IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v43y2006i9p1537-1547.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Residents Willing to Pay for their Community Forests? Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey in Missouri, USA

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Treiman

    (Missouri Department of Conservation Resource Science, 1110 College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65201, USA, tom.treiman@mdc.mo.gov)

  • Justine Gartner

    (Missouri Department of Conservation Resource Science, 1110 College Avenue, Columbia, Missouri 65201, USA, justine.gartner@mdc.mo.gov)

Abstract

Publicly owned trees have important environmental and amenity values contributing to the quality of urban life. Community officials charged with managing this resource face a lack of funding and underestimate the value that residents place on street trees. A survey of residents in 44 Missouri, USA, communities included a contingent valuation method item designed to estimate how residents' willingness-to-pay for improved tree care and maintenance varied with community size and location. Residents in communities with a population of 50 000 or more, in the St Louis and Kansas City suburbs, and in St Louis and Kansas City show strong support for a ballot issue establishing a tree fund supported by a tax of between $14 and $16 per household per year. The results of this survey, together with recent surveys of community forestry officials and street tree inventories, are used to make recommendations to state agencies charged with managing community forests.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Treiman & Justine Gartner, 2006. "Are Residents Willing to Pay for their Community Forests? Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey in Missouri, USA," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 43(9), pages 1537-1547, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:43:y:2006:i:9:p:1537-1547
    DOI: 10.1080/00420980600749928
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/00420980600749928
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00420980600749928?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    2. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    3. Seung-Jun Kwak & Seung-Hoon Yoo & Sang-Yong Han, 2003. "Estimating the Public's Value for Urban Forest in the Seoul Metropolitan Area of Korea: A Contingent Valuation Study," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(11), pages 2207-2221, October.
    4. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    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. Luisa Sturiale & Alessandro Scuderi, 2018. "The Evaluation of Green Investments in Urban Areas: A Proposal of an eco-social-green Model of the City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.

    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. Rex Labao & Herminia Francisco & Dieldre Harder & Florence Santos, 2008. "Do Colored Photographs Affect Willingness to Pay Responses for Endangered Species Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 251-264, June.
    2. Seon-Ae Kim & Jeffrey M. Gillespie & Krishna P. Paudel, 2008. "Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost-share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 235-252, September.
    3. Manuel Frondel & Stephan Sommer & Lukas Tomberg, 2021. "WTA-WTP Disparity: The Role of Perceived Realism of the Valuation Setting," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 97(1), pages 196-206.
    4. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 182-192, October.
    6. Karen Blumenschein & GlennC. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, January.
    7. Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O'Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
    8. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    9. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Shu-Yi Liao & Wei-Chun Tseng & Pin-Yu Chen & Chi-Chung Chen & Wei-Min Wu, 2010. "Estimating the Economic Impact of Climate Change on Cardiovascular Diseases—Evidence from Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Thomas G. Poder & Jie He, 2016. "Willingness to pay and the sensitivity of willingness to pay for interdisciplinary musculoskeletal clinics: a contingent valuation study in Quebec, Canada," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 337-361, December.
    13. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May.
    14. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Shivaraj Thapa & Subina Shrestha & Ram Kumar Adhikari & Suman Bhattarai & Deepa Paudel & Deepak Gautam & Anil Koirala, 2022. "Residents’ willingness-to-pay for watershed conservation program facilitating ecosystem services in Begnas watershed, Nepal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 7811-7832, June.
    16. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Liu, Xuemin, 2008. "Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: A policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 328-335, December.
    17. Champ, Patricia A. & Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C., 2004. "Hypothetical Bias: The Mitigating Effects Of Certainty Questions And Cheap Talk," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19951, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Lee, Choong-Ki & W. Mjelde, James, 2007. "Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: The case of the Korean DMZ," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 511-520, August.
    19. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    20. Stavroula Tsigou & Stathis Klonaris, 2018. "Factors affecting farmers’ WTP for innovative fertilizer against soil salinity," Working Papers 2018-3, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.

    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:sae:urbstu:v:43:y:2006:i:9:p:1537-1547. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    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.