Hipotetyczna gotowość finansowania publicznych funkcji lasu i gospodarki leśnej

• Autorzy: Golos P. , Ukalska J.

Warianty tytułu

EN

Hypothetical readiness for financing the most important public functions of forest and forest management

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

EN

The purpose of the research was to determine the impact of selected sociological factors related to the readiness for hypothetical financing the most important public functions of forest and forest management (WTP, willingness to pay). In direct surveys carried out in August 2008 by the nationwide research center on representative random sample of 500 residents of Warsaw we used the contingent valuation method (CVM) format of questions with a debit card. The result of determining the values of forest and forest management public benefits with the CVM method (set of values WTP>0 [PLN/year/household]) was analyzed via logistic regression, in which a dependency between the fact of declaring the value WTP>0 (1 – WTP>0 declaration, 0 – WTP=0 declaration) and the selected groups of explanatory variables was assessed. The division of explanatory variables into groups resulted from the survey structure and content of questions, related to different aspects of leisure related forest management. The significance of variables in analyzed regression models was investigated with the maximum likelihood method using Wald's chi−square statistic for the 3rd type analysis. Wald's confidence intervals were designated for regression coefficients in exponential scale, and in order to facilitate the interpretation of results, odds ratios were determined. The logistic regression was performed in SAS 9.3 program with the LOGISTIC procedure. The probability of WTP>0 declaration increased among respondents, who indicated: a) peace and quiet as elements which decide of tourist attractiveness of forests; b) car parks as missing elements; c) that they do not feel well in forests with unsightly tree stand; and d) that they relax better in forests where there are shelters, benches, and roofings.

Słowa kluczowe

PL

lesnictwo; lasy; gospodarka lesna; funkcje lasu; funkcje publiczne; funkcje turystyczne; funkcje wypoczynkowe; hipotetyczna gotowosc finansowania; badania ankietowe

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Sylwan
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 160
• Numer: 07
• Opis fizyczny: s.597-608,tab.,bibliogr.

Twórcy

autor

Golos P.

• Zakład Zarządzania Zasobami Leśnymi, Instytut Badawczy Leśnictwa, Sękocin Stary, ul.Braci Leśnej 3, 05-090 Raszyn

autor

Ukalska J.

• Katedra Ekonometrii i Statystyki, Szkoła Główna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie, ul.Nowoursynowska 159, 02-776 Warszawa

