How viewing a forest affects willingness to pay of users and non-users in Contingent Valuation Method?

• Autorzy: Sidorczuk-Pietraszko Edyta , Matel Anna , Poskrobko Tomasz , Andrejuk Dariusz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.34659/eis.2022.81.2.447

Warianty tytułu

PL

Jak widok lasu oddziałuje na gotowość do zapłaty za jego zachowanie wśród użytkowników i nieużytkowników w metodzie wyceny warunkowej?

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In Contingent Valuation studies, users generally declare willingness to pay (WTP) higher than non-users. This study attempts to investigate if viewing the good during CV survey has a different impact on users’ and non-users’ WTPs. A framed field experiment was conducted in which users and non-users were surveyed in two locations – one with a view of the forest and the other without it. Our study showed that the WTPs of users were significantly higher than those of non-users only when respondents did not see forest during the survey. However, when the experiment was conducted in a location where the respondents could see the forest – the difference disappeared. Our results also show that the relationship between declared WTP and both the respondents’ socio-demographic status and their environmental attitudes were weaker among respondents surveyed in a location with a forest view. We believe that the increase in WTP of non-users is temporary and represents a kind of bias. This in turn may be relevant in the design of CVM studies.

PL

W badaniach metodą wyceny warunkowej użytkownicy zazwyczaj deklarują gotowość do zapłaty (willingness to pay, WTP) wyższą niż nieużytkownicy. W niniejszym opracowaniu podjęto próbę zbadania, czy widok wycenianego dobra w czasie badania oddziałuje jednakowo na użytkowników i nieużytkowników. Przeprowadzono eksperyment terenowy, w którym użytkownicy i nieużytkownicy byli badani w dwóch lokalizacjach – jednej z widokiem na las, a drugiej bez niego. Badanie pokazało, że WTP użytkowników było znacząco wyższe niż nieużytkowników jedynie wtedy, kiedy respondenci nie widzieli lasu w czasie badania. Jednakże, gdy badanie zostało przeprowadzone w miejscu, gdzie respondenci widzieli las – różnica ta zniknęła. Wyniki wskazują również, że związek między deklarowaną WTP a statusem społeczno-demograficznym respondentów oraz ich postawami ekologicznymi był słabszy wśród respondentów badanych w miejscu z widokiem na las. Sądzimy, że wzrost WTP osób nie korzystających z lasu jest przejściowy i stanowi pewnego rodzaju błąd poznawczy. To z kolei może mieć znaczenie w projektowaniu badań CVM.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

contingent valuation method; forest valuation; willingness to pay; user status; view of a good

PL

metoda wyceny warunkowej; wycena lasu; gotowość do zapłaty; status użytkownika; widok dobra

• Wydawca: Polskie Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistów Środowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych
• Czasopismo: Ekonomia i Środowisko
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: nr 2
• Strony: 134--153
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 70 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Sidorczuk-Pietraszko Edyta

• University of Bialystok, Faculty of Economics and Finance, Warszawska St. 63, 15-062 Bialystok, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3532-477X

autor

Matel Anna

• University of Bialystok, Faculty of Economics and Finance, Warszawska St. 63, 15-062 Bialystok, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4239-914X

autor

Poskrobko Tomasz

• University of Bialystok, Faculty of Economics and Finance, Warszawska St. 63, 15-062 Bialystok, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6981-8180

autor

Andrejuk Dariusz

• University of Bialystok, Faculty of Economics and Finance, Warszawska St. 63, 15-062 Bialystok, Poland

