Accounting for afforestation externalities: a comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling

Abstract

One issue faced by those using social cost-benefit analysis to make decisions on forestation is how to account for environmental externalities. This paper compares two different valuation techniques, contingent valuation and choice modelling. Both approaches were applied to an afforestation programme in the northeast of Spain, and were found to yield similar estimates of welfare change when the utility function was fully specified. However, when elements of the utility function were omitted, significant differences were detected in the welfare estimates derived from the two techniques. Choice modelling is the method recommended for use in policy evaluation contexts, such as cost-benefit analysis applications, because of the additional valuation information it provides.

Productivity of ectomycorrhizal and selected edible saprotrophic fungi in pine forests of the pre-Pyrenees mountains, Spain: Predictive equations for forest management of mycological resources

“…This practice, combined with the drop in wood prices in the past few decades, the shortage of manual labour, the decreased market for small diameter timber and the high costs of wood transportation has resulted in a serious decrease in the economic viability of the forestry sector (Mogas et al, 2005). A direct consequence of this loss has been the gradual decrease in the rural population (Aubarell et al, 1999), especially in mountainous areas.…”

Empirical models for predicting the production of wild mushrooms in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) forests in the Central Pyrenees

“…A recent survey demonstrated that Catalonians are willing to pay for the experience of picking wild mushrooms [17]. Consequently we could expect incentives for improved forest management.…”

Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?

“…Only some general statements have been made claiming that CE generates a lower number of protest responses. For example, Mogas et al (2005) argue that the lower response rate they observed in their CV compared to their CE was due to a 'protest motive' in CV. However, they do not detail this protest motive any further.…”