Integrating nature-based tourism and forestry in private lands under heterogeneous visitor preferences for forest attributes

References

• 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 (1): 64–75. doi:10.2307/3180269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afifi, A.A., and V. Clark. 1996. Computer-Aided Multivariate Analysis. 3rd ed. London: Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Becken, S., and M. Patterson. 2006. “Measuring National Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Tourism as a Key Step Towards Achieving Sustainable Tourism.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 14 (4): 323–338. doi:10.2167/jost547.0.
   Google Scholar
• Beerli, A., and J.D. Martin. 2004. “Factors Influencing Destination Image.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (3): 657–681. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.01.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, S., S. Simpson, L. Tyrväinen, T. Sievänen, and U. Pröbstl, eds. 2008. European Forest Recreation and Tourism: A Handbook. London: Taylor and Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, S., L. Tyrväinen, T. Sievänen, U. Pröbstl, and M. Simpson. 2007. “Outdoor Recreation and Nature Tourism: Trends, Conflicts and Research Needs - a European Perspective.” Living Reviews in Landscape Research 1 (2): 1–46. doi:10.12942/lrlr-2007-2.
   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 (1): 145–156. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boxall, P., and W. Adamowicz. 2002. “Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach.” Environmental and Resource Economics 23 (4): 421–446. doi:10.1023/A:1021351721619.
   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 (12): 1931–1941. doi:10.1139/x00-128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, G. 2006. “Mapping Landscape Values and Development Preferences: A Method for Tourism and Residential Development Planning.” International Journal of Tourism Research 8 (2): 101–113. doi:10.1002/jtr.562.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J., and N. Bird. 2011. “Costa Rica's Sustainable Resource Management: Successfully Tackling Tropical Deforestation.” Overseas Development Institute, Development Progress, ODI publications. Accessed March 4, 2017. https://www.odi.org/publications/5049-costa-rica-deforestation-environment-development-progress.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D., S.E. Vedel, B.J. Thorsen, and J.B. Jacobsen. 2013. “Heterogeneity in the WTP for Recreational Access: Distributional Aspects.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57 (8): 1200–1219. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.793173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R.T., and M. Czajkowski. 2014. “The Discrete Choice Experiment Approach to Environmental Contingent Valuation.” In Handbook of Choice Modelling, edited by Stephane Hess and Andrew Daly, 202–235. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Christie, M., N. Hanley, and S. Hynes. 2007. “Valuing Enhancements to Forest Recreation Using Choice Experiment and Contingent Behaviour Methods.” Journal of Forest Economics 13 (2–3): 75–102. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2007.02.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vaus, D.A. 1996. Surveys in Social Research. 4th ed. London: Allen and Unwin/UCL Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dwyer, L., D. Edwards, N. Mistilis, C. Roman, and N. Scott. 2009. “Destination and Enterprise Management for a Tourism Future.” Tourism Management 30 (1): 63–74. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.04.00.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eigenraam, M., L. Strappazzon, N. Lansdell, C. Beverly, and G. Stoneham. 2007. “Designing Frameworks to Deliver Unknown Information to Support Market-Based Instruments.” Agricultural Economics 37 (1): 261–269. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00250.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entry Level Stewardship. 2013. Environmental Stewardship Handbook. 4th ed. Natural England NE349. Accessed March 4, 2017. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/2798159?category=45001.
   Google Scholar
• Facts about Ruka and Kuusamo. 2016. Accessed September 28. 2016. http://www.ruka.fi/en/facts.
   Google Scholar
• Fredman, P., and L. Tyrväinen. 2010. “Frontiers in Nature-Based Tourism.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 10 (3): 177–189. doi:10.1080/15022250.2010.502365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grammatikopoulou, I., E. Pouta, M. Salmiovirta, and K. Soini. 2012. “Heterogeneous Preferences for Agricultural Landscape Improvements in Southern Finland.” Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2): 181–191. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, W.H., and D.A. Hensher. 2003. “A Latent Class Model for Discrete Choice Analysis: Contrasts with Mixed Logit.” Transportation Research Part B 37 (8): 681–698. doi:10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00046-2.
