The social benefits and costs of preserving forest biodiversity and ecosystem servicesFootnote

¹A preliminary version of the paper was presented at the workshop ‘Forest Sector Modelling and Mulitfunctionality in Forests’ at INRA, Nancy, France, 31 May–1 June 2012.

References

• Amiran, E.Y., and D.A. Hagen. 2010. “The Scope Trials: Variation in Sensitivity to Scope and WTP with Directionally Bounded Utility Functions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59: 293–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateman, I.J., R.T. Carson, B. Day, W.M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, et al. 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, 480. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Bateman, I., M. Cole, P. Cooper, S. Georgiou, D. Hadley, and G.L. Poe. 2004. “On Visible Choice Sets and Scope Sensitivity.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47: 71–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateman, I.J., P. Cooper, S. Georgiou, S. Navrud, G.L. Poe, R.C. Ready, P. Riera, M. Ryan, and C.A. Vossler. 2005. “Economic Valuation of Policies for Managing Acidity in Remote Mountain Lakes: Examining Validity Through Scope Sensitivity Testing.” Aquatic Sciences 67: 274–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergstrom, J.C., and L.O. Taylor. 2006. “Using Meta-Analysis for Benefits Transfer: Theory and Practice.” Ecological Economics 60: 351–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boadway, R. 2006. “Principles of Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Public Policy Review 2: 1–44.
   Google Scholar
• Bostedt, G., and L. Mattson. 2006. “A Note on Benefits and Costs of Adjusting Forestry to Meet Recreational Demands.” Journal of Forest Economics 12: 75–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer, R., F.H. Oosterhuis, J.H. Ansink, D.N. Barton, and N. Lienhoop. 2011. POLICYMIX WP 4: Guidelines for Estimating Costs and Benefits of Policy Instruments for Biodiversity Conservation.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, T.A., and D.D. Huppert. 1989. “OLS Versus ML Estimation of Non-Market Resource Values With Payment Card Interval Data.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17: 230–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, W.-Y., V.A. Lantz, C.R. Hennigar, and D.A. MacLean. 2012. “Benefit-Cost Analysis of Spruce Budworm (Christoneura fumiferana Clem.) Control: Incorporating Market and Non-market Values.” Journal of Environmental Management 93: 104–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiabai, A., C.M. Travisi, A. Markandya, H. Ding, and P. Nunes. 2011. “Economic Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services Losses: Cost of Policy Inaction.” Environmental & Resource Economics 50: 405–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehmke, M.D., J.L. Lusk, and J.A. List. 2008. “Is Hypothetical Bias a Universal Phenomenon? A Multinational Investigation.” Land Economics 84: 489–500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Framstad, E., and T. Blindheim. 2010. “Naturfaglig Evaluering av Frivillig Vern-områder (Natural Science Assessment of Voluntary Forest Conservation Areas).” NINA Rapport 534. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research.
   Google Scholar
• Framstad, E., T. Blindheim, L. Erikstad, P.G. Thingstad, and S.-E. Sloreid. 2010. “Naturfaglig Evaluering av Norske Verneområder (Ecological Evaluation of Norwegian Protected Areas).” NINA rapport 535. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research.
   Google Scholar
• Framstad, E., H. de Wit, R. Mäkipää, M. Larjavaara, L. Vesterdal, and E. Karltun. 2013. Biodiversity, Carbon Storage and Dynamics or Old Northern Forests, 507. Norden: TemaNord.
   Google Scholar
• Framstad, E., B. Økland, E. Bendiksen, V. Bakkestuen, H. Blom, and T.E. Branderud. 2002. “Evaluering av barskogvernet i Norge (Evaluation of the Conservation of Coniferous Forests in Norway).” NINA Fagrapport 54, 1–146. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research.
   Google Scholar
• Gundersen, V., and E. Stange. 2011. “Opplevelsesverdier i skog – effekter av økologisk og økonomisk informasjon (Recreational Values in Forests – Effects of Ecological and Economic Information).” NINA Rapport 739. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research.
   Google Scholar
• HM Treasury. 2003. The Green Book. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/data_greenbook_index.htm
   Google Scholar
• Holtsmark, B. 2012. “Harvesting in Boreal Forests and the Biofuel Carbon Debt.” Climatic Change 112: 415–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsen, J.B., T. Lundhede, and B.J. Thorsen. 2012. “Valuation of Wildlife Populations Above Survival.” Biodiversity Conservation 21: 543–563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson-Stenman, O., and H. Svedsäter. 2012. “Self-Image and Valuation of Moral Goods: Stated Versus Actual Willingness to Pay.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 84: 879–891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kniivilä, M., V. Ovaskainen, and O. Saastamoinen. 2002. “Costs and Benefits of Forest Conservation: Regional and Local Comparisons in Eastern Finland.” Journal of Forest Economics 8: 131–150.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, P. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Kålås, J.A., Å. Viken, S. Henriksen, and S. Skjelseth. 2010. The 2010 Norwegian Red List for Species. Trondheim: Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Langpap, C. 2004. “Conservation Incentives Programs for Endangered Species: An Analysis of Landowner Participation.” Land Economics 80: 375–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehtonen, E., J. Kuuluvainen, E. Pouta, M. Rekola, and C.Z. Li. 2003. “Non-Market Benefits of Forest Conservation in Southern Finland.” Environmental Science and Policy 6: 195–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindhjem, H. 2007. “20 Years of Stated Preference Valuation of Non-timber Benefits from Fennoscandian Forests: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Forest Economics 12: 251–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindhjem, H., and K. Magnussen. 2012. “The Value of Norwegian Forest Ecosystem Services (in Norwegian).” Report for the Public Committee on the Value of Ecosystem Services in Norway, NINA Report 894. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research.
