Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Valuation of forest ecosystem services. A practical guide
Valuation of forest ecosystem services. A practical guide
Valuation of forest ecosystem services. A practical guide
Ebook175 pages4 hours

Valuation of forest ecosystem services. A practical guide

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

This book provides good practice protocols for the economic valuation of non-market forest ecosystem goods and services. it covers the main valuation methods: Hedonic Pricing, Travel Cost, Contingent Valuation, Choice Modeling, and Benefit Transfer.

LanguageEnglish
PublisherPere Riera
Release dateJun 1, 2016
ISBN9781533779045
Valuation of forest ecosystem services. A practical guide

Related to Valuation of forest ecosystem services. A practical guide

Related ebooks

Economics For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Valuation of forest ecosystem services. A practical guide

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    Valuation of forest ecosystem services. A practical guide - Pere RIERA

    Valuation of forest ecosystem services. A practical guide

    First edition, 2012

    Second edition, 2016

    This book provides good practice protocols for the economic valuation of non-market forest ecosystem goods and services. it covers the main valuation methods: Hedonic Pricing, Travel Cost, Contingent Valuation, Choice Modeling, and Benefit Transfer.

    Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

    ––––––––

    Contents

    ––––––––

    List of contributors

    List of Figures

    List of Tables

    List of Boxes

    Preface

    Best Practice Guidelines in Stated Preference Methods of Forest Externalities 1

    Best Practice Guidelines in Revealed Preference Methods of Forest Externalities

    Best Practice Guidelines in Benefit Transfer of Forest Externalities

    List of contributors

    ––––––––

    STATED PREFERENCE GUIDELINES

    Leading authors (in alphabetical order):

    Pamela KAVAL

    Livia MADUREIRA

    Pierre-Alexandre MAHIEU

    Jürgen MEYERHOFF

    Robert MAVSAR

    Pere RIERA

    Bénédicte RULLEAU

    Main contributors:

    Dulce Armonia BORREGO

    Raul BREY

    Peter ELSASSER

    Hamed DALY-HASSEN

    Simona DRAGOI

    Marek GIERGICZNY

    Paula HORNE

    Anze JAPEL J

    Miroslav KOVALCIK

    Alejandra LEITAO

    Sandra NOTARO

    Richard MOLONEY

    Roland OLSCHEWSKI

    Mordechai SHECHTER

    Jozef TUTKA

    ––––––––

    REVEALED PREFERENCE GUIDELINES

    Leading authors (in alphabetical order):

    Maria DE SALVO

    Giovanni SIGNORELLO

    Mara THIENE

    Main contributors:

    Olvar BERGLAND

    David HOYOS

    Claire MONTAGNé

    Edward MOREY

    ––––––––

    BENEFIT TRANSFER GUIDELINES

    Leading author:

    Ståle Navrud

    Main contributors:

    Tzipi ESHET

    Henrik LINDHJEM

    Randy ROSENBERGER

    Mette TERMANSEN

    List of Figures

    ––––––––

    Figure 1

    Figure 2.

    List of Tables

    ––––––––

    Table 1. Attributes and corresponding levels first example

    Table 2. Complete factorial design for forest management

    Table 3. Coding of a two and a three level attribute

    Table 4. Example of dataset for estimating a single-site travel cost model

    Table 5. Example of dataset for estimating a three-sites travel cost modell

    Table 6. Example of dataset for the estimation of the hedonic function

    List of Boxes

    ––––––––

    Box 1. The nested structure for National rock climbing sites and the list of variables taken into account

    Box 2. Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context by means of a discrete-count linked model

    Box 3. A tool to address confounding random scale effects site choice: utility in the preference space vs utility in the WTP space

    Box 4. Estimating the demand for tree canopy: a second-stage hedonic price analysis

    Preface

    This volume contains good practice protocols for the economic valuation of non-market forest goods and services developed by participants to the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action 45 "European forest externalities (EUROFOREX – COST E45). A previous version of this guide was made available by DiGeSA, University of Catania, Italy.

    The starting point for the Action was that, although there is a considerable body of research in Europe concerning the valuation of forest externalities, the results from these valuation studies are often not comparable due to variations in the application of the valuation methods and the reporting of results. The aim of the protocols is to facilitate a better and more consistent application and reporting of non-market valuation projects. 

    Action E45 involved 20 European countries and two non-European institutions, from New Zealand and Tunisia. It was organized into three working groups, each focusing on a family of valuation methods. One group was concerned with the stated preference methods. Two variants were studied in particular: contingent valuation and choice experiments. Another working group focused on the use of the revealed preference methods, such as the hedonic pricing approach and the travel cost models. The remaining group covered the benefit transfer approaches.

    We would like to thank all participants to the Action E45, and individuals who helped us organize and run all activities. We would also like to thank Arne Been, Günter Siegel, and Melae Langbein, Cost Science Officers, Kiril Sotirovsky, Action E45 Rapporteur, the authors of the papers presented at the meetings, and the instructors of training courses. Finally we would also like to acknowledge Michael Hanemann, Ted McConnell, Edward Morey and Randy Rosenberg for their precious contribution to better shape the contents of protocol in the working group discussions.

