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

被引:16
作者
Lindhjem, Henrik [1 ,2 ]
Grimsrud, Kristine [3 ]
Navrud, Stale [4 ]
Kolle, Stein Olav [4 ]
机构
[1] Norwegian Inst Nat Res NINA, N-0349 Oslo, Norway
[2] Vista Anal, N-0257 Oslo, Norway
[3] Stat Norway, N-0033 Oslo, Norway
[4] Univ Life Sci, Sch Business & Econ, N-1432 As, Norway
基金
欧盟第七框架计划;
关键词
forest; biodiversity; ecosystem services; contingent valuation; cost-benefit analysis;
D O I
10.1080/21606544.2014.982201
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Ecologists recommend preserving more of the old-growth forests in Norway, as half of the species have forests as their main habitat and many are in decline. We investigate benefits and costs over a 50-year period of increasing forest conservation from 1.4% of the productive forest area (the situation in 2007) to 2.8% (doubling), 4.5% ('ecologists' minimum') and 10% (one goal suggested in public debate). The benefits are estimated based on a national contingent valuation (CV) survey of Norwegian households. Two independent measures of total costs are used: (1) the actual compensation amounts paid to forest owners and (2) results from a survey of forest owners' minimum willingness to accept compensation to preserve. Results show that social benefits outweigh costs of the three conservation plans by a large margin. The middle option of 4.5% has the highest net present value. This result is robust to a range of assumptions, including considerations of potential hypothetical bias in willingness to pay estimates. The results of this cost-benefit analysis reflect the preferences of the general population, the authorities and the forest owners with respect to biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation, and supplement the expert opinion of ecologists.
引用
收藏
页码:202 / 222
页数:21
相关论文
共 58 条
  • [1] The scope trials: Variation in sensitivity to scope and WTP with directionally bounded utility functions
    Amiran, Edoh Y.
    Hagen, Daniel A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2010, 59 (03) : 293 - 301
  • [2] Bateman I.J., 2002, EC VALUATION STATED, V480
  • [3] On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity
    Bateman, IJ
    Cole, M
    Cooper, P
    Georgiou, S
    Hadley, D
    Poe, GL
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2004, 47 (01) : 71 - 93
  • [4] Bateman IJ, 2005, AQUAT SCI, V67, P274, DOI 10.1007/s00027-004-0744-3
  • [5] Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice
    Bergstrom, John C.
    Taylor, Laura O.
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2006, 60 (02) : 351 - 360
  • [6] Boadway R., 2006, PUBLIC POLICY REV, V2, P1
  • [7] A note on benefits and costs of adjusting forestry to meet recreational demands
    Bostedt, G
    Mattsson, L
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FOREST ECONOMICS, 2006, 12 (01) : 75 - 81
  • [8] OLS VERSUS ML ESTIMATION OF NON-MARKET RESOURCE VALUES WITH PAYMENT CARD INTERVAL DATA
    CAMERON, TA
    HUPPERT, DD
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 1989, 17 (03) : 230 - 246
  • [9] Benefit-cost analysis of spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana Clem.) control: Incorporating market and non-market values
    Chang, Wei-Yew
    Lantz, Van A.
    Hennigar, Chris R.
    MacLean, David A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2012, 93 (01) : 104 - 112
  • [10] Economic Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services Losses: Cost of Policy Inaction
    Chiabai, Aline
    Travisi, Chiara M.
    Markandya, Anil
    Ding, Helen
    Nunes, Paulo A. L. D.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2011, 50 (03) : 405 - 445