Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland

Lehtonen, Emmi; Kuuluvainen, Jari; Pouta, Eija; Rekola, Mika; Li, Chuanzhong

doi:10.1016/s1462-9011(03)00035-2

Cited by 108 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CE is a structured technique where respondents have to choose their most preferred alternative from a set of alternatives. For environmental studies, CEs have recently been applied in forest (Rolfe et al, 2000;Horne et al, 2003;Lehtonen et al, 2003), wetland (Kuriyama, 1998;Carlsson et al, 2003), fishery (Wattage et al, 2005), waste management (Garrod and Willis, 1998;Guikema, 2005), water supply (Haider and Rasid, 2002;Hanley et al, 2005), hunting (Boxall et al, 1996;Bullock et al, 1998) and renewable energy (Á lvarez-Farizo and Hanley, 2002). Although the number of CEs studies continues to increase, to our knowledge none has addressed oil spill contingency management at present.…”

Section: Why Choice Experiments (Ces)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing coastal area resources by stated choice experiments

Liu

Wirtz²

2010

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Why Choice Experiments (Ces)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing coastal area resources by stated choice experiments

Liu

Wirtz²

2010

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although monetary valuation can be the only decision-making method, it is often used as an input to other methods (mainly CBA). Monetary valuation has been used, for example, to assess forest certification [65], eco-labeling [66,67], conservation [68][69][70] and recreational use [71][72][73][74][75], to value biodiversity [76,77], assess recreational uses such as hunting and game management [78,79] evaluate scenic beauty [80] and understand land use planning [81].…”

Section: Cost-benefit Analysis (Cba) and Monetary Valuation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…People might also be worried about possible changes in the prices and state smaller WTP [84]. Additionally, respondents' incomes and places of residence, among others, can affect the amount people are willing to donate [70,80]. Moreover, the expressed amount of payment might not entirely capture peoples' relationships with the environment [85].…”

Section: Cost-benefit Analysis (Cba) and Monetary Valuation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision Support in Assessing the Sustainable Use of Forests and Other Natural Resources - A Comparative Review

Myllyviita¹,

Hujala²,

Kangas³

et al. 2011

TOFSCIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various decision support methods are used to support the sustainable use of natural resources, but there is little evidence about these methods' actual performances. In this study, 35 carefully selected papers assessing the sustainable use of natural resources were evaluated. The evaluated papers utilized one of the following methods: optimization, costbenefit analysis (CBA) and monetary valuation methods, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) or hybrid approaches. Each method supported sustainability in a different manner. Optimization and CBA case studies rarely involved stakeholders and social sustainability was less processed. Monetary valuation case studies showed a regular participation of the general public, but in a passive role. Experts and stakeholders with an active role were typical participants in MCDA and hybrid case studies. Internationally and nationally defined indicators of sustainability were scarcely used because indicators were frequently defined by stakeholders or the authors of the studied papers. It was presumed that international and national indicators were unsuitable for local use. Sustainability indicators typically took both the quantitative and qualitative form, including gaps and uncertainties. MCDA could be a suitable method for assessing sustainability because it has no strict requirements on the form of the data, and the participation of stakeholders is comprehensive. For the problem structuring phase, however, MCDA might not provide efficient tools. The ideal method for assessing the sustainable use of natural resources could be a hybrid of two methods with different approaches: qualitative methods could be used in the problem structuring process, whereas quantitative methods could be used when priorities and thresholds are assessed.

show abstract

“…As an alternative, Choice Experiments (CEs) provide a structured technique where respondents are asked to choose their most preferred alternative from a set of alternatives rather than to state their maximum willingness to pay for a specific natural resource. CEs has recently been applied to management problems in diverse fields such as forestry (Horne et al, 2003;Rolfe et al, 2000;Lehtonen et al, 2003), wetland conservation (Carlsson et al, 2003;Kuriyama, 1998), fishery (Wattage et al, 2005), waste treatment (Guikema, 2005;Garrod and Willis, 1998), water supply (Hanley et al, 2005;Haider and Rasid, 2002), life-stock management under hunting (Bullock et al, 1998;Boxall et al, 1996) and renewable energy (Álvarez-Farizo and Hanley, 2002). Although the number of CEs studies continues to increase, to our knowledge, to date none has addressed oil spill contingency management.…”

Section: Methodological Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%