   Google Scholar
• Gundersen, V., and L. Frivold. 2008. “Public Preferences for Forest Structures: A Review of Quantitative Surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 7 (4): 241–258. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001
   Google Scholar
• Hanemann, W.M. 1982. “Applied Welfare Analysis with Qualitative Response Models.” Working Paper 241. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hanley, N., R.E. Wright, and W. Adamowicz. 1998. “Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment: Design Issues, Current Experience and Future Prospects.” Environmental and Resource Economics 11 (3–4): 413–428. doi:10.1023/A:1008287310583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher, D.A., and W.H. Greene. 2003. “The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice.” Transportation 30 (2): 133–176. doi:10.1023/A:1022558715350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, S., J.M. Rose, and D.A. Hensher. 2008. “Asymmetric Preference Formation in Willingness to Pay Estimates in Discrete Choice Models.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 44 (5): 847–863. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2007.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higher Level Stewardship. 2013. Environmental Stewardship Handbook. 4th ed. Natural England NE350. Accessed March 4, 2017. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/2827091?category=45001.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, R., and C. Pickering. 2009. “Differences in Resistance of Three Subtropical Vegetation Types to Experimental Trampling.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2): 1305–1312. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 (1–2): 189–199. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson, S. 2000. Snow Business: A Study of the International Ski Industry. London: Continuum International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Hynes, S., N. Hanley, and R. Scarpa. 2008. “Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90 (4): 1011–1027. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01148.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, E.L. 1986. “Outdoor Recreation Participation and Attitudes to The Environment.” Leisure Studies 5 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1080/02614368600390011.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, E.L. 1987. “Outdoor Recreation Participation and Views on Resource Development and Preservation.” Leisure Studies 9 (4): 235–250. doi:10.1080/01490408709512165.
   Google Scholar
• Juutinen, A., A.-K. Kosenius, V. Ovaskainen, A. Tolvanen, and L. Tyrväinen. 2017. “Heterogeneous Preferences for Recreation-Oriented Management in Commercial Forests: The Role of Citizens’ Socioeconomic Characteristics and Recreational Profiles.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 60 (3): 399–418. doi:10.1080/09640568.2016.1159546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juutinen, A., Y. Mitani, E. Mäntymaa, Y. Shoji, P. Siikamäki, and R. Svento. 2011. “Combining Ecological and Recreational Aspects in National Park Management: A Choice Experiment Application.” Ecological Economics 70 (6): 1231–1239. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juutinen, A., R. Svento, Y. Mitani, E. Mäntymaa, Y. Shoji, and P. Siikamäki. 2012. “Modelling Observed and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Choice Experiments.” Environmental Economics 3 (2): 57–65.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J., S. Rasouli, and H. Timmermans. 2014. “Hybrid Choice Models: Principles and Recent Progress Incorporating Social Influence and Nonlinear Utility Functions.” Procedia Environmental Sciences 22: 20–34. doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2014.11.003.
   Google Scholar
• Landscape and Sustainable Development: Challenges of the European Landscape Convention. 2006. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Louviere, J., D. Hensher, and J. Swait. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meyerhoff, J., U. Liebe, and V. Hartje. 2009. “Benefits of Biodiversity Enhancement of Nature-Oriented Silviculture: Evidence from Two Choice Experiments in Germany.” Journal of Forest Economics 15 (1–2): 37–58. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2008.03.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell R.C., and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Morey, E., J. Thacher, and W. Breffle. 2006. “Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model.” Environmental and Resource Economics 34 (1): 91–115. doi:10.1007/s10640-005-3794-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morey, E., M. Thiene, M. De Salvo, and G. Signorello. 2008. “Using Attitudinal Data to Identify Latent Classes that Vary in their Preference for Landscape Preservation.” Ecological Economics 68 (1–2): 536–546. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Forest Inventory 9. 2016. [In Finnish.] Accessed September 28 2016. http://www.metla.fi/cgi-bin/tilasto/vmi/vmi.cgi?VMI9.
   Google Scholar
• Nemes, V., C.R. Plott, and G. Stoneham. 2008. “Electronic BushBroker Exchange: Designing a Combinatorial Double Auction for Native Vegetation Offsets.” Social Science Research Network. Accessed March 4, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1212202.
   Google Scholar
• Opaluch, J.J., and K. Segerson. 1989. “Rational Roots of “Irrational” Behavior: New Theories of Economic Decision-Making.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18 (2): 81–95.
   Google Scholar
• Ovaskainen, V., J. Abildtrup, E. Mäntymaa, S.E. Vedel, and B.J. Thorsen. 2014. “The Stated Preference Approach to Costs of Provision.” In The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services, Volume II: Assessing Costs of Provision and Designing Economic Instruments for Ecosystem Services, edited by B.J. Thorsen, R. Mavsar, L. Tyrväinen, I. Prokofieva, and A. Stenger, 50–57. What Science Can Tell Us 5. Joensuu: European Forest Institute. http://www.efi.int/files/attachments/publications/efi_wsctu_5_vol-2_en_net.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Pagiola, S. 2006. “Payments for Environmental Services in Costa Rica.” MPRA Paper No. 2010. Accessed March 4, 2017. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2010/.
