20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis

Lindhjem, Henrik (2006): 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis. Published in: Journal of Forest Economics , Vol. 4, No. 12 (January 2007): pp. 251-277.

Abstract

Stated preference (SP) surveys have been conducted to value non-timber benefits (NTBs) from forests in Norway, Sweden and Finland for about 20 years. The paper first reviews the literature and summarises methodological traditions in SP research in the three countries. Second, a meta-regression analysis is conducted explaining systematic variation in Willingness-to-Pay (WTP). Two important conclusions emerge, with relevance for future research: (1) WTP is found to be insensitive to the size of the forest, casting doubt on the use of simplified WTP/area measures for complex environmental goods; and (2) WTP tends to be higher if people are asked as individuals rather than on behalf of their household.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Non-timber forest benefits; Meta-analysis; Stated preferences; Norway; Finland; Sweden
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation > Q23 - Forestry; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation > Q26 - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources; H - Public Economics > H4 - Publicly Provided Goods > H41 - Public Goods; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q51 - Valuation of Environmental Effects

References

Arrow KJ, Solow R Leamer E Portney P Radner R & Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 58: 4601-4614.

Bateman I & Munro A (2005) Household vs individual valuation: What's the difference? European Association of Environmental and Resource Economics, Bremen, June.

Bateman IJ & Jones AP (2003) Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. Land Economics 79(2): 235-258.

Bijmolt THA & Pieters RGM (2001) Meta-Analysis in Marketing when Studies Contain Multiple Measurements. Marketing Letters 12(2): 157-169.

Bojö J (1985) Kostnadsnyttoanalys av fjällnära skogar: Fallet Vålådalen (Cost-benefit analysis of mountainous forests: the Vala Valley Case). Research Report, The Economic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics.

Boman M (1995) Estimating Costs And Genetic Benefits Of Various Sizes Of Predator Populations: The Case Of Bear, Wolf, Wolverine And Lynx In Sweden. Journal of Environmental Management 43(4): 349-357.

Bostedt G (1997) Public Goods in Swedish Forests: Essays on Nonmarket Valuation and Environmental Policy. PhD thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.

Bostedt G & Mattson L (1991) Skogens betydelse för turismen: En samhällsekonomisk pilotstudie (The importance of forests for tourism: A pilot cost-benefit analysis). Arbetsrapport 141, Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.

Bostedt G & Mattsson L (1995) The value of forests for tourism in Sweden. Annals of Tourism Research 22(3): 671-680.

Boyle KJ (2003) Contingent valuation in practice. In: A primer on nonmarket valuation (eds PA Champ, KJ Boyle & TC Brown): Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Brouwer R, Langford IH Bateman I & Turner RK (1999) A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change 1(1): 47-57.

Button K (1995) What can meta-analysis tell us about transport? Regional Studies 29: 507-17.

Cameron TA, Poe GL Ethier RG & Schulze WD (2002) Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: Are the underlying preferences the same? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(3): 391-425.

Carson RT (2004) Contingent Valuation: A comprehensive bibliography and history. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Carson RT, Flores NE Martin KM & Wright JL (1996) Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 72(1): 80-99.

Carson RT, Flores NE & Meade NF (2001) Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 19(2): 173-210.

Desvousges WH, Johnson FR & Banzhaf HS (1998) Environmental policy analysis with limited information: Principles and applications of the transfer method. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

Eiswerth M & Shaw W (1997) Adjusting Benefits Transfer Values for Inflation. Water Resources Research 33(10): 2381-2385.

Florax RJGM, Nijkamp P & Willis KG (2002) Comparative Environmental Economic Assessment. Edward Elgar.

Framstad E, Økland B Bendiksen E Bakkestuen V Blom H & Branderud TE (2002) Evaluering av barskogvernet i Norge (Evaluation of the conservation of coniferous forests in Norway). NINA Fagrapport 54.

Fredman P (1995) The existence of existence value: A study of the economic benefits of an endangered species. Journal of Forest Economics 1(3): 307-327.

Fredman P & Emmelin L (2001) Wilderness purism, willingness to pay and management preferences: a study of Swedish mountain tourists. Tourism Economics 7(1): 5-20.

