How viewing a forest affects willingness to pay of users and non-users in Contingent Valuation Method?

• Autorzy: Edyta Sidorczuk-Pietraszko , Anna Matel , Tomasz Poskrobko , Dariusz Andrejuk
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In Contingent Valuation studies, users generally declare willingness to pay (WTP) higher than non-users. This study attempts to investigate if viewing the good during CV survey has a different impact on users' and non-users' WTPs. A framed field experiment was conducted in which users and non-users were surveyed in two locations - one with a view of the forest and the other without it. Our study showed that the WTPs of users were significantly higher than those of non-users only when respondents did not see forest during the survey. However, when the experiment was conducted in a location where the respondents could see the forest - the difference disappeared. Our results also show that the relationship between declared WTP and both the respondents' socio-demographic sta-tus and their environmental attitudes were weaker among respondents surveyed in a location with a forest view. We believe that the increase in WTP of non-users is temporary and represents a kind of bias. This in turn may be relevant in the design of CVM studies.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Forests; Valuation; Willingness to pay (WTP); Socio-economic research; Ecology

PL

Lasy; Wycena; Metoda gotowości do płacenia; Badania społeczno-ekonomiczne; Ekologia

• Czasopismo: Ekonomia i Środowisko
• Rocznik: 2022
• Numer: nr 2 (81)
• Strony: 133--153

