LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Torres, Arturo Balderas; MacMillan, Douglas C.; Skutsch, Margaret; Lovett, Jon C. (2013)
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: SD, GE
Adequate demand for, and recognition of,forest carbon services is critical to success of market mechanisms for forestry-based conservation and climate change mitigation. National and voluntary carbon-offsetting schemes are emerging as alternatives to international compliance markets. We developed a choice experiment to explore determinants of local forest carbon-offset valuation. A total of 963 citizens from Guadalajara in Mexico\ud were asked to consider a purchase of voluntary offsets from the neighbouring Biosphere Reserve of La Primavera and from two alternative more distant locations: La Michilı´a in the state of Durango and El Cielo in Tamaulipas. Surveys were applied in market stall sessions and online using two different sampling methods: the snowball technique and via a market research company. The local La Primavera site attracted higher participation and valuation than the more distant sites. However, groups particularly interested in climate change mitigation or cost may accept cost-efficient options in the distant sites. Mean implicit carbon prices obtained ranged from $6.79 to $15.67/tCO2eq depending on the surveying methodology and profile of respondents. Survey application mode can significantly affect outcome of the experiment. Values from the market stall sessions were higher than those from the snowball and market research samples obtained online; this may be linked to greater cooperation associated with personal interaction and collective action. In agreement with the literature, we found that valuation of forest carbon offsets is associated with cognitive, ethical, behavioural, geographical and economic factors.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Achtnicht M (2011) Do environmental benefits matter? Evidence from choice experiments among house owners in Germany. Ecol Econ 70:2191-2200
    • Adaman F, Karali N, Kumbaroglu G, Or I, O¨ zkaynak B, Zenginobuz U (2011) What determines urban households' willingness to pay for CO2 emission reductions in Turkey: a contingent valuation survey. Energy Pol 39:689-698
    • Akter S, Bennett J (2009) Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the carbon pollution reduction scheme in Australia. Prepared for: Australian agricultural and resource economics society: 53rd annual conference 2009
    • Akter S, Brouwer R, Brander L, Van Beukering P (2009) Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets. Ecol Econ 68:1858-1863
    • Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Economic Issues 8:83-110
    • Balderas Torres A, Marchant R, Lovett JC, Smart JCR, Tipper R (2010) Analysis of the carbon sequestration costs of afforestation and reforestation agroforestry practices and the use of cost curves to evaluate their potential for implementation of climate change mitigation. Ecol Econ 69:469-477
    • Bamberg S, Mo¨ser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psych 27:14-25
    • Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60(2):450-460
    • Bator FM (1958) The anatomy of market failure. Quart J Econ 72:351-379
    • Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge
    • Bennett J, Adamowicz V (2001) Some fundamentals of environmental choice modellings. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Chap 3. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 37-69
    • Bennett J, Blamey R (2001) Introduction. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Chap 1. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 1-10
    • Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright R (2006) Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Pol 34:1004-1014
    • Berk RA, Fovell RG (1999) Public perceptions of climate change: a ''willingness to pay assessment''. Clim Change 41:413-446
    • Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Weimer DL (2004) Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples. J Environ Econ Manag 47:331-363
    • Berumen (2005) Presentacion ''Estudio de Opinion sobre el Bosque La Primavera.'' Berumen y Asociados S.A. de C. V. Junio de 2005, Mexico
    • Brainard JS, Bateman IJ, Lovett AA (2009) The social value of carbon sequestered in Great Britain's woodlands. Ecol Econ 68:1257-1267
    • Brey R, Riera P, Mogas J (2007) Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: an application to Spanish forests. Ecol Econ 64:305-312
    • Brouwer R, Brander L, Van Beukering P (2008) ''A convenient truth'': air travel passengers' willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Clim Change 90:299-313
    • Cai B, Cameron TA, Gerdes GR (2011) Distal order effects in stated preference surveys. Ecol Econ 70:1101-1108
    • Cameron T (2005) Individual option prices for climate change mitigation. J Public Econ 89:283-301
    • Cameron T, Englin J (1997) Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods. J Environ Econ Manage 33:296-313
    • Carlsson F, Kataria M, Krupnick A, Lampi E, Lofgren A, Qin P, Chung S, Sterner T (2010) Paying for mitigation: a multiple country study. Resources for the future, discussion papers
    • Christie M, Hanley N, Hynes S (2007) Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behavior methods. J Forest Econ 13:75-102
    • Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1-44
    • CONAFOR (2008) Expo Forestal: La importancia del Mercado Voluntario de Carbono. Comisio´n Nacional Forestal Unidad de Comunicacio´n Social B29-2008. http://www.conafor.gob.mx/ portal/docs/secciones/comunicacion/B29-2008.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2012
    • CONANP (2000) Natural protected area management plan for La Primavera. Comisio´n Nacional de A´ reas Naturales Protegidas. SEMARNAT, Mexico
    • Daly H (1990) Commentary: toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2:1-6
