20 Years of Stated Preference Valuation of Non-Timber Benefits from Fennoscandian Forests: A Meta-Analysis

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.

[1]  Kenneth Button,et al.  What Can Meta-analysis Tell Us about the Implications of Transport? , 1995 .

[2]  C. Plott.  psychology and economics , 1990 .

[3]  Daniel L. Rubinfeld,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies : Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods , 1997 .

[4]  Subhrendu K. Pattanayak,et al.  Is Meta-Analysis a Noah's Ark for Non-Market Valuation? , 2002 .

[5]  V. Kerry Smith,et al.  Signals or Noise? Explaining the Variation in Recreation Benefit Estimates , 1990 .

[6]  L. Tyrväinen,et al.  The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method , 1998 .

[7]  L. Emmelin,et al.  Wilderness Purism, Willingness to Pay and Management Preferences: A Study of Swedish Mountain Tourists , 2001 .

[8]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction , 1992 .

[9]  Tommy Stanley,et al.  Meta-Regression Analysis: A Quantitative Method of Literature Surveys: Meta-Regression Analysis , 2005 .

[10]  Richard G. Walsh,et al.  Issues in Nonmarket Valuation and Policy Application: A Retrospective Glance , 1989 .

[11]  M. Boman.  Estimating costs and genetic benefits of various sizes of predator populations: the case of bear, wolf, wolverine and lynx in Sweden , 1995 .

[12]  Mark E. Eiswerth,et al.  Adjusting benefits transfer values for inflation , 1997 .

[13]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Panel Stratification in Meta-Analysis of Economic Studies: An Investigation of Its Effects in the Recreation Valuation Literature , 2000, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[14]  Chuan-Zhong Li,et al.  Semiparametric Estimation of the Binary Choice Model for Contingent Valuation , 1996 .

[15]  V. Ovaskainen,et al.  Consumer Versus Citizen Preferences in Contingent Valuation: Evidence on the Role of Question Framing , 2005 .

[16]  L. Tyrväinen,et al.  Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. , 2001, Journal of environmental management.

[17]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Contingent Valuation in Practice , 2003 .

[18]  William H. Desvousges,et al.  Environmental Policy Analysis With Limited Information: Principles and Applications of the Transfer Method , 1999 .

[19]  J. Dixon.  Valuation methods and policy making in environmental economics : Henk Folmer and Ekko van Ierland (Editors), Studies in Environmental Science, 36. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989. 259 pp., Dfl.170.00 ISBN 0-444-87382-1 , 1990 .

[20]  E. Pouta.  Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland , 2005 .

[21]  L. Mattsson,et al.  The value of forests for tourism in Sweden. , 1995 .

[22]  Tammo H. A. Bijmolt,et al.  Meta-Analysis in Marketing when Studies Contain Multiple Measurements , 2001 .

[23]  N. Hanley,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment , 1998 .

[24]  Leif Mattsson,et al.  Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. , 1995 .

[25]  J. Quiggin.  Individual and Household Willingness to Pay for Public Goods , 1998 .

[26]  E. Pouta,et al.  Public preferences for uncertain regeneration cuttings: a contingent valuation experiment involving Finnish private forests , 2005 .

[27]  Wiktor L. Adamowicz,et al.  Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment , 2005 .

[28]  Stephen B. Jarrell,et al.  Meta-Regression Analysis: A Quantitative Method of Literature Surveys , 1989 .

[29]  P. Jakus,et al.  Temporal Reliability in Contingent Valuation (With a Restrictive Research Budget). , 2006 .

[30]  Jeannette M. Wing,et al.  INTERNATIONAL HEALTH BENEFITS TRANSFER APPLICATION TOOL: THE USE OF PPP AND INFLATION , 2002 .

[31]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[32]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Using meta‐analysis for benefit transfer: In‐sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database , 2000 .

[33]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Contrasting conventional with multi-level modelling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. , 2003 .

[34]  E. Pouta,et al.  Contingent valuation of the Natura 2000 nature conservation programme in Finland , 2000 .

