Pere Riera*¹ and Joan Mogas**

* Associate Professor

Department d'Economia Aplicada. Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, SPAIN

** Associate Professor

Department d'Economia. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 43204 Reus, SPAIN

Abstract. There are several methods to estimate the social value of forests or forest attributes, the most widely used being the stated preference methods. This paper illustrates the use of such methods to estimate some recreational functions of Mediterranean forests, as well as CO₂ sequestration and soil erosion prevention. It also compares the results from a contingent ranking and a choice experiment method application.

Sumário. A declaração de preferências corresponde ao método mais comum para estimar o valor social das florestas ou dos seus atributos. Este artigo ilustra o uso deste método para estimar o valor de algumas funções recreativas das florestas mediterrâneas, assim como do sequestro de CO₂ e da prevenção da erosão do solo. Analisa também os resultados de aproximações de ordenação contingente no âmbito de métodos que envolvem a declaração de preferências.

Palavras-chave: valorização da floresta; avaliação ambiental; ordenação contingente; análises conjunto; florestação

Résumé. La déclaration des préférences correspond à la méthode la plus utilisée pour estimer la valeur sociale des forêts ou de ses attributs. Cet article illustre l'utilisation de telles méthodes pour estimer les fonctions récréatives des forêts méditerranéennes, aussi bien que la séquestration de CO₂ et la prévention de l'érosion du sol. Il analyse également les résultats des approches de l'ordonnance contingente à la portée des méthodes qui impliquent la déclaration des préférences.

Mots clés: évaluation forestière; évaluation environnementale; ordonnance contingente; ensemble d'analyses; reboisement

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

References

ADAMOWICZ, W.L., LOUVIERE, J.J., WILLIAMS, M., 1994. Combining stated and revealed preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 : 271-292.         [ Links ]

ADAMOWICZ, W., LOUVIERE, J., SWAIT, 1998a. Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods. Final report to resource valuation branch, Damage Assessment Center, NOAA, US. Department of Commerce. January.        [ Links ]

ADAMOWICZ, W.L., BOXALL, P.C., WILLIAMS, M., LOUVIERE, J.J., 1998b. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 : 65-75.        [ Links ]

ATKINSON, G., MACHADO, F., MOURATO, S., 2000. Balancing competing principle of environmental equity. Environmental and Planning 32 : 1781-1806.        [ Links ]

BEGGS, S., CARDELL, S., HAUSMAN, J.A., 1981. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics 16(1) : 1–19.        [ Links ]

BEN-AKIVA, M., LERMAN, S.R., 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.        [ Links ]

BENNET, J., BLAMEY, R., 2001. The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.        [ Links ]

BOXALL, P., ADAMOWICZ, W.L., WILLIAMS, M., SWAIT, J., LOUVIERE, J.J., 1996. A comparison of stated preference approaches to the measurement of environmental values. Ecological Economics 18 : 243-253.        [ Links ]

CARSON, R.T., (forthcoming). Contingent valuation: A comprehensive bibliography and history, Northampton: Edward Elgar.        [ Links ]

CHAPMAN, R.G. and STAELIN, R., 1982. Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. Journal of Marketing Research 19 : 288-301.        [ Links ]

DESVOUGUES, W.H., SMITH, V.K., McGIVNEY, M.P., 1983. A comparison of alternative approaches for estimating reaction and related benefits of water quality. EPA-230-05-83-001. Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.        [ Links ]

EFRON, B., TIBSHIRANI, R.J., 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York.        [ Links ]

ENGLIN, J., MENDELSOHN, R., 1991. A hedonic travel cost analysis for valuation of multiple components of site quality: the recreation value of forest management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21 : 275-90.        [ Links ]

FOSTER, V., MOURATO, S., 2000. Measuring the impacts of pesticide use in the UK: a contingent ranking approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 51 :1-21.        [ Links ]

GARROD, G.D., WILLIS, K.G., 1997. The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: a contingent ranking study. Ecological Economics 21 : 45- 61.         [ Links ]

GARROD, G.D., WILLIS, K.G., 1998. Using contingent ranking to estimate the loss of amenity va1ue for inland waterways from public uti1ity service structures. Environmental and Resource Economics 12 : 241-247.         [ Links ]

