Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality

Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth; Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl; Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.014

Cited by 78 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With respect to the different individuals’ status quo level—and its obvious impact on welfare estimates—it is worth noting that this is something rarely reported in demand‐side environmental valuation studies (see, for example, Marsh, Mkwara, & Scarpa, ). Conversely, although a consideration of the different individuals’ status quo is, in theory, relevant in studies analyzing ES providers’ WTA, we find that it is not yet sufficiently acknowledged (to our knowledge, few studies highlight this, including Vedel, Jacobsen, & Thorsen, ; Villanueva, Rodríguez‐Entrena, Arriaza, & Gómez‐Limón, ), with most such studies failing to collect and report information on the different providers’ status quo. Thus, we strongly recommend collecting information about individuals’ status quo in this type of studies and including it in the analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Unraveling determinants of inferred and stated attribute nonattendance: Effects on farmers’ willingness to accept to join agri‐environmental schemes

Rodríguez-Entrena

Villanueva

Gómez‐Limón

2018

Canadian J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attribute nonattendance (ANA) has received very little attention in the context of willingness to accept (WTA), although an increasing number of studies analyze the preferences of ecosystem service providers toward incentive‐based schemes. We add to the understanding of ANA behavior by analyzing stated and inferred ANA in a choice experiment investigating farmers’ WTA for participating in agri‐environmental schemes (AES) in southern Spain. We use mixed logit models, following Hess and Hensher for the inferred ANA approach. Evidence is found of ANA behavior for both stated and inferred approaches, with models accounting for ANA clearly outperforming those that do not account for it; however, we produce no conclusive results as to which ANA approach is best. WTA estimates are only moderately affected, which to some extent is consistent with the low level of non‐attendance found for the monetary attribute. Stated and inferred approaches show very similar WTA estimates. Additionally, we investigate sources of observed heterogeneity related to ANA behavior by using a sequence of bivariate probit models for each attribute. Overall, our results hint at a positive relationship between ease of scheme adoption and nonattendance to attributes. However, further research is still needed in this field.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Unraveling determinants of inferred and stated attribute nonattendance: Effects on farmers’ willingness to accept to join agri‐environmental schemes

Rodríguez-Entrena

Villanueva

Gómez‐Limón

2018

Canadian J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They manage their forests differently and their conservation costs are also different. Hence, the ability or the opportunity costs of producing environmental outputs may greatly vary from one forest owner to another (e.g., Vedel et al 2015). In some environmental regulation models such as the one described in the article of Anthon et al (2010), it is considered that the probability of achieving a targeted ecological level differs among forest owners.…”

Section: Spatial Heterogeneitymentioning

confidence: 99%

How does economic research contribute to the management of forest ecosystem services?

Garcia

Abildtrup

Stenger

2018

Annals of Forest Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

& Key message More and more environmental and resource economists are taking a particular interest in research on forest ecosystem services (FES), especially in a context of climate change. Spatial and temporal issues are crucial to economic analyses and for the design of conservation policies. Interdisciplinary research involving ecological and economic disciplines is a prerequisite for the more effective management of forest ecosystems. & Context Economists define non-market ecosystem services (ES) as public or common goods due to their characteristics of non-rivalry in terms of consumption and/or non-excludability. Just because they do not have a price does not mean that ES have no economic value because their social benefits are undoubtedly considerable. These features, associated with the market demand for timber and a poor climate risk assessment, may lead to the under-provision of non-market forest ES and the over-harvesting of timber. & Aims In this article, we review research questions that are central to the enhancement of FES provision. Beyond the economic modelling of the joint provision of FES, we focus on issues related to the design of public policies to guide forest management. The objective is to provide crucial insights concerning the importance of a spatial and sustainable provision of FES. & Results First, we provide an economic interpretation of the FES concept and a review of economic models of forest management. Second, we explain how spatial and temporal dimensions of FES can have major implications on their supply and demand. Both dimensions explain why FESs have to be taken into account in production decisions and public policies (including the design of payment for environmental services (PESs)). & Conclusion A better understanding of FES provision and public policies to be enhanced is not possible without accounting for spatial and temporal dimensions. This helps to analyse the impact of intervention on FES and the cost-effectiveness of economic instruments, implying a coordinated effort to bring together ecological and economic data and models.

show abstract

“…However, as our results underscore, there are some farmers that are currently providing PGs at (some of) the proposed AES levels. As highlighted in Vedel et al (2015), it can be argued that by introducing public incentives, such as these types of schemes, there is a risk of crowding-out private incentives (i.e., those incentives that have encouraged these farmers to use agri-environmental practices at the proposed AES level). Conversely, experience suggests that it is doubtful whether these 'environmentally-friendly' producers will continue providing PGs at the AES level in the absence of any public incentive.…”

Section: Scenarios Of Agri-environmental Schemesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of greening and collective participation in the context of agri-environmental schemes: The case of Andalusian irrigated olive groves

Villanueva

Gómez‐Limón

Arriaza

et al. 2015

Span. j. agric. res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agri-environmental schemes (AES) in irrigated olive groves (IOG) in southern Spain were assessed based on farmers' preferences toward these schemes. A choice experiment was used in this ex-ante assessment, with the inclusion of some innovative elements, such as collective participation and ecological focus areas (EFA). The results showed that farmers' mean willingness to accept (WTA) participation in collective rather than individual AES was €124.5/ha. Their mean WTA for an additional 1% of EFA was €64.6/ha, while regarding the use of other agri-environmental practices, they showed a WTA of €6.3/ha and €114.7/ha for an additional 1% in the use of cover crops (CC) in olive grove areas and restrictive management of CC, respectively. These estimates were strongly influenced by farmers' expectations and socio-economic characteristics, as well as farm management. We obtained that farmers' expectations of no farm takeover reduce WTA for collective participation, whereas agricultural training and having at least a secondary-school education reduce farmers' WTA for EFA and restrictive management of the CC, respectively. Conversely, harvesting ground olives increased farmers' WTA for a high proportion of the area under CC. The analysis of the AES scenarios showed moderately high estimates of total WTA (€101-349/ha), especially when collective participation is required (€225-474/ha). The results supported the argument that there are efficient ways to encourage public goods provision, overcoming trade-offs with private goods provision by identifying the type of joint production.Additional key words: AES; agglomeration bonus; ecological focus areas; soil conservation; public goods; choice experiment. This work has one supplementary figure published online alongside the electronic version of the article.

show abstract

Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality

Cited by 78 publications

References 34 publications

Unraveling determinants of inferred and stated attribute nonattendance: Effects on farmers’ willingness to accept to join agri‐environmental schemes

Unraveling determinants of inferred and stated attribute nonattendance: Effects on farmers’ willingness to accept to join agri‐environmental schemes

How does economic research contribute to the management of forest ecosystem services?

Assessment of greening and collective participation in the context of agri-environmental schemes: The case of Andalusian irrigated olive groves

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About