Estimates of willingness to accept compensation to manage pine stands for ecosystem services

Mutandwa, Edward; Grala, Robert K.; Petrolia, Daniel R.

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.03.001

Cited by 28 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When looking for explanations that could clarify this difference, it should be kept in mind that owners also take into account other non-economic factors in forest management [46] that impact their willingness to make an effort to provide ecosystem services [47,48], but which may also determine the WTA value. The average WTA value set in the most conservative model, WTA1 (total ban on logging) would allow restrictions in the other models to be imposed on surface areas almost twice as large (1.87, 2.07, and 2.05 ha in models WTA2, 3, and 4, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a US study, owners in Minnesota expected a minimum of USD 59.29/ha for joining a water quality and wildlife habitat improvement programme [52]; owners in Massachusetts expected a minimum of USD 793.05/ha for biomass production for bio-energy purposes [53], and owners in Massachusetts and Vermont expected compensation of up to USD 1729/ha/year to continuously provide a variety of ecosystem services in their forests [54]. In pine stands in the southern USA, the WTA value ranged from USD 190.22 to 595.23/ha/year and increased with the intensity of forest management restrictions [47]. Our research and that of others suggests that the willingness of forest owners to accept compensation depends on the scale of forest management restrictions, especially in the case of high harvested timber volume [50,55].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Much Is the Abandonment of Forest Management in Private Forests Worth? A Case of Poland

Gołos

Ukalska

Wysocka-Fijorek

et al. 2021

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The provision of forest ecosystem services (such as biodiversity, water and soil protection, and recreation) is often associated with a reduction in timber harvesting. In the case of private forests, such a situation requires institutional solutions that allow the economic balance of forest management to be maintained. The aim of the study was to find out the average value of monetary compensation private forest owners would expect in case of timber harvesting restrictions. The study was conducted with a random sample of 1003 forest landowners. The average value of expected compensation ranged from PLN 2300/year/ha (which corresponds to the price of about 12 m3 of wood in Poland) under the condition of no restrictions on timber harvesting but the need to apply indicated of forest management methods, to PLN 4900/year/ha in the model assuming a total ban on harvesting. In general, higher compensation was expected by farmers who stated that they sold timber and those whose agricultural area was larger than the average in Poland. When harvesting restrictions are low, the expected compensation is influenced by the age and gender of the respondent, or the number of people in the household.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Much Is the Abandonment of Forest Management in Private Forests Worth? A Case of Poland

Gołos

Ukalska

Wysocka-Fijorek

et al. 2021

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various studies using economic valuation in the United States have focused on state-or county-level non-market functions, such as farmland amenity, environmental preservation, and aesthetic value [174]. These studies have included use of non-market evaluation techniques to measure amenity values generated by farmland [182] and public preferences for amenity and agricultural functions [183,184], applying WTP and CVM [185,186], and WTP for ecosystem services [187].…”

Section: Economic Valuationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes

Song

Robinson

Bardsley

2020

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multifunctional agriculture (MFA) has attracted increased attention from academics and policymakers in recent years. Academic researchers have utilised various approaches to assess and measure the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural landscapes. This paper outlines the nature of MFA and key supporting policies, before reviewing the applied research approaches, drawing primarily from the European Union and China where specific policies on MFA have been implemented to support rural development and promote sustainable rural communities. Four distinct types of valuation of modern MFA are recognised: economic, biophysical, socio-cultural, and holistic. Following a search of both the recent and older MFA literature, evaluations of the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods applications are provided using examples from a range of recent studies. The review illustrates the diversity of approaches to measure MFA. While noting that many studies operate at a landscape scale, the challenge remains that the lack of commonality in the research approaches applied means it is difficult to provide effective comparisons between studies or to compare findings. A future research agenda will need to emphasise the need for more consideration of the roles of MFA research to support decision-makers, especially policy makers, but also farmers who largely make decisions for individual farms but, if considered collectively, can transform production systems at a landscape scale.

show abstract

“…Among them, SP methods predominate over other methods as these methods measure both use and nonuse values [38]. Although contingent valuation (CV) is the commonly used SP technique in pollution control studies [29], the greater flexibility of CE has raised its growing popularity over recent years in willingness to accept studies [30,39,40]. The CE asks the respondents vote for their preferred option among different alternatives described by a bundle of attributes.…”

Section: Choice Experiments Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neither the benefit compensation method nor the cost compensation method can express the comprehensive benefits that correspond to the dual status of rural households. In recent years, researchers have started to pay attention to the comprehensive benefits of rural households' participation in environmental protection [29,30]; however, as far as we know, there has been no research on the calculation of compensation standards for rural households participating in ANSP in water source areas, particularly in China. The two key questions are: How much compensation should be given to encourage rural households to control ANSP?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rural Households’ Willingness to Accept Compensation Standards for Controlling Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution: A Case Study of the Qinba Water Source Area in Northwest China

Liu

Yan

et al. 2019

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural non-point source pollution (ANSP) has become one of the main sources of pollution in water source areas. An effective solution to this problem is the use of ecological compensation to encourage rural households to adopt agricultural pollution control measures. This study aims to answer two questions: How much compensation should be given to encourage rural households in water source areas to participate in ANSP control? What factors will influence their participation? In this study, paddy rice planting in water source area has been used as an example aiming to answer these questions. This study used the random parameter logit (RPL) model with survey data from 632 rural households in the Qinba water source area to empirically analyze rural households’ willingness to accept compensation for ANSP control and the influencing factors of this willingness. From this information, the compensation standards for ANSP control in a water source area were calculated. The results show that (1) compensation had a significant incentive effect on rural households’ willingness to control ANSP. The marginal compensation standard for reducing the use of fertilizer and pesticide was $3.40/ha and $2.00/ha, respectively. The compensation standard for not applying chemical fertilizer and pesticide at all was $540.23/ha. (2) There was heterogeneity in rural households’ preference for ANSP control compensation policies. Rural households characterized by younger residents, higher family income, higher perception of the ecological benefits, and higher perception of government policy were more willing to participate in the compensation policy. It is suggested that rural households showed a strong preference for ANSP control policies by considering both of their economic losses and ecological benefits. Our study contributes to the literature by enriching the evaluation method in providing references for the compensation of ANSP control policies

show abstract

Estimates of willingness to accept compensation to manage pine stands for ecosystem services

Cited by 28 publications

References 64 publications

How Much Is the Abandonment of Forest Management in Private Forests Worth? A Case of Poland

How Much Is the Abandonment of Forest Management in Private Forests Worth? A Case of Poland

Measuring Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes

Rural Households’ Willingness to Accept Compensation Standards for Controlling Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution: A Case Study of the Qinba Water Source Area in Northwest China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About