Twórcy

autor

Edyta Sidorczuk-Pietraszko

• University of Bialystok, Poland

autor

Anna Matel

• University of Bialystok, Poland

autor

Tomasz Poskrobko

• University of Bialystok, Poland

autor

Dariusz Andrejuk

• University of Bialystok, Poland

Bibliografia

• Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993).
• Barrick, K. A., & Beazley, R. I. (1990). Magnitude and distribution of option value for the Washakie Wilderness, northwest Wyoming, USA. Environmental Management, 14(3), 367-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02394205
• Bartczak, A., Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Zandersen, M., & Żylicz, T. (2008). Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: The case of Poland. Forest Policy and Economics, 10(7-8), 467-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.for-pol.2008.04.002
• Bartczak, A. (2015). The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 357-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.011
• Bateman, I., & Turner, R. (1993). Valuation of the environment, methods and techniques: The contingent valuation method. In R. K. Turner (Ed.) Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice (pp. 120-191). Belhaven Press.
• Bergstrom, J. C., Stoll, J. R., & Randall, A. (1990). The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72(3), 614-621. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243031
• Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., & Weimer, D. L. (2004). Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: Application to global climate change using national internet samples. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47(2), 331-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00094-9
• Bishop, I. D., & Rohrmann, B. (2003). Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: A comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(4), 261-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00070-7
• Blomquist, G. C., & Whitehead, J. C. (1998). Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics, 20(2), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928-7655(97)00035-3
• Brouwer, R. (2012). Constructed preference stability: A test-retest. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1(1), 70-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2011.644922
• Brown, T. C., Richards, M. T., Daniel, T. C., & King, D. A. (1989). Recreation Participation and the Validity of Photo-based Preference Judgments. Journal of Leisure Research, 21(1), 40-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1989.11969789
• Cameron, T. A., & Englin, J. (1997). Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33(3), 296-313. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1997.0995
• Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W. G., & Scarpa, R. (2009). Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41(1), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4038
• Choi, A. S. (2013). Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay. Ecological Economics, 88, 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.014
• Choi, A. S., & Fielding, K. S. (2013). Environmental Attitudes as WTP Predictors: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species. Ecological Economics, 89, 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.027
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
• De Steur, H., Buysse, J., Feng, S., & Gellynck, X. (2013). Role of Information on Consumers' Willingness-to-pay for Genetically-modified Rice with Health Benefits: An Application to China: Information and Willingness-To Pay for GM Rice. Asian Economic Journal, 27(4), 391-408. https://doi.org/10.1111/asej.12020
• De Valck, J., & Rolfe, J. (2018). Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Valuation: Status, Challenges and Road Ahead. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 11(4), 355-422. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000097
• Dupont, D. P. (2003). CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 25(3), 319-341. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024446110640
• El-Habil, A. M. (2012). An Application on Multinomial Logistic Regression Model. Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research, 8(2), 271. https://doi.org/10.18187/pjsor.v8i2.234
• Eurostat. (2002). The European Framework for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting for Forests. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/39314/44178/Handbook-IEEAF-2002.pdf/c7b2aeaa-c4dd-49ce-bf25-05740d90e043
• Frör, O. (2008). Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: Empirical evidence using cognitive psychology. Ecological Economics, 68(1-2), 570-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.021
• Giergiczny, M., Jacobsen, J., Glenk, K., Meyerhoff, J., Abildtrup, J., Agimass, F., Czajkowski, M., Faccioli, M., Gajderowicz, T., Getzner, M., Lundhede, T., Mayer, M., McVittie, A., Olschewski, R., Ščasný, M., Strange, N., & Valasiuk, S. (2021). Shaping the future of temperate forests in Europe: Why outdoor recreation matters [Preprint]. In Review. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-841881/v1
• Gilbert, A., Glass, R., & More, T. (1992). Valuation of eastern wilderness: Extramarket measures of public support. In: Payne, C., Bowker, J., Reed, P. (compilers), Economic Value of Wilderness. GTR-SE78, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA. In Payne, C., Bowker, J., Reed, P. (compilers), The Economic Value of Wilderness: Proceedings of the Conference: Jackson, Wyoming, May 8-11, 1991. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_se078.pdf
• Greene, W. H., & Hensher, D. A. (2010). Modelling Ordered Choices: A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gyllin, M., & Grahn, P. (2015). Semantic Assessments of Experienced Biodiversity from Photographs and On-Site Observations - A Comparison. Environment and Natural Resources Research, 5(4), 46. https://doi.org/10.5539/enrr.v5n4p46
• Halstead, J. M., Luloff, A. E., & Stevens, T. H. (1992). Protest Bidders in Contingent Valuation. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 21(2), 160-169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0899367X00002683
• Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(4), 1255-1263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453
• Hanley, N., Schläpfer, F., & Spurgeon, J. (2003). Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: Distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management, 68(3), 297-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00084-7
• Harrison, G. W., & List, J.A. (2004). Field Experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 2004, 42, 1009-1055. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051043004577
• Jia, Y., Huang, Y., Wyer, R. S., & Shen, H. (2017). Physical proximity increases persuasive effectiveness through visual imagery. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 435-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.07.001
• Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W. (Vic), Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Ryan, M., Scarpa, R., Tourangeau, R., & Vossler, C. A. (2017). Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2), 319-405. https://doi.org/10.1086/691697
• Jørgensen, S. L., Olsen, S. B., Ladenburg, J., Martinsen, L., Svenningsen, S. R., & Hasler, B. (2013). Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements - Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecological Economics, 92, 58-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.015
• Kniivilä, M. (2006). Users and non-users of conservation areas: Are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys? Ecological Economics, 59(4), 530-539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.017