Garnes AS & Winther G (1991) Holdninger til og betalingsvillighet for flersidig skogbruk og barskogvern i Norge (Attitudes and WTO for multiple use forestry and forest preservation in Norway). Master Thesis. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Hanemann WM (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 19-43.

Hanley N, Wright RE & Adamowicz V (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment: Design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environmental and Resource Economics 11(3-4): 413-428.

Hoen HF & Veisten K (1994) En undersøkelse blant brukere av Oslomarka: synspunkter på skogtilstand og skogbehandling (A survey of the users of Oslomarka: attitudes towards forest scenary and forestry practices). Skogforsk 6/94.

Hoen HF & Winther G (1993) Multiple-use forestry and preservation of coniferous forests in Norway: A study of attitudes and Willingness-to-pay. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8(2): 266-280.

Holgen P, Mattsson L & Li CZ (2000) Recreation values of boreal forest stand types and landscapes resulting from different silvicultural systems: An economic analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 60(2): 173-180.

Horne P, Boxall PC & Adamowicz WL (2005) Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 207(1-2): 189-199.

Horowitz JK & McConnell KE (2003) Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 51(4): 537-545.

Hökby S & Söderqvist T (2003) Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environmental and Resource Economics 26(3): 361-383.

Jakus PM, Stephens B & Fly JM (2006) Temporal reliability in contingent valuation (with a restrictive research budget). In: Handbook on Contingent Valuation (eds A Alberini & JR Kahn): 249-262. Edward Elgar.

Johansson P-O & Zavisic S (1989) Svenska folkets miljöbudget. Ekonomisk Debatt 6: 472-474.

Johansson PO (1989) Valuing public goods in a risky world: an experiment. In: Evaluation methods and policy making in environmental economics (eds H Folmer & EC van Ierland): 39-48. North Holland, Amsterdam.

Johansson PO, Kristrom B & Mattson L (1988) How is the Willingness to Pay for Moose Hunting Affected by the Stock of Moose? An Empirical Study of Moose-hunters in the County of Västerbotten. Journal of Environmental Management(26): 163-171.

Johnston RJ, Besedin EY Iovanna R Miller CJ Wardwell RF & Ranson MH (2005) Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 53(2-3): 221-248.

Johnston RJ, Besedin EY & Wardwell RF (2003) Modeling relationships between use and nonuse values for surface water quality: A meta-analysis. Water Resoures Research 39(12).

Kahneman D & Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing Public-Goods - The Purchase Of Moral Satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22(1): 57-70.

Kahneman D & Tversky A, Eds. (2000). Choices, Values and Frames. Cambridge University Press,

Kniivilä M (2004) Contingent valuation and cost-benefit analysis of nature conservation: a case study in North Karelia, Finland. D.Sc. (Agr. and For.) thesis. University of Joensuu.

Kniivilä M, Ovaskainen V & Saastamoinen O (2002) Costs and benefits of forest conservation: regional and local comparisons in Eastern Finland. Journal of Forest Economics 8(2): 131-150.

Kriström B (1989) On the benefits of preserving virgin forests in Sweden. Scandinavian Forest Economics(30): 141-166.

Kriström B (1990a) A Nonparametric Approach To The Estimation Of Welfare Measures In Discrete Response Valuation Studies. Land Economics 66(2): 135-139.

Kriström B (1990b) Valuing Environmental Benefits Using the Contingent Valuation Method – An Econometric Analysis. PhD thesis. Umeå University.

Laitila T & Paulrud A (2006) A Multi-Attribute Extension of Discrete-Choice Contingent Valuation for Valuation of Angling Site Characteristics. Journal of Leisure Research 38(2).

Lehtonen E, Kuuluvainen J Li C-Z Pouta E & Rekola M (2005) Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of forest conservation in southern Finland. University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Economics.

Lehtonen E, Kuuluvainen J Ovaskainen V Pouta E & Rekola M (2005) Influence of logit model assumptions on etsimated willingness to pay for forest conservation in Southern Finland. University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Economics.

Lehtonen E, Kuuluvainen J Pouta E Rekola M & Li CZ (2003) Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science and Policy 6(3): 195-204.