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2271-4904

Bibliografia

• Edyta Sidorczuk-Pietraszko – conceptualization, methodology, data acquisition and validation, analysis and interpretation of data, project administration, funding acquisition – 30%.
• Anna Matel – conceptualization, methodology, data acquisition and validation, investigation, analysis and interpretation of data, funding acquisition – 30%.
• Tomasz Poskrobko – conceptualization, methodology, analysis and interpretation of data, funding acquisition – 30%.
• Dariusz Andrejuk – data analysis and interpretation, original draft preparation – 10%.
• Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4473366/mod_folder/intro/Arow_WTP.pdf
• Barrick, K. A., & Beazley, R. I. (1990). Magnitude and distribution of option value for the Washakie Wilderness, northwest Wyoming, USA. Environmental Management, 14(3), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02394205
• Bartczak, A., Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Zandersen, M., & Żylicz, T. (2008). Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: The case of Poland. Forest Policy and Economics, 10(7–8), 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.04.002
• Bartczak, A. (2015). The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.011
• Bateman, I., & Turner, R. (1993). Valuation of the environment, methods and techniques: The contingent valuation method. In R. K. Turner (Ed.) Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice (pp. 120–191). Belhaven Press.
• Bergstrom, J. C., Stoll, J. R., & Randall, A. (1990). The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72(3), 614–621. https://doi.org/10.2307/1243031
• Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., & Weimer, D. L. (2004). Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: Application to global climate change using national internet samples. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47(2), 331–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095- 0696(03)00094-9
• Bishop, I. D., & Rohrmann, B. (2003). Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: A comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(4), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00070-7
• Blomquist, G. C., & Whitehead, J. C. (1998). Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics, 20(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928-7655(97)00035-3
• Brouwer, R. (2012). Constructed preference stability: A test–retest. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2011.644922
• Brown, T. C., Richards, M. T., Daniel, T. C., & King, D. A. (1989). Recreation Participation and the Validity of Photo-based Preference Judgments. Journal of Leisure Research, 21(1), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1989.11969789
• Cameron, T. A., & Englin, J. (1997). Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33(3), 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1997.0995
• Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W. G., & Scarpa, R. (2009). Using Choice Experiments to Explore the Spatial Distribution of Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41(1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4038
• Choi, A. S. (2013). Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay. Ecological Economics, 88, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.014
• Choi, A. S., & Fielding, K. S. (2013). Environmental Attitudes as WTP Predictors: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species. Ecological Economics, 89, 24–32 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.027
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
• De Steur, H., Buysse, J., Feng, S., & Gellynck, X. (2013). Role of Information on Consumers’ Willingness-to-pay for Genetically-modified Rice with Health Benefits: An Application to China: Information and Willingness-To Pay for GM Rice. Asian Economic Journal, 27(4), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/asej.12020
• De Valck, J., & Rolfe, J. (2018). Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Valuation: Status, Challenges and Road Ahead. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 11(4), 355–422. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000097
• Dupont, D. P. (2003). CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 25(3), 319–341. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024446110640
• El-Habil, A. M. (2012). An Application on Multinomial Logistic Regression Model. Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research, 8(2), 271. https://doi.org/10.18187/pjsor.v8i2.234
• Eurostat. (2002). The European Framework for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting for Forests. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/39314/44178/Handbook-IEEAF-2002.pdf/c7b2aeaa-c4dd-49ce-bf25-05740d90e043
• Frör, O. (2008). Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: Empirical evidence using cognitive psychology. Ecological Economics, 68(1–2), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.021
• Giergiczny, M., Jacobsen, J., Glenk, K., Meyerhoff, J., Abildtrup, J., Agimass, F., Czajkowski, M., Faccioli, M., Gajderowicz, T., Getzner, M., Lundhede, T., Mayer, M., McVittie, A., Olschewski, R., Ščasný, M., Strange, N., & Valasiuk, S. (2021). Shaping the future of temperate forests in Europe: Why outdoor recreation matters [Preprint]. In Review. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-841881/v1
• Gilbert, A., Glass, R., & More, T. (1992). Valuation of eastern wilderness: Extramarket measures of public support. In: Payne, C., Bowker, J., Reed, P. (compilers), Economic Value of Wilderness. GTR-SE78, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA. In Payne, C., Bowker, J., Reed, P. (compilers), The Economic Value of Wilderness: Proceedings of the Conference: Jackson, Wyoming, May 8-11, 1991. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_se078.pdf
• Gyllin, M., & Grahn, P. (2015). Semantic Assessments of Experienced Biodiversity from Photographs and On-Site Observations – A Comparison. Environment and Natural Resources Research, 5(4), 46. https://doi.org/10.5539/enrr.v5n4p46
• Greene, W. H., & Hensher, D. A. (2010). Modelling Ordered Choices: A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Halstead, J. M., Luloff, A. E., & Stevens, T. H. (1992). Protest Bidders in Contingent Valuation. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 21(2), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0899367X00002683
• Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical Efficiency of Double‐ Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(4), 1255–1263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453
• Hanley, N., Schläpfer, F., & Spurgeon, J. (2003). Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: Distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management, 68(3), 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00084-7
• Harrison, G. W., & List, J.A. (2004). Field Experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 2004, 42, 1009–1055. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051043004577
• Jia, Y., Huang, Y., Wyer, R. S., & Shen, H. (2017). Physical proximity increases persuasive effectiveness through visual imagery. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.07.001
• Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W. (Vic), Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Ryan, M., Scarpa, R., Tourangeau, R., & Vossler, C. A. (2017). Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2), 319–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/691697
• Jørgensen, S. L., Olsen, S. B., Ladenburg, J., Martinsen, L., Svenningsen, S. R., & Hasler, B. (2013). Spatially induced disparities in users’ and non-users’ WTP for water quality improvements – Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecological Economics, 92, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2012.07.015