Bibliografia

• Allison P. D. 2012. Logistic Regression Using SAS: Theory and Application, Second Edition. Cary, NC, SAS Institute Inc.
• Barrio M., Loureiro M. L. 2010. A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecological Economics 69: 1023-1030.
• Bartczak A. 2015. The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation. An application to the Białowieża Forest. Forest Policy and Economics 50: 357-365.
• Bateman I. J., Langford I. H., Jones A. P., Kerr G. N., Scarpa R. 2000. Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Tenth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. University of Crete, Rethymnon.
• Berrens R. P., Bohara A. K., Kerkvliet J. 1997. A randomized response approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 (1): 252-266.
• Bishop R. C., Heberlein T. A. 1990. The contingent valuation method. W: Johnson R. C., Johnson G. V. [red.]. Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory and Applications. Westview, Boulder, Colorado. 81-104.
• Blamey R. K., Bennett J. W., Morrison M. D. 1999. Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics 75 (1): 126-141.
• Borkowski J., Ukalski K. 2012. Bark stripping by red deer in a post-disturbance area: the importance of security cover. Forest Ecological Management 263: 17-23.
• Boxall P. C., Adamowicz W. L., Swait J., Williams M., Louviere J. 1996. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 18: 243-253.
• Brey R., Riera P., Mogas J. 2007. Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: An application to Spanish forests. Ecological Economics 64 (2): 305-312.
• Christie M., Hanley N., Hynes S. 2007. Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. Journal of Forest Economics 13 (2-3): 75-102.
• Czajkowski M., Buszko-Briggs M., Hanley N. 2009. Valuing Changes in Forest Biodiversity. Ecological Economics 68: 2910-2917.
• Czajkowski M., Hanley N. 2009. Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Method. Environmental and Resource Economics 44 (4): 521-535.
• Desaigues B., Ami D., Bartczak A., Braun-Kohlová M., Chilton S., Czajkowski M., Farreras V., Hunt A., Hutchison M., Jeanrenaud C., Kaderjak P., Máca V., Markiewicz O., Markowska A., Metcalf H., Navrud S., Nielsen J. S., Ortiz R., Pellegrini S., Rabl A., Riera R., Scasny M., Stoeckel M.-E., Szántó R., Urban J. 2011. Economic Valuation of air pollution mortality: a 9-country contingent valuation survey of value of life year (VOLY). Ecological Indicators 11 (3): 902.
• Dillman D. A., Phelps G., Tortora R., Swift K., Kohrell J., Berck, J., Messer B. L. 2009. Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research 38: 1-18.
• Freund R. J., Littell R. 2000. SAS System for regression, third edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
• Garcia S., Haroub P., Montagne C., Stengera A. 2009. Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity. Journal of Forest Economics 15: 59-78.
• Głowacka E. 2011. Badania wartości ekonomicznej usług biblioteczno-informacyjnych i ich wpływu na otoczenie. Biblioteka 15 (24): 217-230.
• Godzień J. 2006. Wycena ekonomiczna fortów twierdzy Przemyśl. I Studencka Konferencja Kół Naukowych „Przyrod-nicze-społeczne-ekonomiczne aspekty zrównoważonego i trwałego rozwoju”. 13-14 listopada 2006, Rzeszów. http://www.kul.pl/files/577/public/Aska_forty.pdf (data dostępu: 12.12.2014 r.).
• Gołos P. 2001. Wycena wartości ekonomicznej rekreacyjnej funkcji lasu na przykładzie Leśnego Kompleksu Promo-cyjnego Gostynińsko-Włocławskiego. Wydział Leśny SGGW w Warszawie.
• Gołos P. 2010. Społeczne znaczenie publicznych funkcji lasu – pożądany dla rekreacji i wypoczynku model drzewo-stanu i lasu. Leśn. Pr. Bad. 71 (2): 149-164.
• Hanley N., Wright R., Adamowicz V. 1998. Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 11 (3): 413-428.
• Herriges J. A., Shogren J. F. 1996. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30: 112-131.
• Holmes T. P., Kramer R. A. 2002. An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 (1): 121-132.
• Hynes S., Cahill B., Dillion E. 2007. A Negative Binomial Discrete Choice Model of Forestry Recreation in Ireland. The Rural Economy Research Centre. Working Paper Series Working Paper 07-WP-RE-09.
• Klocek A., Płotkowski L. 1997. Las i jego funkcje jako dobro publiczne. W: Borecki T. [red.]. Kongres Leśników Polskich. Materiały i dokumenty. T. II. Agencja Reklamowo-Wydawnicza A. Grzegorczyk, Warszawa. 149-169.
• Lehtonen E., Kuuluvainen J., Pouta E., Rekola M., Li C.-Z. 2003. Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science & Policy 6 (3): 195-204.
• 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.
