IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeeman/v83y2017icp217-230.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing environmental amenities through inverse optimization: Theory and case study

Author

Listed:
  • Zhou, Mo

Abstract

Amenity values of private forests are implicit but play a critical role in decision and policy making. This study presents an innovative valuation approach integrating techniques of operations research and economic theory of pricing environmental goods. A forest planning problem was inversed through altering its reward function of timber values so that the observed harvesting behavior became optimal. The discrepancy between the original and new rewards uncovered amenities values which were linked to forest attributes via hedonic models. This method was applied to a case study of the U.S. southern pine region. Depending on forest conditions, total economic values of amenities varied from zero to just under one thousand dollar per ha. At a discount rate of 3%, a typically managed forest generated on average $243 ha−1 of amenities values per annum, more than twice of harvested timber values. Structural diversity and density of large pine trees were the key determinants to preserving forests for environmental amenities.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhou, Mo, 2017. "Valuing environmental amenities through inverse optimization: Theory and case study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 217-230.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:83:y:2017:i:c:p:217-230
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2017.03.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009506961630167X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jeem.2017.03.006?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. Zeynep Erkin & Matthew D. Bailey & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2010. "Eliciting Patients' Revealed Preferences: An Inverse Markov Decision Process Approach," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 358-365, December.
    2. Harry F. Campbell & Sarah M. Jennings, 2004. "Non‐timber Values and the Optimal Forest Rotation: An Application to the Southern Forest of Tasmania," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 80(251), pages 387-393, December.
    3. Ravindra K. Ahuja & James B. Orlin, 2001. "Inverse Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(5), pages 771-783, October.
    4. Paul Davidson, 1991. "Inflation, Open Economies and Resources," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-11516-7 edited by Louise Davidson.
    5. Juha Siikamäki & David F. Layton, 2007. "Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Incentive Payment Programs for the Protection of Non-Industrial Private Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 539-560.
    6. repec:elg:eechap:14605_8 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. David Dole, 1999. "Implicit Valuation of Non-Market Benefits in Even-Aged Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(1), pages 95-105, January.
    8. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    9. Starbuck, C.M.C. Meghan & Alexander, Susan J. & Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K., 2004. "Valuing special forest products harvesting:: a two-step travel cost recreation demand analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 37-53, May.
    10. Williams, Byron K., 2009. "Markov decision processes in natural resources management: Observability and uncertainty," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(6), pages 830-840.
    11. Nancy E. Bockstael, 1996. "Modeling Economics and Ecology: The Importance of a Spatial Perspective," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1168-1180.
    12. Damian R. Beil & Lawrence M. Wein, 2003. "An Inverse-Optimization-Based Auction Mechanism to Support a Multiattribute RFQ Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(11), pages 1529-1545, November.
    13. Englin, Jeffrey & Mendelsohn, Robert, 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, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 275-290, November.
    14. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
    15. Paul Davidson, 1991. "Rational Expectations: a Fallacious Foundation for Studying Crucial Decision Making Processes," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Louise Davidson (ed.), Inflation, Open Economies and Resources, chapter 12, pages 123-138, Palgrave Macmillan.
    16. Kuminoff, Nicolai V. & Parmeter, Christopher F. & Pope, Jaren C., 2010. "Which hedonic models can we trust to recover the marginal willingness to pay for environmental amenities?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 145-160, November.
    17. Siikamäki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Incentive Payment Programs for Biological Conservation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-27, Resources for the Future.
    18. David H. Newman & David N. Wear, 1993. "Production Economics of Private Forestry: A Comparison of Industrial and Nonindustrial Forest Owners," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 674-684.