    • De Jong BHJ, Montoya-Go´mez G, Nelson K, Soto-Pinto L, Taylor J, Tipper R (1995) Community forest management and carbon sequestration: a feasibility study from Chiapas, Me´xico. Interciencia 20:409-416
    • De Jong BHJ, Tipper R, Montoya-Gomez G (2000) An economic analysis of the potential for carbon sequestration by forests: evidence from southern Mexico. Ecol Econ 33:313-327
    • De Jong BHJ, Ochoa Gaona S, Quechulpa Montalvo S, Esquivel Baza´n E, Pe´rez Herna´ndez N (2004) Economics of agroforestry carbon sequestration. In: Alavalapati JRR, Mercer DE (eds) Valuing agroforestry systems, Chap 7. Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 123-138
    • Diederich J, Goeschl T (2011) Willingness to pay for individual greenhouse gas emissions reductions: evidence from a large field experiment. University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics, discussion paper series no. 517
    • Dietz T, Dan A, Shwom R (2007) Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology 72:185-214
    • El Universal (2005) Newspaper. Consume incendio el bosque La Primavera. April 30th, 2005. http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/ pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=280968&tabla=notas. Mexico. Accessed on-line on 10 Feb 2012
    • Ethier RG, Poe GL, Schulze WD, Clark J (2000) A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Econ 76:54-67
    • Farley J (2010) Conservation through the economics lens. Environ Manage 45:26-38. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9232-1
    • Galindo LM (2009) La econom´ıa del cambio clima´tico en Me´xico: s´ıntesis. SHCP/SEMARNAT, Me´xico
    • Gregory R, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (1993) Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. J Risk Uncertainty 7:177-197
    • Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources. The econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
    • Hamilton K, Bayon R, Turner G, Higgins D (2007) State of the voluntary carbon markets 2007: picking up steam. Ecosystem marketplace and new carbon finance. Available at http://eco systemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/StateoftheVoluntary CarbonMarket17July.pdf. Accessed 1 Sep 2011
    • Hausman JA, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52:1219-1240
    • Hersch J, Viscusi WK (2006) The generational divide in support for environmental policies: European evidence. Clim Change 77:121-136
    • Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN (1987) Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behaviour: a metaanalysis. J Environ Educ 18:1-8
    • Horne P, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2005) Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecol Manag 207:189-199
    • INEGI (2001) Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales de Me´xico. Instituto Nacional de Estad´ıstica Geograf´ıa e Informa´tica, Me´xico
    • Johnson E, Nemet GF (2010) Willingness to pay for climate policy: a review of estimates. La Follette school working paper no. 2010-2011. University of Wisconsin, Madison
    • Johnston RJ, Duke JM (2009) Willingness to pay for land preservation across states and jurisdictional scale: implications for benefit transfer. Land Econ 85(2):217-223
    • Kahneman D (1986) Comments. Valuing environmental goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman and Allanheld Publishers, Totowa, pp 185-197
    • Koellner T, Sell J, Navarro G (2010) Why and how much are firms willing to invest in ecosystem services from tropical forests? A comparison of international and Costa Rican firms. Ecol Econ 69:2127-2139
    • Krinsky I, Robb A (1986) Approximating the statistical properties of elasticities'. Rev Econ Stat 68:715-719
    • Landell-Mills N, Porras IT (2002) Silver bullet or fool's gold: a global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact in the poor. International Institute for Environment and Development, London
    • Layton DF, Brown G (2000) Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev Econ Stat 82:616-624
    • Li H, Berrens R, Bohara A, Jenkins-Smith H, Silva C, Weimer D (2004) Would developing country commitments affect US households' support for a modified Kyoto Protocol? Ecol Econ 48:329-343
    • Li H, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Berrens RP, Herron KG (2009) Public support for reducing US reliance on fossil fuels: investigating household willingness to pay for energy research and development. Ecol Econ 68:731-742
    • Linacre N, Kossoy A, Ambrosi P (2011) State and trends of the carbon market 2011. The World Bank, Washington
    • Longo A, Hoyos D, Markandya A (2012) Willingness to pay for ancillary benefits of climate change mitigation. Environ Resour Econ 51:119-140
    • Loomis J, Ekstrand E (1998) Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican Spotted Owl. Ecol Econ 27:29-41
    • Louviere J (2001) Choice experiments: an overview of concepts and issues. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Chap 2. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 13-36
    • Lu JL, Shon ZY (2012) Exploring airline passengers' willingness to pay for carbon offsets. Transp Res Part D 17:124-128
    • Lynne GD (2002) Agricultural industrialization: a metaeconomics look at the metaphors by which we live. Rev Agr Econ 24:410-427
    • MacFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics, Chap 4. Academic Press, New York, pp 105-142
    • MacKerron GJ, Egerton C, Gaskell C, Parpia A, Mourato S (2009) Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high-)flying young adults in the UK. Energy Pol 37:1372-1381
    • MacMillan DC, Philip L, Hanley ND, Alvarez-Farizo B (2002) Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches. Ecol Econ 43:49-59
    • MacMillan DC, Hanley N, Lienhoop N (2006) Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine? Ecol Econ 60:299-307
