Abstract
This chapter examines problems of applying stated preference approaches to tree diseases. The approaches record respondents’ willingness to pay for a better environment, as they conceive it. The validity of these approaches has been challenged; known biases exist, have been addressed, but are still debated. Giving information to respondents, deemed essential for eliciting valid responses, could mislead respondents into valuing other-than-cultural services; unduly headlines particular problems; and makes samples atypical of wider populations. Responses may embody symbolic, apple-pie and citizen values, with “doing right” improperly attached to one particular option. Refusal to respond may be reduced by presenting information in a political context. The chapter concludes that valuations should focus on real outcomes of tree diseases judged by revealed, rather than stated, willingness to pay for actual environmental quality, rather than for abstract concepts.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ambrey, C. L., & Fleming, C. M. (2011). Valuing scenic amenity using life satisfaction data. Ecological Economics, 72, 106–115.
Areal, F. J., & Macleod, A. (2006). Estimating the economic value of trees at risk from a quarantine disease. In A. G. J. M. Oude Lansink (Ed.), New approaches to the economics of plant health (pp. 119–130). New York: Springer.
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Learner, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601–4614.
Bergin, J., & Price, C. (1994). The travel cost method and landscape quality. Landscape Research, 19(1), 21–23.
Bishop, R. C., & Heberlein, T. A. (1979). Measuring values of extramarket goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 926–930.
Bishop, R. C., & Welsh, M. P. (1993). Existence values in benefit—Cost analysis and damage assessment. In W. L. Adamowicz, W. White, & W. E. Phillips (Eds.), Forestry and the environment: Economic perspectives (pp. 135–154). Wallingford: CAB International.
Blamey, R. K. (1998). Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34, 577–601.
Blamey, R. K., Bennett, J., & Morrison, M. D. (1999). Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics, 75, 126–141.
Börger, T. (2013). Keeping up appearances: Motivations for socially desirable responding in contingent valuation interviews. Ecological Economics, 87, 155–165.
Boyle, K. J. (2017). Contingent valuation in practice. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A primer on nonmarket valuation (pp. 111–169). New York: Springer.
Brookshire, D. S., Ives, B. C., & Schulze, W. D. (1976). The valuation of aesthetic preferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 3, 325–346.
Broome, J. (1995). Weighing goods: Equality, uncertainty and time. Oxford: Blackwell.
Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27–42.
Christensen, J. B. (1989). An economic approach to assessing the value of recreation with special reference to forest areas. Copenhagen: Skovbrugsinstituttet.
Clark, J., Burgess, J., & Harrison, C. M. (2000). ‘I struggled with this money business’: Respondents’ perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 33, 45–62.
Clouston, B., & Stansfield, K. (Eds.). (1979). After the elm. London: Heinemann.
Coursey, D. L., Hovis, J. J., & Schulze, W. D. (1987). The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102, 679–690.
Crocker, T. D. (1985). On the value of the condition of a forest stock. Land Economics, 61, 244–254.
de Bruin, A., Pateman, R., Dyke, A., Cinderby, S., & Jones, G. (2014). Social and cultural values of trees in the context of the threat and management of tree disease. York: Stockholm Environment Institute.
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change). (2013). Updated short-term traded carbon values for policy appraisal. London: The Stationery Office.
Diamond, P. A., & Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 45–64.
Dunn, H., Marzano, M., & Forster, J. (2017). Consumer buying habits & willingness to support accreditation. Paper presented at the IUFRO 125th Anniversary Conference, Freiburg.
Dyke, A., Geoghegan, H., & de Bruin, A. (2018). Towards a more-than-human approach to tree health. The human dimensions of forest and tree health (445–470). London: Palgrave (this volume).
Environmental Resources Management. (1996). Valuing management for biodiversity in British forests. Edinburgh: Environmental Resources Management.
Fines, K. D. (1968). Landscape evaluation: A research project in East Sussex. Regional Studies, 2, 41–55.