• Loomis J., Brown T., Lucero B., Peterson G. 1996. Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual willingness to pay. Land Economics 72 (4): 450-461.
• Loomis J. B., Larson D. M. 1994. Total economic value of increasing gray whale populations: results from a contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Marine Resource Economics 9: 275-286.
• Loomis J. B., White D. S. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 18: 197-206.
• Majumdar S., Deng J., Zhanga Y., Pierskalla Ch. 2011. Using contingent valuation to estimate the willingness of tourists to pay for urban forests: A study in Savannah, Georgia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10: 275-280.
• Markowska A., Żylicz T. 1999. Costing an International Public Good: The Case of the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics 30: 301-316.
• Martin-López B., Montes C., Benayas J. 2008. Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. Conservation Biology 22: 624-635.
• Mitchell R. C., Carson R. T. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington.
• Mizaras S., Kavaliauskas M., Cinga G., Mizaraite· D., Belova O. 2015. Socio-economics Aspects of Recreational Use of Forests in Lithuania. Baltic Forestry 21 (2): 308-314.
• Moore Ch. C., Holmes T. P., Bell K. P. 2011. An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs. Journal of Forest Economics 17: 35-52.
• Morea T. A, Averillb J. R., Thomas H. Stevensc T. H. 1996. Values and Economics in Environmental Management: A Perspective and Critique. Journal of Environmental Management Volume 48 (4): 397-409.
• Murphy J. J., Stevens T. H., Weatherhead D. 2005. Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? Environmental and Resource Economics 30 (1): 327-343.
• Navrud S. 2010. Best practice guidelines in Benefit Transfer of forest externalities. Final report. COST E45. http://www.medforex.net/e45 (data dostępu: 12.12.2014 r.).
• Neill H. R., Cummings R. G., Ganderton P. T., Harrison G. W., McGuckin T. 1994. Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics 70 (2): 145-154.
• Nielsen A. B., Olsen S. B., Lundhede T. 2007. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 80: 63-71.
• Ressurreiçăo A., Gibbons J., Kaiser M., Dentinho T. P., Zarzycki T., Bentley Ch., Austen M., Burdon D., Atkins J., Santos R. S., Edwards-Jones G. 2012. Different cultures, different values: The role of cultural variation in public’s WTP for marine species conservation. Biological Conservation 145: 148-159.
• Richardson L., Loomis J. 2009. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 68: 1535-1548.
• Riera P., Signorello G. 2016. Good Practice Guidelines for the Non-Market Valuation of Forest Goods and Services. Action E45 EUROpean FORest EXternalities (EUROFOREX).
• Roach B., Boyle K. J., Welsh M. P. 2002. Testing bid design effects in multiple bounded contingent valuation. Land Economics 78 (1): 121-131.
• Sagan A. 2009. Metaanaliza danych w marketingu zorientowanym na dowody – orientacja kliniczna w badaniach ryn-kowych i marketingowych. Prace naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu 51: 115-124.
• Spencer M. A., Swallow S. K., Miller C. J. 1998. Valuing water quality monitoring: a contingent valuation experiment involving hypothetical and real payments. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27 (1): 28-42.
• Szoszkiewicz K., Zydroń A., Górna M. 2015. Znaczenie Wielkopolskiego Parku Narodowego dla mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej. Sylwan 159 (3): 259-264.
• Taylor L. O. 1998. Incentive compatible referenda and the valuation of environmental goods. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27 (2): 132-139.
• Tisdell C., Wilson C. 2004. The public’s knowledge of and support for conservation of Australia’s tree-kangaroos and other animals. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 2339-2359.
• Venkatachalam L. 2004. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24: 89-124.
• Walsh R. G., Loomis J. B., Gillman R. A. 1984. Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Economics 60: 14-29.
• Wang X., Bennett J., Xie C., Zhang Z. Liang, D. 2007. Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: A choice modeling approach. Ecological Economics 63 (1): 114-125.
• Zydroń A., Kayzer D., Szoszkiewicz K., Górna M. 2014. Factors modifying willingness to incur expenses for the benefit of the Wielkopolski National Park. Ekonomia i Środowisko 4: 240-247.
• Zydroń A., Szoszkiewicz K. 2013. Wartość środowiska a gotowość społeczeństwa do zapłacenia za to dobro. Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska 15: 2874-2886.
• Żylicz T., Giergiczny M. 2013. Wycena pozaprodukcyjnych funkcji lasu. Raport końcowy. Dokumentacja naukowa. Uniwersytet Warszawski, Warszawa.