[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v164y2019ic30.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of forest owners attitudes towards wood ash recycling in Sweden - Can the nutrient cycle be closed?

Author

Listed:
  • Ouvrard, Benjamin
  • Abildtrup, Jens
  • Bostedt, Göran
  • Stenger, Anne
Abstract
The use of biomass, in particular wood, has increased this last decade as a result of the European Union's objectives to reduce the use of fossil energies. This has amplified the use of whole-tree harvesting and the exploitation of forest residues from traditional timber harvest. However, these practices have some ecological consequences because they remove nutrients from the forest, thus potentially reducing soil fertility. To compensate for this nutrient loss, it has been proposed to recycle wood ash to reintroduce the exported nutrients. In this paper, we assess private forest owners' willingness to pay to spread ash in Västmanland, Sweden, where ash recycling is not widely adopted, though an increasing supply of wood ash. In particular, we take into account behavioural motives that may explain forest owners' willingness to pay (Theory of Planned Behaviour and environmental sensitivity). We conclude that Swedish forest owners generally have a positive willingness-to-pay for wood ash application in their forests, but that this measure is highly dependent on their attitudes. We also show that a forest owner's decision to apply ash to all or a portion of his/her forest is explained by two different characteristics: the landowner's environmental sensitivity and his/her perceived control of wood ash recycling.