• Kroh, D. P., & Gimblett, R. H. (1992). Comparing live experience with pictures in articulating landscape preference. Landscape Research, 17(2), 58-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426399208706362
• Landscape Research, 36(3), 363-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.564858
• LaRiviere, J., Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N., Aanesen, M., Falk-Petersen, J., & Tinch, D. (2014). The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 68(2), 376-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2014.07.004
• Lifang, Z., Ting, Y., Yang, L., & Li, Z. (2020). Analyses on the Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Urban Rental Housing Supply and Demand Hotspots Based on Social Media Data. 2020 5th IEEE International Conference on Big Data Analytics (ICBDA), 126-130. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBDA49040.2020.9101317
• Liu, C., Lin, M., Qi, X., & Zheng, W. (2021). Estimating the Preservation Value of Wuyishan National Park from the Perspective of Bounded Rational Decision Making. Sustainability, 13(13), 6983. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13136983
• Lo, A. Y., & Jim, C. Y. (2015). Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method. Ecological Economics, 114, 58-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.012
• Loomis, J., Gonzalez-Caban, A., & Gregory, R. (1994). Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates? Land Economics, 70(4), 499. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146643
• Long J. S,. & Freese J. (2014). Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, Third Edition (Third Edition). Stata Press.
• Lusk, J. L. (2004). Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: Evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France. European Review of Agriculture Economics, 31(2), 179-204. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/31.2.179
• MacMillan, D., Hanley, N., & Lienhoop, N. (2006). Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine? Ecological Economics, 60(1), 299-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.031
• Matel, A., & Poskrobko, T. (2019). Could survey technique or other research conditions "change" our ecological behaviour? - Testing response bias in consumer research. Ekonomia i Środowisko - Economics and Environment, 71(4), 16. https://doi.org/10.34659/2019/4/46
• Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1988). Evaluating the validity of contingent valuation studies. Resources for the Future.
• Mittal, J., & Byahut, S. (2019). Scenic landscapes, visual accessibility and premium values in a single family housing market: A spatial hedonic approach. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(1), 66-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317702147
• Napolitano, F., Pacelli, C., Girolami, A., & Braghieri, A. (2008). Effect of Information About Animal Welfare on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Yogurt. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(3), 910-917. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0709
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Parsons, G., & Yan, L. (2021). Anchoring on visual cues in a stated preference survey: The case of siting offshore wind power projects. Journal of Choice Modelling, 38, 100264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2020.100264
• Pate, J., & Loomis, J. (1997). The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: A case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecological Economics, 20(3), 199-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00080-8
• Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4473366/mod_folder/intro/Arow_WTP.pdf
• Riera, P., et al. (2012). Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practise guidelines, Journal of Forest Economics, 18(4), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2012.07.001
• Rolfe, J.; Bennett, J.; Louviere, J. Stated Values and Reminders of Substitute Goods: Testing for Framing Effects with Choice Modelling. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2002, 46, 1-20, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.00164
• Sayadi, S., González-Roa, M. C., & Calatrava-Requena, J. (2009). Public preferences for landscape features: The case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 334-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lan-dusepol.2008.04.003
• Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., & Rose, J. (2012). Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 79, 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.013
• Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2011). Landscape Representation Validity: A Comparison between On-site Observations and Photographs with Different Angles of View.
• Shechter, M., & Freeman, S. (1994). Nonuse Value: Reflections on the Definition and Measurement. In R. Pethig (Ed.) Valuing the Environment: Methodological and Measurement Issues (pp. 171-194). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8317-6_7
• Shi, J., Honjo, T., Zhang, K., & Furuya, K. (2020). Using Virtual Reality to Assess Landscape: A Comparative Study Between On-Site Survey and Virtual Reality of Aesthetic Preference and Landscape Cognition. Sustainability, 12(7), 2875. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072875
• Smith, V. K. (1987). Nonuse Values in Benefit Cost Analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 54(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.2307/1058800
• Sutherland, R. J., & Walsh, R. G. (1985). Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality. Land Economics, 61(3), 281. https://doi.org/10.2307/3145843
• System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012. Central Framework. (2014).
• Tabi, A., & del Saz-Salazar, S. (2015). Environmental damage evaluation in a willingness-to-accept scenario: A latent-class approach based on familiarity. Ecological Economics, 116, 280-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.010
• Toma, L., Stott, A. W., Revoredo-Giha, C., & Kupiec-Teahan, B. (2012). Consumers and animal welfare. A comparison between European Union countries. Appetite, 58(2), 597-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.015
• United Nations. European Union. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. International Monetary Fund. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The World Bank. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seearev/seea_cf_final_en.pdf
• Weber, S., Horak, S., & Marusic, Z. (2002). Valuation of environmental assets: A case of Croatian coastal forests. Tourism Review, 57(1/2), 22-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb058375
• Whitehead, J. C., Blomquist, G. C., Hoban, T. J., & Clifford, W. B. (1995). Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Contingent Values: A Comparison of On-Site Users, OffSite Users, and Non-users. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(2), 238-251. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1044
• Williams, R. (2012). Using the Margins Command to Estimate and Interpret Adjusted Predictions and Marginal Effects. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 12(2), 308-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1201200209
• Xiang, Y., Liang, H., Fang, X., Chen, Y., Xu, N., Hu, M., Chen, Q., Mu, S., Hedblom, M., Qiu, L., & Gao, T. (2021). The comparisons of on-site and off-site applications in surveys on perception of and preference for urban green spaces: Which approach is more reliable? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 58, 126961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126961
• Xiao, Y., Orford, S., & Webster, C. J. (2016). Urban configuration, accessibility, and property prices: A case study of Cardiff, Wales. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(1), 108-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515600120

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.34659/eis.2022.81.2.447