    • Maddala GS (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, USA
    • Markowski-Lindsay M, Stevens T, Kittredge DB, Butler BJ, Catanzaro P, Dickinson BJ (2011) Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets. Ecol Econ 71:180-190
    • Meyerhoff J, Liebe U, Hartje V (2009) Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: evidence from two choice experiments in Germany. J Forest Econ 15:37-58
    • Nomura N, Akai M (2004) Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Appl Energy 78:453-463
    • Ohdoko T (2008) Comparison of complete combinatorial and likelihood ratio tests: empirical findings from residential choice experiments. Kobe University, Japan. Selected paper prepared for presentation at the American agricultural economics association, annual meeting, Orlando FL, July 2008
    • Ostrom E (2000) Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J Econ Perspect 14:137-158
    • Ovchinnikova NV, Czap HJ, Lynne GD, Larmier CW (2009) ''I don't want to be selling my soul'': two experiments in environmental economics. J Socio-Econ 39:221-229
    • Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (2003) In: Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (eds) La Venta de Servicios Ambientales Forestales. Secretar´ıa de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Instituto Nacional de Ecolog´ıa, Comisio´n Nacional Forestal, Mexico, pp 407-455
    • PECC (2008) Programa Especial de Cambio Clima´tico. Gobierno Federal, Me´xico
    • Perdan S, Azapagic A (2011) Carbon trading: current schemes and future for developments. Energy Pol 39:6040-6054
    • Peters-Stanley M, Hamilton K, Marcello T, Sjardin M (2011) State of the voluntary carbon markets 2011. Ecosystem marketplace/ forest trends. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, US
    • Petrolia DR, Bhattacharjee S, Hudson D, Herndon CW (2010) Do Americans want ethanol? A comparative contingent-valuation study of willingness to pay for E-10 and E-85. Energy Econ 32:121-128
    • Plan Vivo (2010) Website www.planvivo.org. Accessed on the 10 Feb 2012
    • Poe G, Giraud K, Loomis J (2005) Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am J Agr Econ 87:353-365
    • Presidencia (2007) Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2007-2012. Presidencia de la Repu´blica de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. http://pnd.calderon.presidencia.gob.mx/index.php?page=bosquesy-selvas. Me´xico
    • Richards K, Stokes C (2004) A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: a dozen years of research. Clim Change 63:1-48
    • Rolfe J, Bennett J (2001) Framing effects. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Chap 10. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 202-224
    • Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J (2000) Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecol Econ 35:289-302
    • Samuelson PA (1954) The pure theory of public expenditure. Rev Econ Stat 36:387-389
    • Sautter J, Ovchinnikova NV, Kruse C, Lynne GD (2011) Farmers' decisions regarding carbon sequestration: a metaeconomic view. Society Natural Res 24:133-147
    • Scarpa R, Gilbride TJ, Campbell T, Hensher DA (2009) Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. Eur Rev Agr Econ 36(2):151-174
    • SEMARNAT (2009) Me´xico. Cuarta comunicacio´ n nacional ante la Convencio´n Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Clima´tico. SEMARNAT, Me´xico
    • Solomon BD, Johnson NH (2009) Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol. Ecol Econ 68:2137-2144
    • Sterk W, Mersmann F (2011) ''Domestic emission trading systems in developing countries-state of play and future prospects'' JIKO Policy Paper 2/2011. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Germany
    • Stern N (2006) Stern review on the economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press, UK
    • Thurston HW (2006) Non-market valuation on the internet. In: Alberini A, Kahn JR (eds) Handbook of contingent valuation, Chap 12. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 265-291
    • Tseng WC, Chen CC (2008) Valuing the potential economic impact of climate change on the Taiwan trout. Ecol Econ 65:282-291
    • UN (2010) Report of the secretary-general's high-level advisory group on climate change financing. United Nations, New York
    • UNFCCC (2009) Decision 4/CP.15: methodological guidance for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forest and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries. FCCC/CP/11/Add. 1
    • UNFCCC (2010) Annex 5: policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forest and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries. FCCC/CP/2010/2
    • UNFCCC (2011) Draft decision [-/CP.17] Outcome of the Ad Hoc working group on long-term cooperative action under the convention. C. Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forests carbon stocks in developing countries. http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov_2011/decisions/ application/pdf/cop17_lcaoutcome.pdf. Accessed on line 5 Feb 2012
    • Viscusi WK, Zeckhauser RJ (2006) The perception and valuation of the risks of climate change: a rational and behavioral blend. Clim Change 77:151-177
    • Voss JP (2007) Innovation processes in governance: the development of 'emissions trading' as a new policy instrument. Sci Public Pol 34:329-343
    • Welsch H, Kuhling J (2009) Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: the role of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecol Econ 69:166-176
    • Wiser RH (2007) Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecol Econ 62:19-32
    • Ziegler A, Schwarzkopf J, Hoffmann VH (2012) Stated versus revealed knowledge: determinants of offsetting CO2 emissions from fuel consumption in vehicle use. Energy Pol 40:422-431
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article