Suggested Citation

  • Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Bostedt, Göran & Stenger, Anne, 2019. "Determinants of forest owners attitudes towards wood ash recycling in Sweden - Can the nutrient cycle be closed?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:164:y:2019:i:c:30
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918309625
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.04.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Läpple, Doris & Kelley, Hugh, 2013. "Understanding the uptake of organic farming: Accounting for heterogeneities among Irish farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 11-19.
    2. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(4), pages 609-636.
    3. McCluskey, Jill J. & Grimsrud, Kristine M. & Ouchi, Hiromi & Wahl, Thomas I., 2003. "Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Food Products in Japan," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 222-231, October.
    4. Paula Horne & Leena Petäjistö, 2003. "Preferences for Alternative Moose Management Regimes among Finnish Landowners: A Choice Experiment Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 472-482.
    5. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Léa Tardieu & Fabien Quétier & Sébastien Roussel, 2018. "Corrigendum: Preferences for biodiversity offset contracts on arable land: a choice experiment study with farmers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(4), pages 675-675.
    6. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    7. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    8. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    9. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    10. Jens Abildtrup & Laurent Saint Andre & Anne Stenger, 2017. "French forest owners’ stated preferences for ash-recycling – A discrete choice experiment," Post-Print hal-03767823, HAL.
    11. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 15-24.
    12. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline, 2017. "Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 64-74.
    13. Stephane Hess & Nesha Beharry-Borg, 2012. "Accounting for Latent Attitudes in Willingness-to-Pay Studies: The Case of Coastal Water Quality Improvements in Tobago," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(1), pages 109-131, May.
    14. Cook, Douglas O. & Kieschnick, Robert & McCullough, B.D., 2008. "Regression analysis of proportions in finance with self selection," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 860-867, December.
    15. Fitalew Agimass Taye & Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2018. "Accounting for environmental attitude to explain variations in willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services using the new environmental paradigm," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(4), pages 420-440, October.
    16. Yuanyuan Gu & Arne Risa Hole & Stephanie Knox, 2013. "Fitting the generalized multinomial logit model in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(2), pages 382-397, June.
    17. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Léa Tardieu & Fabien Quétier & Sébastien Roussel, 2018. "Preferences for biodiversity offset contracts on arable land: a choice experiment study with farmers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(4), pages 553-582.
    18. Ekvall, Hans & Löfgren, Stefan & Bostedt, Göran, 2014. "Ash recycling — A method to improve forest production or to restore acidified surface waters?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 42-50.
    19. Ziegler, Andreas, 2012. "Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources and propulsion technologies in vehicles: A discrete choice analysis for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1372-1385.
    20. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Contracts for afforestation and the role of monitoring for landowners’ willingness to accept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 29-37.
    21. Petucco, Claudio & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2015. "Influences of nonindustrial private forest landowners’ management priorities on the timber harvest decision—A case study in France," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 152-166.
    22. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2020. "Nudging Acceptability for Wood Ash Recycling in Forests: A Choice Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    2. Karine Dufossé & Marine Marie-Charlotte & Vincent Augiseau & Thierry Henrion & Hayet Djelal, 2021. "Quantification and Environmental Assessment of Wood Ash from Biomass Power Plants: Case Study of Brittany Region in France," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Tang, Yanyan & Zhang, Qi & Liu, Boyu & Li, Yan & Ni, Ruiyan & Wang, Yi, 2023. "What influences residents’ intention to participate in the electric vehicle battery recycling? Evidence from China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    4. Josset, Clement & Shanafelt, David W. & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Probabilistic typology of private forest owners: A tool to target the development of new market for ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Kim, Do-hun & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2024. "Psychological distances to climate change and public preferences for biodiversity-augmenting attributes in family-owned production forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    6. Jeannette Eggers & Ylva Melin & Johanna Lundström & Dan Bergström & Karin Öhman, 2020. "Management Strategies for Wood Fuel Harvesting—Trade-Offs with Biodiversity and Forest Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2021. "Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How we are not yet “hitting the right keys”," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    3. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Andrew G. Meyer, 2021. "Incorporating Beliefs and Experiences into Choice Experiment Analysis: Implications for Policy Recommendations," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 823-848, June.
    4. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Giacomo Pallante & Adam Drucker, 2014. "Niche Markets for Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Preference and Scale Heterogeneity Effects on Nepalese Consumers’ WTP for Finger Millet Products," SEEDS Working Papers 1414, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    7. Federico Pontoni & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Stefania Troiano, 2016. "Choice experiments and environmental taxation: An application to the Italian hydropower sector," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(3), pages 99-118.
    8. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    9. Sponagel, Christian & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Piepho, Hans-Peter & Bahrs, Enno, 2021. "Farmers’ preferences for nature conservation compensation measures with a focus on eco-accounts according to the German Nature Conservation Act," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Riise, Julie & Hole, Arne Risa & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Skåtun, Diane, 2016. "GPs' implicit prioritization through clinical choices – evidence from three national health services," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 169-183.
    11. Pallante, Giacomo & Drucker, Adam G. & Sthapit, Sajal, 2016. "Assessing the potential for niche market development to contribute to farmers' livelihoods and agrobiodiversity conservation: Insights from the finger millet case study in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 92-105.
    12. Kohei Imamura & Kohei Takenaka Takano & Nobuhito Mori & Tohru Nakashizuka & Shunsuke Managi, 2016. "Attitudes toward disaster-prevention risk in Japanese coastal areas: analysis of civil preference," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 82(1), pages 209-226, May.
    13. Rebecca Owusu Coffie & Michael P. Burton & Fiona L. Gibson & Atakelty Hailu, 2016. "Choice of Rice Production Practices in Ghana: A Comparison of Willingness to Pay and Preference Space Estimates," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 799-819, September.
    14. Godager, Geir & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Li, Jing Jing & Wang, Jian & Yang, Fan, 2021. "Does gender affect medical decisions? Results from a behavioral experiment with physicians and medical students," HERO Online Working Paper Series 2021:1, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme.
    15. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Beyene,Abebe Damte & Bluffstone,Randall & Gebreegziabher, Zenebe & Martinsson,Peter & Mekonnen,Alemu & Toman,Michael A. & Vieider,Ferdinand M., 2015. "Preferences for REDD+ contract attributes in low-income countries : a choice experiment in Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7296, The World Bank.
    16. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    17. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    18. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    20. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bylicki, Michał & Budziński, Wiktor & Buczyński, Mateusz, 2022. "Valuing externalities of outdoor advertising in an urban setting – the case of Warsaw," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Wood ash recycling; Choice experiment; Environmental sensitivity; Theory of Planned Behaviour;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C24 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models; Threshold Regression Models
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:164:y:2019:i:c:30. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.