    ––––––––

    Pere Riera, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain

    Giovanni Signorello, University of Catania, Italy

    Best Practice Guidelines in Stated Preference Methods of Forest Externalities

    In this set of guidelines, we present good practice techniques for Stated Preference (SP) studies to estimate the monetary value of forest externalities. In a SP study, the researcher wishes to determine the value a respondent places on a hypothetical good or hypothetical situation. This hypothetical good or hypothetical situation, such as harvesting trees in an area of a forest or establishing a walking trail through a forest, may or may not actually take place. There are several SP techniques available to determine the values for a hypothetical situation including the Contingent Valuation (CV) and Choice Modelling (CM) methods; these techniques will be discussed in more detail later in these guidelines. The CM label refers here to the family of attribute based stated preference methods.

    BASIC STEPS

    As each individual will have their own unique value for a situation, a way to determine their value is to ask them. Value determination is typically conducted in the form of a survey. The creation of a good survey is a very complex process; however, there are several basic steps to follow: determining your aim/goal, conducting background work, determining the type of survey to use, determining how complicated the questions should be, writing the first draft of the survey, determining who to survey, determining when to survey and determining your sample size.

    Determine your aim/goal

    Prior to constructing a questionnaire, you need to sit down and determine the precise aim/goal of your survey. Do you want to determine the value of an endangered species or do you just want to know how many people in a school have ever seen that endangered species there? The latter goal would not require a valuation study. Thus, it is important to determine exactly what you want to achieve with your survey. Be specific, as this will enable you to narrow your aim/goal down to write an appropriate valuation question and survey (Bateman et al. 2002; Champ et al. 2003; Fink 2008; Freeman 2003; Pearce and Turner 1990).

    Conduct some background work

    Once your aim/goal has been determined, you should conduct some background work. Has anyone ever accomplished your aim/goal in the past? If they have, how close was what they did to your study? Were they successful in accomplishing their goal? What kind of survey did they use? What kinds of questions did they ask? The background work may involve a literature review, obtaining copies of old surveys with a similar goal, and sitting down with a person (or people) that has (have) conducted surveys of this type before. It may also involve conducting a focus group to narrow down important questions (not only your valuation question, but the other questions in your survey). After the background work has been collected, you should also be able to determine which valuation question type (e.g., CV, CM) will be most appropriate for your valuation project (Bateman et al. 2002; Champ et al. 2003; Fink 2008; Freeman 2003; Pearce and Turner 1990).

    What type of survey should you use?

    The type of survey you use will depend on the population of interest, the characteristics of the sample, the types of questions, the topic, the response rate, the cost and the time you have available to conduct your study.

    In general, surveys can be conducted in a variety of ways: in-person, on the phone, through the mail, via a website or email, through a central facility, or via a mixed mode. Mixed mode is defined as mixing several modes of administration, such as calling people on the phone, mailing them a survey and then calling them again to follow up. In-person surveys are typically the most costly and time consuming, phone surveys can be done quickly, while mail surveys take a longer period of time, as you have to wait for the respondents of the survey to fill it out and return it. In addition, while phone surveys will typically take a shorter period of time to conduct than mail surveys, in-person surveys can be more in-depth in terms of the responses you receive than mail surveys (Bateman et al. 2002; Champ et al. 2003; Cochran 1977; Lyberg and Kasprzyk 1991). 

    How complicated should your questions be?

    When you are writing the questions in your survey, you want all respondents that read your questions to be able to understand them. You do not want to talk down to your respondents, but you do want to adapt the wording of the questions so they are straightforward. Some things that you can do to make sure your questions are straightforward include: avoiding abbreviations, avoiding vague terms and slang, and not including too many things in one question.

    Avoiding abbreviations. Abbreviations can mean different things to different people, i.e., AA can mean Alcoholics Anonymous, American Airlines or the stock tick symbol for Alcoa International, as well as other things, so it is better to avoid them altogether.

    Avoiding vague terms and slang. For example: wicked could mean good (as in, that is a wicked pair of hiking shoes), but could also mean evil (as in the wicked witch); older people could mean 20 years olds to a 12 year olds, but 90 year olds to a 70 year olds; and the last decade could mean 1990 to 1999 to some, while it could mean 2000 to 2010 to others. So try to avoid these terms.

    Not including too many things in one question. For example, don’t ask Would you like a visitor centre painted with a mural and/or one with a toilet (water-closet) that can be entered when the visitor centre is closed. This question is too complicated. The respondents may want a visitor centre, but they may not want it painted with a mural; they may want a visitor centre, but may not mind if the toilet/water closet is located outside or inside of the visitor centre; or they may not want a visitor centre at all (Dillman 1978; Dillman 1991; Fink 2008; Salant and Dillman 1994; Taylor-Powell 1998).

    ––––––––

    Write the first draft of the survey, including the valuation question

    In relation to the valuation question within your survey, no matter which SP valuation technique you choose to use, when you present your valuation question to your respondents, the research question/valuation aim has to be clear. If the respondents interpret the question(s) differently, your results will not be of much use. Therefore, your valuation question needs to be very specific. It needs to be something that could actually take place and be therefore believable to the respondent. This is done to try to create an actual market type condition, which is what people are familiar with.

    Before the valuation question is asked, or within the question, however, an introductory section with background information needs to be provided to enable the respondent to answer the question. This information should include: 1) what the respondent is being asked to value, 2) how the value will be provided, and 3) how the project will be paid for. For example, it would be incorrect to ask a respondent How much do you value an increase in the number of trees in the forest. This question is just too vague for

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1