Stated Preference Methods for Valuation of Forest Attributes

The valuation methods described in this chapter are based on the idea that forest ecosystems produce a wide variety of goods and services that are valued by people. Rather than focusing attention on the holistic value of forest ecosystems as is done in contingent valuation studies, attribute-based valuation methods (ABMs) focus attention on a set of attributes that have management or policy relevance (Adamowicz et al. 1998a, Bennett and Blamey 2001). The attribute set might include, for example, measures of biological diversity, areas designated for timber production or set aside for conservation, size of timber harvesting gaps, or watershed protection measures. If human-induced changes in forest ecosystems can be meaningfully represented by a set of attributes, choices made by survey respondents among sets of alternatives can provide resource managers and policy makers with detailed information about public preferences for many potential states of the environment. If price is included as an attribute of the problem, a multidimensional valuation surface can be estimated for use in cost/benefit analysis.

[1]  J. Marschak.  Binary Choice Constraints on Random Utility Indicators , 1959 .

[2]  J. Loomis,et al.  Improving Statistical Efficiency and Testing Robustness of Conjoint Marginal Valuations , 2001 .

[3]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[4]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation , 1997 .

[5]  J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

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

[7]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[8]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Assessing the potential demand for electric cars , 1981 .

[9]  P. Zarembka.  Frontiers in econometrics , 1973 .

[10]  R. Abt,et al.  Ascribing value to ecological processes: an economic view of environmental change , 1999 .

[11]  J. Bennett,et al.  The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation , 2001 .

[12]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Using the conjoint analysis technique for the estimation of passive use values of forest health. , 2001 .

[13]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods , 1998 .

[14]  J. Louviere,et al.  The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .

[15]  D. McFadden.  The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research , 1986 .

[16]  Thomas P. Holmes,et al.  Attribute-Based Methods , 2003 .

[17]  Jerry A. Hausman and Paul A. Ruud.,et al.  Specifying and Testing Econometric Models for Rank-ordered Data with an Application to the Demand for Mobile and Portable Telephones , 1986 .

[18]  Guy Garrod,et al.  The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study , 1997 .

[19]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats , 2001 .

[20]  Thomas P. Holmes,et al.  The effect of response time on conjoint analysis estimates of rainforest protection values. , 1998 .

[21]  D. McFadden,et al.  Specification tests for the multinomial logit model , 1984 .

[22]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data , 1991 .

[23]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1985 .

[24]  J. Herriges,et al.  Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, New Horizons in Environmental Economics , 1999 .

[25]  W. Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Analysis with Discrete Choice Models , 1996 .

[26]  Peter C. Boxall,et al.  Exploring the preferences of wildlife recreationists for features of boreal forest management: a choice experiment approach. , 2000 .