IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v8y2006i5p542-554.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The socio-economic evaluation of the impact of forestry on rural development: A regional level analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Slee, Bill

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Slee, Bill, 2006. "The socio-economic evaluation of the impact of forestry on rural development: A regional level analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(5), pages 542-554, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:8:y:2006:i:5:p:542-554
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(05)00075-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Macmillan, Douglas C. & Philip, Lorna & Hanley, Nick & Alvarez-Farizo, Begona, 2002. "Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 49-59, November.
    2. Slee, Bill, 2001. "Resolving production-environment conflicts: the case of the Regional Forest Agreement Process in Australia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1-2), pages 17-30, September.
    3. D. Eiser & D. Roberts, 2002. "The Employment and Output Effects of Changing Patterns of Afforestation in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 65-81, March.
    4. D. C. Macmillan, 1993. "Commercial Forests In Scotland: An Economic Appraisal Of Replanting," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 51-66, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ludvig, Alice & Weiss, Gerhard & Sarkki, Simo & Nijnik, Maria & Živojinović, Ivana, 2018. "Mapping European and forest related policies supporting social innovation for rural settings," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 146-152.
    2. Jarský, Vilém & Sarvašová, Zuzana & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Ventrubová, Kateřina & Sarvaš, Milan, 2014. "Public support for forestry from EU funds – Cases of Czech Republic and Slovak Republic," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 380-395.
    3. McDonagh John & Farrell Maura & Mahon Marie & Ryan Mary, 2010. "New opportunities and cautionary steps? Farmers, forestry and rural development in Ireland," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 2(4), pages 236-251, January.
    4. Burt, George & Mackay, David & Mendibil, Kepa, 2021. "Overcoming multi-stakeholder fragmented narratives in land use, woodland and forestry policy: The role scenario planning and ‘dissociative jolts’," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).

    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. Demont, Matty & Rutsaert, Pieter & Ndour, Maimouna & Verbeke, Wim & Seck, Papa Abdoulaye & Tollens, Eric, 2012. "Experimental auctions, collective induction and choice shift: Willingness-to-pay for rice quality in Senegal," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126861, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    3. Roosen, Jutta & Bieberstein, Andrea & Marette, Stephan & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Vandermoere, Frederic, 2011. "The Effect of Information Choice and Discussion on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay for Nanotechnologies in Food," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-10, August.
    4. Szabó, Zoltán, 2011. "Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 37-44.
    5. Gunnar Lindberg, 2011. "On the appropriate use of (input-output) coefficients to generate non-survey regional input-output tables: Implications for the determination of output multipliers," ERSA conference papers ersa10p800, European Regional Science Association.
    6. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Lee, Joung Hun & Iwasa, Yoh, 2012. "Optimal investment for enhancing social concern about biodiversity conservation: A dynamic approach," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 177-186.
    8. Meinard, Yves & Remy, Alice & Schmid, Bernhard, 2017. "Measuring Impartial Preference for Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 45-54.
    9. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick & Barberan, Ramon & Lazaro, Angelina, 2007. "Choice modeling at the "market stall": Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 743-751, February.
    10. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    11. Carlier, Alexis & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Directly Valuing Animal Welfare in (Environmental) Economics," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 14(1), pages 113-152, April.
    12. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaicharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2008. "Better than their reputation - A case for mail surveys in contingent valuation," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 297/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    13. Schläpfer, Felix & Schmitt, Marcel & Roschewitz, Anna, 2008. "Competitive politics, simplified heuristics, and preferences for public goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 574-589, April.
    14. Musselwhite, Gary & Herath, Gamini, 2005. "Australia's regional forest agreement process: analysis of the potential and problems," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 579-588, May.
    15. Gret-Regamey, Adrienne & Kytzia, Susanne, 2007. "Integrating the valuation of ecosystem services into the Input-Output economics of an Alpine region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 786-798, September.
    16. Baulcomb, Corinne & Fletcher, Ruth & Lewis, Amy & Akoglu, Ekin & Robinson, Leonie & von Almen, Amanda & Hussain, Salman & Glenk, Klaus, 2015. "A pathway to identifying and valuing cultural ecosystem services: An application to marine food webs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 128-139.
    17. Kanowski, Peter J., 2017. "Australia's forests: Contested past, tenure-driven present, uncertain future," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 56-68.
    18. Völker, Marc & Lienhoop, Nele, 2016. "Exploring group dynamics in deliberative choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 57-67.
    19. Aanesen, Margrethe & Armstrong, Claire & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Falk-Petersen, Jannike & Hanley, Nick & Navrud, Ståle, 2015. "Willingness to pay for unfamiliar public goods: Preserving cold-water coral in Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 53-67.
    20. repec:rre:publsh:v:34:y:2004:i:1:p:57-71 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Bill Slee, 2005. "The Halo Effect: A Widened Perspective on the Relationship between Forestry and the Rural Economy," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 1, pages 10-22.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:8:y:2006:i:5:p:542-554. 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.