Leidal K (1996) Verdsetting av et bynært rekreasjonsområde: en betinget verdsettingsundersøkelse av området rundt Eigevannet i Kristiansand kommune (Valuation of an urban recreation area: a contingent valuation study of the Eige Lake area in Kristiansand municipality). Master Thesis. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Li CZ, Kuuluvainen J Pouta E Rekola M & Tahvonen O (2004) Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland. Environmental and Resource Economics 29(3): 361-74.

Li CZ (1996) Semiparametric estimation of the binary choice model for contingent valuation. Land Economics 72(4): 462-473.

Li CZ & Mattsson L (1995) Discrete-Choice Under Preference Uncertainty - An Improved Structural Model For Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28(2): 256-269.

List JA & Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20(3): 241-254.

Loomis JB & White DS (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 18(3): 197-206.

Mattsson L & Li CZ (1993) The Non-Timber Value Of Northern Swedish Forests - An Economic-Analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8(3): 426-434.

Mattsson L & Li CZ (1994) How Do Different Forest Management-Practices Affect The Non-Timber Value Of Forests - An Economic-Analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 41(1): 79-88.

Mitchell RC & Carson RT (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC.

Murphy JJ, Allen PG Stevens TH & Weatherhead D (2005) A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30: 313-325.

Mäntymaa E, Mönkkönen M Siikamäki J & Svento R (2002) Estimating the Demand for Biodiversity - Vagueness Band and Open-Ended Questions. In: Proceedings: Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental and Resource Economics (eds EC van Ierland, HP Weikard & J Wesseler).

Navrud S (1992) Pricing the European Environment. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo.

Navrud S & Ready R, Eds. (2006). Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Olsson C (1993) Linbanan i Norsjö - En skogsinriktad turistattraktion. En undersökning av betalningsvilja för att uppleva skog och natur (The cable car in Norsjö - A forest based tourist attraction). Master. Handelshögskolan i Umeå.

Ovaskainen V & Kniivilä M (2005) Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 49(4): 379-394.

Pattanayak SK, Wing JM Depro BM van Houtven G de Civita P Stieb DM & Hubbel B (2002) International Health Benefits Transfer Application Tool: The Use of PPP and inflation indices. Prepared for Enomic Analysis and Evaluation Division, Health Canada.

Pouta E (2003) Attitude-behavior framework in contingent valuation of forest conservation. PhD. University of Helsinki.

Pouta E (2004) Attitude and belief questions as a source of context effect in a contingent valuation survey. Journal of Economic Psychology 25: 229-242.

Pouta E (2005) Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 7: 539– 550.

Pouta E & Rekola M (2005). Meta analysis of forest valuation studies (In Finnish).

Pouta E, Rekola M Kuuluvainen J Li CZ & Tahvonen I (2002) Willingness to pay in different policy-planning methods: insights into respondents' decision-making processes. Ecological Economics 40(2): 295-311.

Pouta E, Rekola M Kuuluvainen J Tahvonen O & Li CZ (2000) Contingent valuation of the Natura 2000 nature conservation programme in Finland. Forestry 73(2): 119-128.

Quiggin J (1998) Individual and household willingness to pay for public goods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 58-63.

Rabin M (1998) Psychology and Economics. Journal of Economic Literature XXXVI: 11-46.

Rekola M & Pouta E (2005) Public preferences for uncertain regeneration cuttings: a contingent valuation experiment involving Finnish private forests. Forest Policy and Economics 7: 635-649.

Rekola M, Pouta E Kuuluvainen J Tahvonen O & Li CZ (2000) Incommensurable preferences in contingent valuation: the case of Natura 2000 Network in Finland. Environmental Conservation 27(3): 260-268.

Rosenberger RS & Loomis JB (2000a) Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: In-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resources Research 36(4): 1097-1107.

Rosenberger R & Loomis J (2000b) Panel stratification in meta-analysis of economic studies: an investigation of its effects in the recreation valuation literature. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32(1): 131-149.

Sandsbråten L (1997) Verdsetting av miljøgoder i Oslomarka: en betinget verdsettingsundersøkelse i privat og kommunal skog i Indre Oslomarka (Valuation of environmental goods in Oslomarka: a contingent valuation survey of private and municipality owned forest in inner Oslomarka). Master Thesis. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Sayman S & Öncüler A (2005) Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA-WTP disparity: A meta analytical framework. Journal of economic psychology 26(2): 289-312.

Schläpfer F (2006) Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 57(3): 415-429.

