IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v166y2024ics1389934124001370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deciphering the plot preferences of forest contractors when purchasing stumpage through conjoint analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Alonso, Laura
  • Picos, Juan
  • del Carmen Iglesias-Pérez, Maria
  • Iglesias-González, David
  • Armesto, Julia

Abstract

In order to have sustainable wood value chains, it is essential to understand the factors that determine the incorporation of wood resources into them. Forest contractors are among the key players in this process. This study evaluates the preferences of forest contractors when purchasing forest parcels. The variables considered are: slope of the terrain, distance to the nearest road, parcel size, parcel shape, and the fragmentation of the surrounding land. The study area is Galicia, a region in northwestern Spain that is dominated by small-scale family forestry. An Attribute Levels Survey was designed to establish threshold values of the considered variables to afterwards perform a Choice Based Conjoint Analysis (CBCA). The CBCA allowed to analyze the preferences of forest contractors in relation to the values of these variables and their relative importance. Also, it allowed to generate a map of the level of preference for all the Galician forest parcels with individual, private ownership. The most noteworthy result of this survey was that size greatly impacts the preference of timber contractors, preceded by slope and followed by distance to roads. These results will aid in the design of landscape-scale policies in a geospatial dimension, like the promotion of forest associations, and will lead to an improvement in the sustainability of wood supply.

Suggested Citation

  • Alonso, Laura & Picos, Juan & del Carmen Iglesias-Pérez, Maria & Iglesias-González, David & Armesto, Julia, 2024. "Deciphering the plot preferences of forest contractors when purchasing stumpage through conjoint analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:166:y:2024:i:c:s1389934124001370
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124001370
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103283?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ficko, Andrej & Lidestav, Gun & Ní Dhubháin, Áine & Karppinen, Heimo & Zivojinovic, Ivana & Westin, Kerstin, 2019. "European private forest owner typologies: A review of methods and use," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 21-31.
    2. Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(9), pages 711-722, September.
    3. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
    4. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, March.
    5. Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Krause, Torsten & Orsi, Francesco & Geneletti, Davide & Brogaard, Sara & Aukes, Ewert & Ciolli, Marco & Grossmann, Carol & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica & Kister, Jutta & , 2021. "Mapping Europe’s institutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, innovations and governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    6. Alberdi, Iciar & Michalak, Roman & Fischer, Christoph & Gasparini, Patrizia & Brändli, Urs-Beat & Tomter, Stein Michael & Kuliesis, Andrius & Snorrason, Arnór & Redmond, John & Hernández, Laura & Lanz, 2016. "Towards harmonized assessment of European forest availability for wood supply in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 20-29.
    7. Xiaoshu Li & G. Andrew Stainback, 2020. "On-Site Experience Effect on Stakeholders’ Preferences of Forest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-16, September.
    8. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    9. Eline Broek-Altenburg & Adam Atherly, 2020. "Using discrete choice experiments to measure preferences for hard to observe choice attributes to inform health policy decisions," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    2. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    3. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    4. Frank Ebbers & Jan Zibuschka & Christian Zimmermann & Oliver Hinz, 2021. "User preferences for privacy features in digital assistants," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(2), pages 411-426, June.
    5. Sunghi An & Daisik Nam & R. Jayakrishnan & Soongbong Lee & Michael G. McNally, 2021. "A Study of the Factors Affecting Multimodal Ridesharing with Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Jinsung Kim & Minseok Kim & Sehyeuk Im & Donghyun Choi, 2021. "Competitiveness of E Commerce Firms through ESG Logistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-15, October.
    8. Meise, Jan Niklas & Rudolph, Thomas & Kenning, Peter & Phillips, Diane M., 2014. "Feed them facts: Value perceptions and consumer use of sustainability-related product information," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 510-519.
    9. Lieven, Theo, 2015. "Policy measures to promote electric mobility – A global perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 78-93.
    10. Natesan, Sumeetha R. & Dutta, Goutam, 2020. "Development of Utility Function for Vehicle Insurance: Comparison of Logarithmic Goal Programming Method and Conjoint Analysis Method," IIMA Working Papers WP 2020-02-01, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    11. Hajibaba, Homa & Boztuğ, Yasemin & Dolnicar, Sara, 2016. "Preventing tourists from canceling in times of crises," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 48-62.
    12. Kwarteng Michael Adu & Pilík Michal & Juřičková Eva, 2018. "Beyond cost saving. Other factor consideration in online purchases of used electronic goods: a conjoint analysis approach," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 13(3), pages 1051-1063, September.
    13. Sumeetha R. Natesan & Goutam Dutta, 2022. "A comparison of logarithmic goal programming and conjoint analysis to generate priority point vectors: an experimental approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 59(2), pages 518-549, June.
    14. Díaz, Verónica & Montoya, Ricardo & Maldonado, Sebastián, 2023. "Preference estimation under bounded rationality: Identification of attribute non-attendance in stated-choice data using a support vector machines approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 797-812.
    15. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    16. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    17. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    18. Dufhues, T. & Buchenrieder, G., 2004. "Der Beitrag der Conjoint Analyse zur nachfrageorintierten Entwicklung des ländlichen Finanzsektors in Vietnam," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    19. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Mahesh Balan U & Saji K. Mathew, 2021. "Personalize, Summarize or Let them Read? A Study on Online Word of Mouth Strategies and Consumer Decision Process," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 627-647, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:166:y:2024:i:c:s1389934124001370. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.