HAHN, G.J., SHAPIRO, S.S., 1966. A catalogue and computer programme for design and analysis of orthogonal symmetric and asymmetric fractional experiments. General Electric Research and Development Centre Report Nº 66-C-165, Schenectady, New York.        [ Links ]

HANLEY, N., MacMILLAN, D., WRIGHT, R.E., BULLOCK, C., SIMPSON, I., PARSISSON, D., CRABTREE, B., 1998a. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 49(1) : 1-15.        [ Links ]

HANLEY, N., WRIGHT, R.E., ADAMOWICZ, W., 1998b. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 11(3-4) : 413-428.        [ Links ]

HANLEY, N., MOURATO, S., WRIGHT, R., 2001. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of economics Surveys 15: 435-462.        [ Links ]

HASS, G.C., 1922. Sales Prices as a Basis for Farm Land Appraisal. Technical Bulletin 9, Saint Paul: University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Station.        [ Links ]

HOTELLING, H., 1949. Letter to the Director of the National Park Service in Roy A. Prewitt, The Economics of Public Recreation. The Prewitt Report. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior. (Letter dated June 18, 1947).        [ Links ]

KRINSKY, I., ROBB, L.A., 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 715-719.        [ Links ]

LAREAU, T.J., RAE, D.A., 1989. Valuing WTP for diesel odor reductions: an application of contingent ranking technique. Southern Economic Journal 55(3) : 728–742.        [ Links ]

LEE, K.J., 1997. Hedonic estimation of nonindustrial private forest landowner amenity values. North Carolina State University, Ph.D.         [ Links ]

Le GOFFE, P., 2000. Hedonic pricing of agriculture and forestry externalities. Environmental and Resource Economics 15 : 397-401.        [ Links ]

LOUVIERE, J.J., WOODWORTH, G.G., 1983. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research 20 : 350-367.        [ Links ]

LUCE, R.D., 1959. Individual choice behaviour: a theoretical analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York.        [ Links ]

MACKENZIE, J., 1993. A comparison of contingent preference models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75: 593-603.        [ Links ]

MAHAN, B.L., POLASKY, S., ADAMS, R.M., 2000. Valuing urban wetlands: A property price approach. Land Economics 76: 100-113.        [ Links ]

MAGAT, W.A., VISCUSI, W.K., HURBER, J., 1988. Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15: 395-411.        [ Links ]

McFADDEN, D., 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In. P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics, New York: Academic Press: 105-142.        [ Links ]

MITCHELL, R.C., CARSON, R.T., 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.        [ Links ]

MORRISON, M.D., BLAMEY, R.K., BENNETT, J.W., LOUVIERE, J.J., 1996. A comparison of stated preference techniques for estimating environmental values. Choice Modelling Research Report No. 1, University College, The University of New South Wales, Canberra.        [ Links ]

MORRISON, M., BENNETT J., BLAMEY, R., LOUVIERE, J., 2002. Choice modelling and tests of benefit transfer. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84 : 161-170.        [ Links ]

MOURATO, S., FOSTER, V., 1999. Elicitation format and part whole bias: do contingent valuation and contingent ranking give the same result? CSERGE working paper GEC 99-17.        [ Links ]

POE, G., WELSH, M., CHAMP, P., 1997. Measuring the difference in mean willingness to pay when dichotomous choice contingent valuation responses are not independent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management73: 255-267.        [ Links ]

RIERA, P., 1995. Valoración de las externalidades de la emisión de gases contaminantes. efectos en España y otros países Europeos. Instituto Universitario de Estudios Europeos, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.        [ Links ]

ROLFE, J., BENNETT, J., LOUVIERE, J.J., 2000. Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecological Economics 35: 289-302.         [ Links ]

THURSTONE, L.L., 1927: A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 4: 273-286.        [ Links ]

WILLIS, K.G., GARROD, G.D., 1991. Valuing open access recreation on Inland Waterways: onsite recreation surveys and selection effects. Regional Studies 25: 511-524.        [ Links ]

¹ Corresponding Author E-mail: pere.riera@uab.es