
    6. Tienhaara, Annika & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2015. "Consumer and citizen roles and motives in the valuation of agricultural genetic resources in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Price, Colin, 8. "Superficial citizens and sophisticated consumers: what questions," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 41, May.
    8. Camila Balbontin & David A. Hensher & Chinh Ho & Corinne Mulley, 2020. "Do preferences for BRT and LRT change as a voter, citizen, tax payer, or self-interested resident?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 2981-3030, December.
    9. Kniivila, Matleena, 2006. "Users and non-users of conservation areas: Are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 530-539, October.
    10. Goff, Sandra H. & Waring, Timothy M. & Noblet, Caroline L., 2017. "Does Pricing Nature Reduce Monetary Support for Conservation?: Evidence From Donation Behavior in an Online Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 119-126.
    11. Sauer, Uta & Fischer, Anke, 2010. "Willingness to pay, attitudes and fundamental values -- On the cognitive context of public preferences for diversity in agricultural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-9, November.
    12. Jane L. Harrison & Alexandra Naumenko & John C. Whitehead, 2021. "Attribute Nonattendance And Citizen Preferences For Ecosystem‐Based Fisheries Management: The Case Of Atlantic Menhaden," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 310-324, April.
    13. Lindhjem, Henrik, 2007. "20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 251-277, February.
    14. Lydia Chikumbi & Milan Scasny, "undated". "Does ‘price framing’ influence empirical estimates in Discrete Choice Experiments: The case study for the South African wine industry," Working Papers 878, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    15. Franklin Bailey Norwood & Glynn Tonsor & Jayson L Lusk, 2019. "I Will Give You My Vote but Not My Money: Preferences for Public versus Private Action in Addressing Social Issues," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 96-132, March.
    16. Alphonce, Roselyne & Alfnes, Frode & Sharma, Amit, 2014. "Consumer vs. citizen willingness to pay for restaurant food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 160-166.
    17. Howley, Peter & Hynes, Stephen & O'Donoghue, Cathal, 2010. "The citizen versus consumer distinction: An exploration of individuals' preferences in Contingent Valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1524-1531, May.
    18. Bertram, Christine & Larondelle, Neele, 2017. "Going to the Woods Is Going Home: Recreational Benefits of a Larger Urban Forest Site — A Travel Cost Analysis for Berlin, Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 255-263.
    19. van der Heide, C.M. & Blaeij, A.T. de & Heijman, Wim J.M., 2008. "Economic Aspects in Landscape Decision-making: a Participatory Planning Tool based on a Representative Approach," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43949, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Camila Balbontin & David A. Hensher & Chinh Ho & Corinne Mulley, 0. "Do preferences for BRT and LRT change as a voter, citizen, tax payer, or self-interested resident?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-50.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:ssfesf:199242. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssfeeea.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.