Heterogeneous preferences for recreation-oriented management in commercial forests: the role of citizens’ socioeconomic characteristics and recreational profiles

References

• Act on Metsähallitus 1378/2004. 2004. Helsinki: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Finland. http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2004/en20041378.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams, and J. Louviere. 1998. “Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 64–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adamowicz, W., J. Swait, P. Boxall, J. Louviere, and M. Williams. 1997. “Perceptions Versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32: 65–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahtiainen, H., E. Pouta, and J. Artell. 2015. “Modelling Asymmetric Preferences for Water Quality in Choice Experiments with Individual-Specific Status Quo Alternatives.” Water Resources and Economics 12: 1–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asunta, A., V. Hiltunen, and M. Väisänen. (Eds.) 2004. Metsähallituksen luonnonvarasuunnittelu. Suunnitteluohje. Metsähallitus. [Resource Planning of Metsähallitus: Planning Guidelines.] Helsinki: Edita Prima Oy.
   Google Scholar
• Bech, M., and D. Gyrd-Hansen. 2005. “Effects Coding in Discrete Choice Experiments.” Health Economics 14: 1079–1083.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett, J., and V. Adamowicz. 2001. “Some Fundamentals of Environmental Choice Modelling.” In The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, edited by J. Bennett, and R. Blamey, 37–72. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Birol, E., K. Karousakis, and P. Koundouri. 2006. “Using a Choice Experiment to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in Wetland Attributes: The Case of Cheimaditida Wetland in Greece.” Ecological Economics 60: 145–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boxall, P.C., and W.L. Adamowicz. 2002. “Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach.” Environmental and Resource Economics 23: 421–446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boxall, P.C., and B. Macnab. 2000. “Exploring the Preferences of Wildlife Recreationists for Features of Boreal Forest Management: A Choice Experiment Approach.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 1931–1941.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D., S. Vedel, B. Thorsen, and J. Jacobsen. 2013. “Heterogeneity in the WTP for Recreational Access: Distributional Aspects.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57: 1200–1219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cramer, J.S. 2003. Logit Models. From Economics and Other Fields. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christie, M., N. Hanley, and S. Hynes. 2007. “Valuing Enhancements to Forest Recreation Using Choice Experiment and Contingent Behavior Methods.” Journal of Forest Economics 13: 75–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czajkowski, M., A. Bartczak, M. Giergiczny, S. Navrud, and T. Zylicz. 2014. “Providing Preference-Based Support for Forest Ecosystem Service Management.” Forest Policy and Economics 39: 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ezebilo, E., M. Boman, L. Mattson, A. Lindhagen, and W. Mbongo. 2015. “Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Close to Home Nature for Outdoor Recreation in Sweden.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58: 283–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FAO. 1998. Forestry Policies in Europe: An Analysis. FAO Forestry Paper 86, Rome: FAO.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, W. 2012a. Limdep, Version 10. Reference Guide. New York: Econometric Software, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, W. 2012b. Nlogit, Version 5. Reference Guide. New York: Econometric Software, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, W., and D. Hensher. 2003. “A Latent Class Model for Discrete Choice Analysis: Contrasts with Mixed Logit.” Transportation Research Part B 37: 681–698.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, W., and D. Hensher. 2010. Modeling Ordered Choices. A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gundersen, V.S., and L.H. Frivold. 2008. “Public Preferences for Forest Structures: A Review of Quantitative Surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 7: 241–258.
   Google Scholar
• Haefele, M.A., and J.B. Loomis. 2001. “Using the Conjoint Analysis Technique for the Estimation of Passive Use Values of Forest Health.” Journal of Forest Economics 7: 9–28.