Foster, C. (1992). Aesthetic disillusionment: Environment, ethics, art. Environmental Values, 1, 205–215.
Fuller, L., Marzano, M., Peace, A., Quine, C. P., & Dandy, N. (2016). Public acceptance of tree health management: Results of a national survey in the UK. Environmental Science & Policy, 59, 18–25.
Harrison, G. W. (1992). Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: A critique of Kahneman and Knetsch. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 23, 248–257.
Hausman, J. (2012). Contingent valuation: From dubious to hopeless. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 43–56.
Helson, H. (1948). Adaptation level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychological Review, 55, 297–313.
Henry, M. S. (1999). Landscape quality and the price of single family houses: Further evidence from home sales in Greenville, South Carolina. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 17(1), 25–30.
HM Treasury. (undated). The green book: Appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: The Stationery Office.
Holmes, T. P., & Kramer, R. A. (1995). An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 121–132.
Jacquemet, N., Joule, R., Luchini, S., & Shogren, J. F. (2013). Preference elicitation under oath. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 65, 110–132.
Jetter, K., & Paine, T. D. (2004). Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for biological control in the urban landscape. Biological Control, 30, 312–322.
Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., … Tourangeau, R. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4, 319–405.
Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992a). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57–70.
Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992b). Contingent valuation and the value of public goods: Reply. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 90–94.
Kling, C. L., Phaneuf, D. J., & Zhao, J. (2012). From Exxon to BP: Has some number become better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 3–26.
Larcom, L. (1931). I learned it in the meadow path. In Anon (Ed.), Songs of praise (p. 199). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
List, J. A., & Gallet, C. A. (2001). What experimental protocol influence [sic] disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Environmental & Resource Economics, 20, 241–254.
MacMillan, D. (1999). Non-market benefits of restoring native woodlands. In C. S. Roper & A. Park (Eds.), The living forest: Non-market benefits of forestry (pp. 189–195). London: HMSO.
McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R., Arvai, J., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2003). Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 46, 33–46.
Meldrum, J. R., Champ, P. A., & Bond, C. A. (2013). Heterogeneous nonmarket benefits of managing white pine blister rust in high-elevation pine forests. Journal of Forest Economics, 19, 61–77.
Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington: Resources for the Future.
Mogas, J., Riera, P., & Bennett, J. (2006). A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modeling with second-order interactions. Journal of Forest Economics, 12, 5–30.
Moore, C. 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.
Mourato, S. (2010). Public knowledge, perceptions and who pays—Lessons from sudden oak death. Paper presented at the Tree Diseases Conference, RASE Stoneleigh Park, 21 April 2010.
Mourato, S., Potter, C., Harwood, T., Knight, J., Leather, S., & Tomlinson, I. (2010). Memory and prediction in plant disease management: A comparative analysis of Dutch elm disease and ‘sudden oak death’. Newcastle: Rural Economy and Land Use Programme.
Murphy, J. J., Stevens, T. H., & Weatherhead, D. (2005). Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? Environmental & Resource Economics, 30, 327–343.
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.
Notaro, S., & De Salvo, M. (2010). Estimating the economic benefits of the landscape function of ornamental trees in a sub-Mediterranean area. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 71–81.
Ovaskainen, V., & Kniivilä, M. (2005). Consumer versus citizen preferences: Evidence on the role of question framing. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 49, 379–394.
Philip, L. J., & MacMillan, D. C. (2005). Exploring values, context and perceptions in contingent valuation studies: The CV market stall technique and WTP for wildlife conservation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48, 257–274.
Pinchot, G. (1910). The fight for conservation. New York: Doubleday, Page & Co.
Price, C. (1997). Twenty-five years of forestry cost–benefit analysis in Britain. Forestry, 70, 171–189.
Price, C. (1999a). Contingent valuation and retrograde information bias. In A. Park & C. Stewart Roper (Eds.), The living forest: Non-market benefits of forestry (pp. 37–44). London: The Stationery Office.