    19. Raunikar, Ronald & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2006. "Willingness to pay for forest amenities: The case of non-industrial owners in the south central United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 132-143, January.
    20. K. G. Willis & G. D. Garrod, 1991. "An Individual Travel‐Cost Method Of Evaluating Forest Recreation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 33-42, 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. Lautrup, M. & Panduro, T.E. & Olsen, J.V. & Pedersen, M.F. & Jacobsen, J.B., 2023. "Is there more to trees than timber? Estimating the private amenity value of forests using a hedonic land model for combined agricultural properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(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. Timothy C. Y. Chan & Tim Craig & Taewoo Lee & Michael B. Sharpe, 2014. "Generalized Inverse Multiobjective Optimization with Application to Cancer Therapy," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 680-695, June.
    2. Matthew Gnagey & Therese Grijalva, 2018. "The impact of trails on property values: a spatial analysis," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 60(1), pages 73-97, January.
    3. Allan Beltrán & David Maddison & Robert J. R. Elliott, 2018. "Assessing the Economic Benefits of Flood Defenses: A Repeat‐Sales Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2340-2367, November.
    4. von Graevenitz, Kathrine, 2018. "The amenity cost of road noise," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 1-22.
    5. Nicolai V. Kuminoff & Jaren C. Pope, 2014. "Do “Capitalization Effects” For Public Goods Reveal The Public'S Willingness To Pay?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1227-1250, November.
    6. Schilling, Brian J. & Sullivan, Kevin P. & Duke, Joshua M., 2013. "Do Residual Development Options Increase Preserved Farmland Values?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-17.
    7. Sanglim Yoo & John E. Wagner, 2016. "A review of the hedonic literatures in environmental amenities from open space: a traditional econometric vs. spatial econometric model," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 141-166, March.
    8. Zhang, Congwen & Boyle, Kevin J. & Kuminoff, Nicolai V., 2015. "Partial identification of amenity demand functions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 180-197.
    9. Livy, Mitchell R., 2018. "Intra-school district capitalization of property tax rates," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 227-236.
    10. Stefan Seifert & Christoph Kahle & Silke Hüttel, 2021. "Price Dispersion in Farmland Markets: What Is the Role of Asymmetric Information?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1545-1568, August.
    11. Mei, Yingdan & Qiu, Jixiang & Wu, Jialu & Meng, Lina, 2021. "Do residents care about urban dumps? Evidence from individual housing transaction data," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Galarraga, Ibon & González-Eguino, Mikel & Markandya, Anil, 2011. "Willingness to pay and price elasticities of demand for energy-efficient appliances: Combining the hedonic approach and demand systems," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(S1), pages 66-74.
    13. Tuttle, Carrie M. & Heintzelman, Martin D., 2015. "A loon on every lake: A hedonic analysis of lake water quality in the Adirondacks," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-15.
    14. Kousky, Carolyn & Walls, Margaret, 2014. "Floodplain conservation as a flood mitigation strategy: Examining costs and benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 119-128.
    15. Severen, Christopher & Costello, Christopher & Deschênes, Olivier, 2018. "A Forward-Looking Ricardian Approach: Do land markets capitalize climate change forecasts?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 235-254.
    16. Muhammad Zaim Razak & Haniza Khalid & Azhar Mohamad, 2018. "Speculative Behavior in Vacant Land Development: Evidence for Real Options in Malaysia," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 56(4), pages 245-266, December.
    17. Marc Prieto & Assen Slim, 2009. "Évaluation des actifs environnementaux : quels prix pour quelles valeurs ?," Post-Print hal-01273549, HAL.
    18. Christian Almer & Stefan Boes & Stephan Nüesch, 2017. "Adjustments in the housing market after an environmental shock: evidence from a large-scale change in aircraft noise exposure," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 918-938.
    19. Hao Wu & Hongzan Jiao & Yang Yu & Zhigang Li & Zhenghong Peng & Lingbo Liu & Zheng Zeng, 2018. "Influence Factors and Regression Model of Urban Housing Prices Based on Internet Open Access Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    20. Xuan Huang & Bruno Lanz, 2018. "The Value of Air Quality in Chinese Cities: Evidence from Labor and Property Market Outcomes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 849-874, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Q23; Q57; Nonmarket valuation; Inverse optimization; Revealed preference; Ecosystem services; Markov Decision Process; Forest management; Hedonic model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    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:jeeman:v:83:y:2017:i:c:p:217-230. 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/inca/622870 .

    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.