IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i19p7845-d417681.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On-Site Experience Effect on Stakeholders’ Preferences of Forest Management

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoshu Li

    (School of Maritime Economics and Management, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China)

  • G. Andrew Stainback

    (The Everglades Foundation, Palmetto Bay, FL 33157, USA)

Abstract

An understanding of how public preferences vary among different stakeholders toward forest management policies would be helpful in the forest policy design and administration process. In this study, we investigate the preferences toward forest management policies of three stakeholder groups-woodlot owners, environmentalists, and the general public. We used a stated-preference survey to elicit information about stakeholder preferences for forest management practices at Holt Research Forest in Maine. The survey was administered to each group both before and after an on-site experience at the forest. We specifically investigated how information and experience acquired through the on-site experience would influence the preferences of each group. We also conducted a latent class analysis to further explore the preference heterogeneity among survey participants. The results show differences in preferences for forest management policies between stakeholders with the preferences of woodlot owners differing substantially from environmentalists and the general public both before and after the on-site experience. The on-site experience did not have a substantial impact on woodlot owners. In contrast, it increased the consistency of choice decisions among environmentalists and the public.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:7845-:d:417681
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7845/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7845/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kilgore, Michael A. & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Schertz, Joseph & Taff, Steven J., 2008. "What does it take to get family forest owners to enroll in a forest stewardship-type program?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(7-8), pages 507-514, October.
    2. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2007. "Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 516-526, January.
    3. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Englin, Jeffrey, 1997. "Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 296-313, July.
    4. Valkeapää, Annukka & Karppinen, Heimo, 2013. "Citizens' view of legitimacy in the context of Finnish forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 52-59.
    5. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    6. Thomas P. Holmes & Kevin J. Boyle & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2002. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1172-1175.
    7. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-90, April.
    8. Eggers, Jeannette & Holmgren, Sara & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Lämås, Tomas & Lind, Torgny & Öhman, Karin, 2019. "Balancing different forest values: Evaluation of forest management scenarios in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 55-69.
    9. Carlsson, Julia & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola & Öhman, Karin & Nordström, Eva-Maria, 2015. "Combining scientific and stakeholder knowledge in future scenario development — A forest landscape case study in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 122-134.
    10. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.
    11. Kant, Shashi & Lee, Susan, 2004. "A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 215-227, June.
    12. Li, Xiaoshu & Boyle, Kevin J. & Holmes, Thomas P. & LaRouche, Genevieve Pullis, 2014. "The effect of on-site forest experience on stated preferences for low-impact timber harvesting programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 348-362.
    13. Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen, 2007. "Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 75-102, August.
    14. Raum, Susanne, 2018. "A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 170-184.
    15. Boyle Kevin J. & Welsh Michael P. & Bishop Richard C., 1993. "The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 80-99, July.
    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. 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).

    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. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nicholas & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2012. "The Effects of Experience on Preference Uncertainty: Theory and Empirics for Public and Quasi-Public Goods," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2012-17, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    2. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nicholas & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2013. "The Effects of Experience on Preference Uncertainty: Theory and Empirics for Public and Quasi-Public Environmental Goods," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2013-11, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    3. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2013. "The effects of experience on preference uncertainty: theory and empirics for environmental goods," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152155, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Li, Xiaoshu & Boyle, Kevin J. & Pullis, Genevieve, 2012. "Does On-site Experience Affect Responses to Stated Preference Questions?," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124991, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2015. "The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 333-351.
    6. Li, Xiaoshu & Boyle, Kevin J. & Holmes, Thomas P. & LaRouche, Genevieve Pullis, 2014. "The effect of on-site forest experience on stated preferences for low-impact timber harvesting programs," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 348-362.
    7. repec:sss:wpaper:201405 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Lyssenko, Nikita & Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2009. "`Been there done that': Disentangling option value effects from user heterogeneity when valuing natural resources with a use component," MPRA Paper 21976, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Apr 2010.
    9. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.
    10. Jing Zhao & Hui Hu & Jinglei Wang, 2022. "Forest Carbon Reserve Calculation and Comprehensive Economic Value Evaluation: A Forest Management Model Based on Both Biomass Expansion Factor Method and Total Forest Value," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-15, November.
    11. Wang, Sen & Wilson, Bill, 2007. "Pluralism in the economics of sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 743-750, April.
    12. Garces-Voisenat, Juan-Pedro & Mukherjee, Zinnia, 2012. "Estimating the Willingness to Pay for Environmental Resources in the Chilean Patagonia," Working Papers 105, Wake Forest University, Economics Department.
    13. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    14. Carr-Harris, Andrew & Lang, Corey, 2019. "Sustainability and tourism: the effect of the United States’ first offshore wind farm on the vacation rental market," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 51-67.
    15. Johnston, Robert J. & Joglekar, Deepak P., 2005. "Validating Hypothetical Surveys Using Binding Public Referenda: Implications for Stated Preference Valuation," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19519, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L. & Weimer, David L., 2004. "Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 331-363, March.
    17. Kniivila, Matleena, 2006. "Users and non-users of conservation areas: Are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 530-539, October.
    18. Sebastian Heidenreich & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan & Euan Phimister, 2018. "Decision heuristic or preference? Attribute non‐attendance in discrete choice problems," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 157-171, January.
    19. Bohara, Alok K. & Caplan, Arthur J. & Grijalva, Therese, 2007. "The effect of experience and quantity-based pricing on the valuation of a curbside recycling program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 433-443, December.
    20. LaRiviere, Jacob & Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nick & Aanesen, Margrethe & Falk-Peterson, Jannike & Tinch, Dugald, 2014. "Effects of Experience, Knowledge and Signals on Willingness to Pay for a Public Good," SIRE Discussion Papers 2014-008, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    21. Kularatne, Thamarasi & Wilson, Clevo & Lee, Boon & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Tourists’ before and after experience valuations: A unique choice experiment with policy implications for the nature-based tourism industry," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 529-543.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:7845-:d:417681. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.