   Google Scholar
• Haefen, R., M. Massey, and W. Adamowicz. 2005. “Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 1061–1076.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley, N., R. Wright, and W. Adamowicz. 1998. “Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment: Design Issues, Current Experience and Future Prospects.” Environmental and Resource Economics 11: 413–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiltunen, V. 2012. “Developing Decision Support in Participatory Strategic Forest Planning in Metsähallitus” Phd Diss. University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences. Dissertationes Forestales 141. http://www.metla.fi/dissertationes/df141.htm
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, T.P., and K.J. Boyle. 2003. “Stated Preference Methods for Valuation of Forest Attributes.” In Forests in a Market Economy, edited by E. Sills, and K. Abt, 321–340. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Horne, P., P.C. Boxall, and W.L. Adamowicz. 2005. “Multiple-Use Management of Forest Recreation Sites: A Spatially Explicit Choice Experiment.” Forest Ecology and Management 207: 189–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hummel, F.C. 1992. “Aspects of Forest Recreation in Western Europe.” Forestry 65: 237–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, L.E. 1986. “Outdoor Recreation Participation and Attitudes to the Environment.” Leisure Studies 5: 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, L.E. 1987. “Outdoor Recreation Participation and Views on Resource Development and Preservation.” Leisure Studies 9: 235–250.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, F. 1995. “Forest Recreation.” In Multiple-Use Forestry in the Nordic Countries, edited by M. Hytönen, 245–278. Helsinki: The Finnish Forest Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Juutinen, A., A.K. Kosenius, and V. Ovaskainen. 2014. “Estimating the Benefits of Recreation-Oriented Management in State-Owned Commercial Forests in Finland: A Choice Experiment.” Journal of Forest Economics 20: 396–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosenius, A.-K., A. Juutinen, M. Neuvonen, V. Ovaskainen, T. Sievänen, A. Tolvanen, and L. Tyrväinen. 2013. “Virkistyskäyttöä edistävä metsänhoito valtion talousmetsissä: hyötyjen rahamääräinen arvo.” [Recreation-Enhancing Management of State-Owned Commercial Forests: Monetary Benefits.] Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 261, p. 60. Helsinki: The Finnish Forest Research Institute. http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2013/mwp261.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Manning, R. 2010. Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Search and Research for Satisfaction. 3rd ed. Oregon: Oregon State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden, D. 2001. “Economic Choices.” The American Economic Review 91: 351–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ngene. 2010. User Manual and Reference Guide. The Cutting Edge in Experimental Design. Choice Metrics Pty Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, A.B., S.B. Olsen, and T. Lundhede. 2007. “An Economic Valuation of the Recreational Benefits Associated with Nature-Based Forest Management Practices.” Landscape and Urban Planning 80: 63–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribe, R. 1989. “The Aesthetics of Forestry: What Has Empirical Preference Research Taught Us?” Journal of Environmental Management 13: 55–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribe, R. 2005. “Aesthetic Perceptions of Green-Tree Retention Harvests in Vista Views: The Interaction of Cut Level, Retention Pattern and Harvest Shape.” Landscape and Urban Planning 73: 277–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribe, R. 2009. “In-Stand Scenic Beauty of Variable Retention Harvests and Mature Forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: The Effects of Basal Area, Density, Retention Pattern and Down Wood.” Journal of Environmental Management 91: 245–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roovers, P., M. Marny, and H. Gulinck. 2002. “Visitor Profile, Perceptions and Expectations in Forests from a Gradient of Increasing Urbanization in Central Belgium.” Landscape and Urban Planning 59: 129–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaberg, R.H., T.P. Homes, K.J. Lee, and R.C. Abt. 1999. “Ascribing Value to Ecological Processes: An Economic View of Environmental Change.” Forest Ecology and Management 114: 329–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sievänen, T., and M. Neuvonen. 2011. Luonnon Virkistyskäyttö 2010 [Recreation in Nature 2010].” Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute. Vantaa: The Finnish Forest Research Institute. http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2011/mwp212.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Silvennoinen, H., T. Pukkala, and L. Tahvanainen. 2002. “Effect of Cuttings on the Scenic Beauty of a Tree Stand.” Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 17: 263–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiene, M., J. Meyerhoff, and M. De Salvo. 2012. “Scale and Taste Heterogeneity for Forest Biodiversity: Models of Serial Nonparticipation and Their Effects.” Journal of Forest Economics 18: 355–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tolvanen, A., A. Juutinen, and R. Svento. 2013. “Preferences of Local People for the Use of Peatlands: The Case of Peatland-Richest Region in Finland.” Ecology and Society 18 (2): 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05496-180219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Train, K. 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen, L., M. Buchecker, D. Vuletic, and B. Degenhart. 2008. “Evaluating the Economic and Social Benefits of Forest Recreation and Nature Tourism.” In European Forest Recreation and Tourism: A Handbook, edited by S. Bell, S. Simpson, L. Tyrväinen, T. Sievänen, and U. Pröbstl, 35–64. London: Taylor and Francis Group Plc..
   Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen, L., E. Mäntymaa, and V. Ovaskainen. 2014. “Demand for Enhanced Forest Amenities in Private Lands: The Case of the Ruka-Kuusamo Tourism Area, Finland.” Forest Policy and Economics 47: 4–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar