Skip Navigation

Forestry 1998 71(3):247-259; doi:10.1093/forestry/71.3.247
© 1998 by Institute of Chartered Foresters
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MACMILLAN, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by DUFF, E. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Estimating the non-market costs and benefits of native woodland restoration using the contingent valuation method

D. C. MACMILLAN1 and E. I. DUFF2

1Department of Agriculture, MacRobert Building, University of Aberdeen AB24 5UA, Scotland
2 Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland, MLURI, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, Scotland

The restoration of native forests is an important priority for forestry and conservation organizations in the United Kingdom. The economic case for public sector support for native woodland restoration in the United Kingdom rests almost entirely on the provision of non-market benefits related to wildlife, landscape and recreational opportunities. This paper describes a discrete choice contingent valuation (CV) to estimate the value of the non-market benefits of restoring two native pinewood forests in Affric and Strathspey. If only the willingness to pay (WTP) of those who supported the restoration plan was considered, the average benefit estimate per household was £35 for Affric and £53 for Strathspey. When the compensation required by a small proportion of respondents who preferred the current moorland landscape, was estimated mean WTP was unchanged for Affric, but fell to £24 for Strathspey. The study highlights the need to take account of non-market benefits and costs when evaluating land use change, otherwise benefits may be overestimated and there is a possibility that the wrong projects will be selected. The sensitivity of CV values to the scope of the environmental change are also investigated and the issue of embedding discussed.

Received 17 March 1997.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.