Shrestha RK & Loomis JB (2001) Testing a meta-analysis model for benefit transfer in international outdoor recreation. Ecological Economics 39(1): 67-83.

Shrestha RK & Loomis JB (2003) Meta-Analytic Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Economic Values: Testing Out-of-Sample Convergent Validity. Environmental & Resource economics 25: 79-100.

Siikamäki J & Layton D (2005) Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Methods. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper.

Simensen K & Wind M (1990) Holdninger til og betalingsvillighet for ulike skogbehandlinger i fjellskog: en empirisk undersøkelse av Hirkjølen statsallmenning (Attitudes and WTP for different forestry practices in mountainous forests: a survey of the Hirkjolen common). Master Thesis. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Skagestad E (1996) Friluftsliv og Skogbruk - En spørreundersøkelse blant turgjengere i ytre Oslomarka, Romeriksåsen, på vinterstid (Recreation and Forestry - A survey of hikers in the outer Oslomarka, Romeriksåsen, in the winter time). Master thesis. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Smith VK & Kaoru Y (1990) Signals Or Noise - Explaining The Variation In Recreation Benefit Estimates. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(2): 419-433.

Smith VK & Osborne LL (1996) Do contingent valuation estimates pass a ''scope'' test? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(3): 287-301.

Smith VK & Pattanayak SK (2002) Is Meta-Analysis a Noah’s Ark for Non-Market Valuation? Environmental and Resource Economics 22: 271-296.

Stanley TD (2001) Wheat from chaff: Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(3): 131-150.

Stanley TD & Jarrel SD (2005) Meta-Regression Analysis: A Quantitative Method of Literature Surveys. Journal of Economic Surveys 19(3): 299-308.

Strand J (2005) Individual and household values of mortality reductions with intrahousehold bargaining. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 31(2): 217-236.

Strand J & Wahl TS (1997) Verdsetting av kommunale friområder i Oslo: en betinget verdsettingsstudie (Valuation of municipality recreation areas in Oslo: A contingent valuation study). SNF Report 82/97.

Sundberg S & Söderqvist T (2004) The economic value of environmental change in Sweden: A survey of studies. Report 5360, Naturvårdsverket.

Tyrväinen L (2001) Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 62(1): 75-92.

Tyrväinen L & Väänänen H (1998) The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning 43(1-3): 105-118.

Vatn A, Framstad E & Solberg B (2005) Tiltak og virkemidler for vern av biodiversitet i skog og våtmarker. Rapport TemaNord 2005, Nordisk Ministerråd, København.

Veisten K (1993) Samfunnsøkonomisk verdsetting av å oppretthalde artsmangfaldet i norske skogar: med testing for feilkilder ved betinga verdsetting (Social valuation of the preserving biodiversity in Norwegian forests: with multiple bias testing). Master. University of Oslo.

Veisten K & Hoen HF (1994) Om haldningar til - og betalingsvilje for endringar i skogbehandlinga i Noreg: resultat frå to nasjonale undersøkingar (On attitudes and WTP for changes in forest practices in Norway: Resukts from two national surveys). Skogforsk 4/94, Skogforsk.

Veisten K, Hoen HF Navrud S & Strand J (1993) Valuing biodiversity in Norwegian forests: a contingent valuation study with multiple bias testing. Memo No.7, Department of Economics, University of Oslo.

Veisten K, Hoen HF Navrud S & Strand J (2004a) Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Management 73(4): 317-331.

Veisten K, Hoen HF & Strand J (2004b) Sequencing and the adding-up property in contingent valuation of endangered species: Are contingent non-use values economic values? Environmental and Resource Economics 29(4): 419-433.

Veisten K & Navrud S (2006) Contingent valuation and actual payment for for voluntarily provided passive-use values: assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats. Applied Economics 38(7): 735-756.

Walsh RG, Johnson DM & McKean JR (1989) Issues in non-market valuation and policy application: a retrospective glance. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 1: 178-188.

Walsh RG, Johnson DM & McKean JR (1990) Nonmarket values from two decades of research on recreation demand. In: Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, Vol. 5. (eds A Link & VK Smith): 167-193. JAI Press, Greenwhich, CT.

Woodward RT & Wui Y-S (2001) The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 37: 257-270.