• Kniivilä, M. (2006). Users and non-users of conservation areas: Are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys? Ecological Economics, 59(4), 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.017
• Kroh, D. P., & Gimblett, R. H. (1992). Comparing live experience with pictures in articulating landscape preference. Landscape Research, 17(2), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426399208706362
• LaRiviere, J., Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N., Aanesen, M., Falk-Petersen, J., & Tinch, D. (2014). The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 68(2), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2014.07.004
• Lifang, Z., Ting, Y., Yang, L., & Li, Z. (2020). Analyses on the Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Urban Rental Housing Supply and Demand Hotspots Based on Social Media Data. 2020 5th IEEE International Conference on Big Data Analytics (ICBDA), 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBDA49040.2020.9101317
• Liu, C., Lin, M., Qi, X., & Zheng, W. (2021). Estimating the Preservation Value of Wuyishan National Park from the Perspective of Bounded Rational Decision Making. Sustainability, 13(13), 6983. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13136983
• Loomis, J., Gonzalez-Caban, A., & Gregory, R. (1994). Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates? Land Economics, 70(4), 499. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146643
• Lo, A. Y., & Jim, C. Y. (2015). Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method. Ecological Economics, 114, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.012
• Long J. S,. & Freese J. (2014). Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, Third Edition (Third Edition). Stata Press.
• Lusk, J. L. (2004). Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: Evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France. European Review of Agriculture Economics, 31(2), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/31.2.179
• MacMillan, D., Hanley, N., & Lienhoop, N. (2006). Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine? Ecological Economics, 60(1), 299–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.031
• Matel, A., & Poskrobko, T. (2019). Could survey technique or other research conditions “change” our ecological behaviour? – Testing response bias in consumer research. Ekonomia i Środowisko – Economics and Environment, 71(4), 16. https://doi.org/10.34659/2019/4/46
• Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1988). Evaluating the validity of contingent valuation studies. Resources for the Future.
• Mittal, J., & Byahut, S. (2019). Scenic landscapes, visual accessibility and premium values in a single family housing market: A spatial hedonic approach. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317702147
• Napolitano, F., Pacelli, C., Girolami, A., & Braghieri, A. (2008). Effect of Information About Animal Welfare on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Yogurt. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(3), 910–917. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0709
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. McGraw-Hill Education. Parsons, G., & Yan, L. (2021). Anchoring on visual cues in a stated preference survey: The case of siting offshore wind power projects. Journal of Choice Modelling, 38, 100264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2020.100264
• Pate, J., & Loomis, J. (1997). The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: A case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecological Economics, 20(3), 199– 207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00080-8
• Riera, P., et al. (2012). Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practise guidelines, Journal of Forest Economics, 18(4), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2012.07.001
• Rolfe, J.; Bennett, J.; Louviere, J. Stated Values and Reminders of Substitute Goods: Testing for Framing Effects with Choice Modelling. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2002, 46, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.00164
• Sayadi, S., González-Roa, M. C., & Calatrava-Requena, J. (2009). Public preferences for landscape features: The case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.04.003
• Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., & Rose, J. (2012). Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 79, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.013
• Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2011). Landscape Representation Validity: A Comparison between On-site Observations and Photographs with Different Angles of View. Landscape Research, 36(3), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.564858
• Shechter, M., & Freeman, S. (1994). Nonuse Value: Reflections on the Definition and Measurement. In R. Pethig (Ed.) Valuing the Environment: Methodological and Measurement Issues (pp. 171–194). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8317-6_7
• Shi, J., Honjo, T., Zhang, K., & Furuya, K. (2020). Using Virtual Reality to Assess Landscape: A Comparative Study Between On-Site Survey and Virtual Reality of Aesthetic Preference and Landscape Cognition. Sustainability, 12(7), 2875. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072875
• Smith, V. K. (1987). Nonuse Values in Benefit Cost Analysis. Southern Economic Journal, 54(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.2307/1058800
• Sutherland, R. J., & Walsh, R. G. (1985). Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality. Land Economics, 61(3), 281. https://doi.org/10.2307/3145843
• System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012. Central Framework. (2014). United Nations. European Union. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. International Monetary Fund. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The World Bank. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seearev/seea_cf_final_en.pdf
• Tabi, A., & del Saz-Salazar, S. (2015). Environmental damage evaluation in a willingness-to-accept scenario: A latent-class approach based on familiarity. Ecological Economics, 116, 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.010
• Toma, L., Stott, A. W., Revoredo-Giha, C., & Kupiec-Teahan, B. (2012). Consumers and animal welfare. A comparison between European Union countries. Appetite, 58(2), 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.11.015
• Weber, S., Horak, S., & Marusic, Z. (2002). Valuation of environmental assets: A case of Croatian coastal forests. Tourism Review, 57(1/2), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb058375
• Whitehead, J. C., Blomquist, G. C., Hoban, T. J., & Clifford, W. B. (1995). Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Contingent Values: A Comparison of On-Site Users, OffSite Users, and Non-users. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29(2), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1044
• Williams, R. (2012). Using the Margins Command to Estimate and Interpret Adjusted Predictions and Marginal Effects. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 12(2), 308–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1201200209
• Xiang, Y., Liang, H., Fang, X., Chen, Y., Xu, N., Hu, M., Chen, Q., Mu, S., Hedblom, M., Qiu, L., & Gao, T. (2021). The comparisons of on-site and off-site applications in surveys on perception of and preference for urban green spaces: Which approach is more reliable? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 58, 126961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126961
• Xiao, Y., Orford, S., & Webster, C. J. (2016). Urban configuration, accessibility, and property prices: A case study of Cardiff, Wales. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(1), 108–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515600120

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).