[35]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  Comparative Environmental Economic Assessment , 2002 .

[36]  S. Navrud,et al.  Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: Assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats , 2006 .

[37]  H. Hoen,et al.  Multiple use forestry and preservation of coniferous forests in Norway , 1993 .

[38]  Tore Söderqvist,et al.  Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services in Sweden , 2003 .

[39]  J. Siikamäki,et al.  Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models , 2007 .

[40]  H. Hoen,et al.  Sequencing and the Adding-up Property in Contingent Valuation of Endangered Species: Are Contingent Non-Use Values Economic Values? , 2004 .

[41]  L. Mattsson,et al.  The non-timber value of northern Swedish forests: an economic analysis. , 1993 .

[42]  T. Stanley,et al.  Wheat from Chaff: Meta-Analysis as Quantitative Literature Review: Response , 2001 .

[43]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis , 1996 .

[44]  B. Kriström.  Valuing environmental benefits using the contingent valuation method - an econometric analysis , 1990 .

[45]  Thomas Laitila,et al.  A Multi-Attribute Extension of Discrete-Choice Contingent Valuation for Valuation of Angling Site Characteristics , 2004 .

[46]  E. Pouta,et al.  Willingness to pay in different policy-planning methods: insights into respondents' decision-making processes , 2002 .

[47]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[48]  L. Mattsson,et al.  Recreation values of boreal forest stand types and landscapes resulting from different silvicultural systems: an economic analysis. , 2000 .

[49]  James J. Murphy,et al.  A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation , 2003 .

[50]  K. McConnell,et al.  Willingness to Accept, Willingness to Pay and the Income Effect , 2001 .

[51]  L. Mattsson,et al.  How do Different Forest Management Practices Affect the Non-timber Value of Forests?—an Economic Analysis , 1994 .

[52]  J. Strand.  Individual and Household Values of Mortality Reductions with Intrahousehold Bargaining , 2005 .

[53]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Modeling relationships between use and nonuse values for surface water quality: A meta‐analysis , 2003 .

[54]  Eija Pouta,et al.  Attitude and belief questions as a source of context effect in a contingent valuation survey , 2004 .

[55]  O. Saastamoinen,et al.  Costs and benefits of forest conservation: regional and local comparisons in Eastern Finland , 2002 .

[56]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies , 1999 .

[57]  Knut Veisten,et al.  Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. , 2004, Journal of environmental management.

[58]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Aquatic Resource Improvements and Implications for Benefit Transfer: A Meta-Analysis , 2005 .

[59]  E. Pouta,et al.  Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland , 2003 .

[60]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  A primer on nonmarket valuation , 2003 .

[61]  Ståle Navrud,et al.  Pricing the European environment , 1992 .

[62]  V. Kerry Smith,et al.  Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis , 1996 .

[63]  John A. List,et al.  What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? , 2001 .

[64]  E. Pouta.  Attitude-Behavior Framework in Contingent Valuation of Forest Conservation , 2003 .

[65]  Felix Schläpfer.  Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis , 2006 .

[66]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence , 2000 .

[67]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Testing a meta-analysis model for benefit transfer in international outdoor recreation , 2001 .

[68]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same? , 2002 .

[69]  S. Navrud,et al.  Valuing Biodiversity in Norwegian Forests: A Contingent Valuation Study with Multiple Bias Testing , 1993 .

[70]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation , 1994 .

[71]  Yong-Suhk Wui,et al.  The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis , 2001 .

[72]  J. Loomis,et al.  Meta-Analytic Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Economic Values: Testing Out-of-Sample Convergent Validity , 2003 .

[73]  Eija Pouta,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland , 2004 .

[74]  Incommensurable preferences in contingent valuation: the case of Natura 2000 Network in Finland , 2000, Environmental Conservation.

[75]  Bengt Kriström,et al.  A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. , 1990 .

[76]  Ståle Navrud,et al.  Environmental value transfer : issues and methods , 2007 .

[77]  Ayse Öncüler,et al.  Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA–WTP disparity: A meta analytical framework , 2005 .