   Google Scholar
• Prokofieva, I., and S. Wunder. 2014. “Examples of Novel Instruments for Enhancing Forest Ecosystem Services.” In The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services, Volume II: Assessing Costs of Provision and Designing Economic Instruments for Ecosystem Services, edited by B.J. Thorsen, R. Mavsar, L. Tyrväinen, I. Prokofieva, and A. Stenger, 71–76. What Science Can Tell Us 5. Joensuu: European Forest Institute. http://www.efi.int/files/attachments/publications/efi_wsctu_5_vol-2_en_net.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Provencher, B., K.A. Baerenklau, and R.C. Bishop. 2002. “A Finite Mixture Random Utility Model of Recreational Angling with Serially Correlated Random Utility.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84 (4): 1066–1075. doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Provencher, B., and R.C. Bishop. 2004. “Does Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity Improve the Forecasting of a Random Utility Model? A Case Study.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48 (1): 793–810. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2003.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putten, I.E., S.M. Jennings, J.J. Louviere, and L.B. Burgess. 2011. “Tasmanian Landowner Preferences for Conservation Incentive Programs: A Latent Class Approach.” Journal of Environmental Management 92 (10): 2647–2656. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribe, R. 2009. “In-Stand Scenic Beauty of Variable Retention Harvests and Mature Forests in the US Pacific Northwest: The Effects of Basal Area, Density, Retention Pattern and Down Wood.” Journal of Environmental Management 91 (1): 245–260. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.08.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roadmap for Growth and Renewal in Finnish Tourism for 2015–2025. 2015. Accessed October 13 2016. http://tem.fi/en/roadmap-for-growth-and-renewal-in-finnish-tourism-in-2015-2025.
   Google Scholar
• Scarpa, R., and M. Thiene. 2005. “Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the North-Eastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences.” Land Economics 85 (3): 426–44. doi:10.3368/le.81.3.426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarpa, R., M. Thiene, and T. Tempesta. 2007. “Latent Class Count Models of Total Visitation Demand: Days Out Hiking in the Eastern Alps.” Environmental and Resource Economics 38 (4): 447–460. doi:10.1007/s10640-007-9087-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharpley, R. 2000. “Tourism and Sustainable Development: Exploring the Theoretical Divide.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8 (1): 1–19. doi:10.1080/09669580008667346.
   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 (3): 263–273. doi:10.1080/028275802753742936.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoneham, G., V. Chaudhri, A. Ha, and L. Strappazzon. 2003. “Auctions for Conservation Contracts: An Empirical Examination of Victoria's BushTender Trial.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47 (4): 477–500. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2003.t01-1-00224.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Train, K.E. 1998. “Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People.” Land Economics 74 (2): 230–239. doi:10.2307/3147053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Train, K.E. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Törn, A., A. Tolvanen, Y. Norokorpi, R. Tervo, and P. Siikamäki. 2009. “Comparing the Impacts of Hiking, Skiing and Horse Riding on Trail and Vegetation in Different Types of Forest.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (3): 1427–1434. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   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 (October): 4–13. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2013.05.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen, L., I. Nousiainen, H. Silvennoinen, and L. Tahvanainen. 2001. “Rural Tourism in Finland: Tourists' Expectation of Landscape and Environment.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 1 (2): 133–149. doi:10.1080/150222501317244047.
   Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen, L., H. Silvennoinen, and V. Hallikainen. 2017. “Effect of the Season and Forest Management on the Quality of The Tourist Environment: Case from Finnish Lapland.” Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 32 (4): 349–359. doi:10.1080/02827581.2016.1241892.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen, L., M. Uusitalo, E. Hasu, and H. Silvennoinen. 2014. “Towards Sustainable Growth in Nature-Based Tourism Destinations: Clients’ Views of Development in Finnish Lapland.” Landscape and Urban Planning 122 (February): 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.10.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentine, P. 1992. “Review: Nature-Based Tourism.” In Special Interest Tourism, edited by B. Weiler, and C.M. Hall, 105–127. London: Belhaven Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wunder, S. 2007. “The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation.” Conservation Biology 21 (1): 48–58. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00559.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar