Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualisation techniques: a portuguese case study

Abstract The assessment of alternative forest management strategies should account not only for the private benefits to forest landowners but also for the ecological, environmental and economic benefits valued by society. There are a number of empirical valuation methods that may contribute to that assessment. These methods involve several steps: data acquisition, model specification and estimation. In this paper, this approach is illustrated in the context of a survey regarding alternative management strategies for a forest area in Central Portugal by implementing a contingent valuation experiment where an advanced landscape visualisation technique is employed to generate the visual information conveyed in the valuation scenarios. Several econometric model specifications are considered as well as alternative approaches to handle zero willingness to pay values and protest responses. The results obtained suggest the potential of the proposed approach for an effective comparison of alternative forest management strategies.

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

[2]  B. Reiser,et al.  Incorporating zero values in the economic valuation of environmental program benefits , 1999 .

[3]  José G. Borges,et al.  Designing decision support tools for Mediterranean forest ecosystems management: a case study in Portugal , 2005 .

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

[5]  A Mixture Model of Willingness to Pay Distributions , 1996 .

[6]  Brian Bishop,et al.  Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation , 1999 .

[7]  T. Cameron.  Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1991 .

[8]  José G. Borges,et al.  A real-time visualization tool for forest ecosystem management decision support , 2006 .

[9]  K. McConnell,et al.  Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources , 2002 .

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

[11]  B. Turnbull.  The Empirical Distribution Function with Arbitrarily Grouped, Censored, and Truncated Data , 1976 .

[12]  S. Chilton,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Social Choices Concerning Public Goods : An Overview of Theory, Methods and Issues , 2007 .

[13]  H. Folmer,et al.  Land and Forest Economics , 2004 .

[14]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and developing Countries , 2001 .

[15]  N. Jones,et al.  Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece , 2008 .

[16]  B. Kriström.  Spike Models in Contingent Valuation , 1997 .

[17]  L. S. Davis.  Forest Management: To Sustain Ecological, Economic, and Social Values , 2005 .

[18]  E. Strazzera,et al.  A Sample Selection Model for Protest Non-Response Votes in Contingent Valuation Analyses , 1999 .

[19]  Barbara Kanninen,et al.  Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation , 1995 .

[20]  A. E. Luloff,et al.  Protest Bidders in Contingent Valuation , 1992 .

[21]  Jean C. Buzby,et al.  Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates , 1996 .

[22]  D. Luymes.  The rhetoric of visual simulation in forest design: some research directions. , 2001 .

[23]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DISCRETE-RESPONSE CV DATA , 1996 .

[24]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation , 2006 .

[25]  Seung-Hoon Yoo,et al.  WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR GREEN ELECTRICITY IN KOREA: A CONTINGENT VALUATION STUDY , 2009 .

[26]  Lívia Madureira,et al.  Protesting and Justifying: A Latent Class Model for Contingent Valuation with Attitudinal Data , 2012 .

[27]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Valuing Environmental Preferences , 2001 .

[28]  M. Werner.  Allowing for Zeros in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent-Valuation Models , 1999 .

[29]  Lívia Madureira,et al.  Protesting and Justifying: A Latent Class Model for Contingent Valuation with Attitudinal Data , 2010, Environmental and Resource Economics.

[30]  G. Garrod,et al.  Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys , 2003 .

[31]  B. Jorgensen,et al.  Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement , 2000 .

[32]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Testing Willingness-to-Pay Models of Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Survey Data , 1995 .

[33]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions , 1997 .

[34]  R. Mendelsohn,et al.  Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology , 2007 .

[35]  Sample Selection Model for Protest Votes in Contingent Valuation Analyses , 1999 .

[36]  Greg Lindsey,et al.  Closure of "Market Models, Protest Bids, and Outliers in Contingent Valuation" , 1995 .

[37]  J. Loomis,et al.  Comparing the Economic Value of Reducing Fire Risk to Spotted Owl Habitat in California and Oregon , 1997 .

[38]  Eeva Karjalainen,et al.  Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective , 2002 .

[39]  H. D. Brunk,et al.  AN EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION FOR SAMPLING WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION , 1955 .

[40]  Stephen R.J. Sheppard,et al.  Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics , 2000 .

[41]  T. Söderqvist,et al.  On how to assess the quality of environmental valuation studies , 2009 .

[42]  Jeremy S. Wilson,et al.  Presenting: landscape-scale forest information: what is sufficient and what is appropriate? , 2000 .

[43]  P. Riera,et al.  Evaluation of a risk reduction in forest fires in a Mediterranean region , 2004 .