2000
DOI: 10.1093/forestry/73.2.119
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contingent valuation of the Natura 2000 nature conservation programme in Finland

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
15
1
3

Year Published

2004
2004
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
4
15
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Coincidently, the Finnish government, after some protests from the public, revised in 1998 its initial 1997 proposal with a lower level of increase in the nature preservation area. The result of a satiated value function after a 3% increase is also consistent with the findings in Pouta et al (2000) based on the binary choice contingent valuation data in which only one of the three increase programs is presented to each respondent. In general, we expect that the choice experimental design with several programs presented to the same respondent would facilitate the ranking of alternatives, but the stated preferences still do not differ among the three different increase programs.…”
Section: Model Estimates and Welfare Interpretationssupporting
confidence: 83%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Coincidently, the Finnish government, after some protests from the public, revised in 1998 its initial 1997 proposal with a lower level of increase in the nature preservation area. The result of a satiated value function after a 3% increase is also consistent with the findings in Pouta et al (2000) based on the binary choice contingent valuation data in which only one of the three increase programs is presented to each respondent. In general, we expect that the choice experimental design with several programs presented to the same respondent would facilitate the ranking of alternatives, but the stated preferences still do not differ among the three different increase programs.…”
Section: Model Estimates and Welfare Interpretationssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Of these, 2400 were presented with a binary choice contingent valuation question, and 1600 with a choice experimental table. In addition, the sample was also equally divided into two different conservation planning methods, one as the EU Natura 2000 method (termed as a bureaucratic planning method in Pouta et al 2000) and the other as a participatory planning (with various communication vehicles and public hearings).…”
Section: The Survey Administration and Choice Experimental Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A diferencia de otros estudios realizados con el MVC (Hidano et al, 2005;Bandara y Tisdell, 2004;León y Vázquez-Polo, 2000;Pouta et al, 2000;Melo y Donoso, 1995), este trabajo emplea la técnica para valorar el servicio hídrico en la cuenca de Tapalpa, Jalisco, México.…”
Section: Introductionunclassified
“…Various studies on benefit-cost analysis has been conducted to assess benefits of conservation with opportunity costs (Kriström, 1990;Mattsson & Chuanzhong, 1993;Van Kooten, 1995;Swanson & Loomis, 1996;Ninan et al 2007;Wilson et al, 2010). Earlier studies used non-market valuation method such as contingent valuation method (CVM) to quantify social benefits of forest conservation (Macdonald & McKenney, 1996;Rollins & Lyke, 1998;Pouta et al, 2000;Lehtonen et al, 2003;Wilson et al, 2010) while social cost of forest conservation have been quantified by lost producer and consumer surplus (Van Kooten & Wang, 1998) and wood supply models (see Khajuria et al, 2008;Wilson et al, 2010). Several studies have shown that poor people mostly living in rural areas, inside forest or at forest margins are highly dependent on natural resources particularly forest for their livelihood (Gunatilake, 1996; It is necessary to know to what extent the forest dwellers depend on forest for their livelihood and it is also essential to make a comparative assessment of the benefits earned from conservation of forest and benefits forgone from other land use option such as agriculture, sericulture and horticulture.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%