   Google Scholar
• Lindhjem, H., and Y. Mitani. 2012. “Forest owners’ Willingness to Accept Compensation for Voluntary Forest Conservation: A Contingent Valuation Approach.” Journal of Forest Economics 18: 290–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindhjem, H., and S. Navrud. 2009. “Asking for Individual or Household Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods: Implication for Aggregate Welfare Measures.” Environmental and Resource Economics 43: 11–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindhjem, H., and S. Navrud. 2011a. Are Internet Surveys an Alternative to Face-to-Face Interviews in Contingent Valuation?” Ecological Economics 70: 1628–1637.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindhjem, H., and S. Navrud. 2011b. Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes.” International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 5: 309–351.
   Google Scholar
• List, J.A., and C.A. Gallet. 2001. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?” Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 241–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loomis, J. 2011. What's to Know About Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation Studies?” Journal of Economics Surveys 25 (2): 363–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahieu, P.-E., Riera, and P. Giergiczny 2012. “Determinants of Willingness-to-Pay for Water Pollution Abatement: A Point and Interval Data Payment Card Application.” Journal of Environmental Management 108: 49–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Climate and Environment. 2014. Pers. comm. Oslo: Nature Conservation Section.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Finance. 2013. “Perspectives (“Perspektivmeldingen” in Norwegian).” White Paper to the Norwegian Parliament. Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Mitani, Y., and H. Lindhjem. In press. “Forest Owners’ Participation in Voluntary Biodiversity Conservation in Norway: What Does It Take to Forego Forestry for Eternity?” Land Economics.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, J.J., P.G. Allen, T.H. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead. 2005. “A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 30: 313–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naidoo, R., and T.H. Ricketts. 2006. “Mapping the Economic Costs and Benefits of Conservation.” PLoS Biology 4 (11): 2153–2164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management. 2013. Data on Compensations Paid Under the Voluntary Forest Conservation Programme 2005-2013. Trondheim.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian Ministry of Finance. 2005. Guideline for Cost-Benefit Analysis. Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Notaro, S., and M. De Salvo. 2010. “Estimating the Economic Benefits of the Landscape Function of Ornamental Trees in a Sub-Mediterranean Area.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9: 71–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NOU. 2012. Economic Analysis, Recommendations from the Norwegian Public Committee. Norwegian Public Reports 16:2012. Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Nybakk, E., P. Crespell, E. Hansen, and A. Lunnan. 2009. “Antecedents to Forest Owner Innovativeness: An Investigation of the Non-timber Forest Products and Services Sector.” Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608–618.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. 2011. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Norway 2011. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, D. 2005. “Economists and Biodiversity Conservation: What Can We Contribute?” Plenary speach, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Bonn. http://www.webmeets.com/files/papers/EAERE/2005/409/pearce.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Raunikar, R., and J. Buongiorno. 2006. “Willingness to Pay for Forest Amenities: The Case of Non-industrial Owners in the South central United States.” Ecological Economics 1: 132–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rollins, K., and A. Lyke. 1998. “The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36: 324–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandmo, A. 1998. “Redistribution and the Marginal Cost of Public Funds.” Journal of Public Economics 70: 365–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skjeggedal, T., V. Gundersen, K.A. Harvold, and O.I. Vistad. 2010. Frivillig vern av skog – evaluering av arbeidsform (Voluntary forest conservation – Approach evaluation), NIBR/NINA 2010. Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Slaney, G.L., V.A. Lantz, and D.A. MacLean. 2010. “Assessing Costs and Benefits of Pest Management on Forested Landbases in Eastern and Western Canada.” Journal of Forest Economics 16: 19–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB.
   Google Scholar
• UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA). 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical Report. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.
   Google Scholar
• Veisten, K., H.F. Hoen, and J. Strand. 2004. “Sequencing and the Adding-up Property in Contingent Valuation of Endangered Species: Are Contingent Non-use Values Economic Values?” Environmental and Resource Economics 29: 419–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veisten, K., and S. Navrud. 2006. “Contingent Valuation and Actual Payment for Voluntarily Provided Passive-use Values: Assessing the Effect of an Induced Truth-Telling Mechanism and Elicitation Formats.” Applied Economics 38: 735–756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WWF, Friends of the Earth, SABIMA. 2012. Skogkur 2020: A Plan for Saving Norway's Unique Forests. Oslo. http://awsassets.wwf.no/downloads/wwf_skogkur_2020_4_web_enklasidor.pdf
   Google Scholar