Price, C. (1999b). Stated and revealed preference analysis. In F. Helles, P. Holten-Andersen, & L. Wichmann (Eds.), Multiple use of forests and other natural resources (pp. 46–65). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Price, C. (2000). Valuation of unpriced products: Contingent valuation, cost–benefit analysis and participatory democracy. Land Use Policy, 17, 187–196.
Price, C. (2001). Exact values and vague products? Contingent valuation and passive use value. In T. Sievanen, C. C. Konijnendijk, L. Langner, & K. Nilsson (Eds.), Forest and social services—The role of research (pp. 205–217, Research Paper: 815). Vantaa: Finnish Forest Research Institute.
Price, C. (2006a). Superficial citizens and sophisticated consumers: What questions do respondents to stated preference surveys really answer? Scandinavian Forest Economics, 41, 285–296.
Price, C. (2006b). Buying certification: Pigs in pokes, warm glows, and unexploded bombs. Scandinavian Forest Economics, 41, 265–272.
Price, C. (2010). Appraising the economic impact of tree diseases in Britain: Several shots in the dark, and possibly also in the wrong ball-park? Scandinavian Forest Economics, 43, 45–61.
Price, C. (2011). English elm. In Tessellations. Available electronically from the author at c.price@bangor.ac.uk.
Price, C. (2013). Subjectivity and objectivity in landscape evaluation: An old topic revisited. In M. van der Heide & W. Heijman (Eds.), The economic value of landscapes (pp. 53–76). London: Routledge.
Price, C. (2015). Perception of tree disease mitigation: What are people willing to pay for, and what do they actually get? Scandinavian Forest Economics, 45, 32–39.
Price, C. (2017). Landscape economics (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Price, C., & Willis, R. (2011). The multiple effects of carbon values on optimal rotation. Journal of Forest Economics, 17, 298–306.
Price, C., & Willis, R. (2015). Treating irregularities in carbon price and discount schedule: Resolving a nightmare for forest economics? Scandinavian Forest Economics, 45, 21–31.
Price, C., Cooper, R. J., & Taylor, R. C. (2008). Further thoughts on certification and markets. Scandinavian Forest Economics, 42, 66–74.
Quine, C., Marzano, M., Fuller, L., Dandy, N., Porth, E., Jones, G., … Brandon, G. (2015). Social and economic analyses of Dothistroma blight management. Edinburgh: Forest Research.
Rogers, K., Sacre, K., Goodenough, J., & Doick, K. (2015). Valuing London’s urban forest: Results of the London i-Tree Eco project. London: Treeconomics.
Sagoff, M. (1988) The economy of the earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schläpfer, F., & Hanley, N. (2006). Contingent valuation and collective choice. Kyklos, 59(1), 115–135.
Shackle, G. L. S. (1958). Time in economics. Amsterdam: North Holland publisher.
Smith, V. K. (1992). Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 71–89.
Stenmark, M. (2002). Environmental ethics and policy-making (C. G. McKay, Trans.). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Vossler, C. A., Doyon, M., & Rondeau, D. (2012). Truth in consequentiality: Theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(4), 145–171.
Walker, M. E., Morera, O. F., Vining, J., & Orland, B. (1999). Disparate WTA–WTP disparities: The influence of human versus natural causes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 219–232.
Watson, R., & Albon, S. (2011). UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the key findings. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.
Weisbrod, B. A. (1964). Collective consumption services of individual consumption goods. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78, 471–477.
Wilkinson, G. (1978). Epitaph for the elm. London: Hutchinson.
Acknowledgements
The chapter has been extensively developed from a presentation made at the biennial conference of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics 2014 and published in Scandinavian Forest Economics (Price 2015). The author is grateful to the editor and members of the society for dispensation to make use of this material. He is also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for suggestions on how to improve it.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Price, C. (2018). Stated Willingness to Pay for Tree Health Protection: Perceptions and Realities. In: Urquhart, J., Marzano, M., Potter, C. (eds) The Human Dimensions of Forest and Tree Health. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76956-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76956-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76955-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76956-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)