[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/180419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Family-forest Owners’ Willingness to Harvest Sawlogs and Woody Biomass: The Effect of Price on Social Availability

Author

Listed:
  • Aguilar, Francisco X.
  • Daniel, Marissa “Jo”
  • Cai, Zhen
Abstract
Understanding willingness to harvest (WTH) is essential to assessing the social availability of woody biomass from private land. Currently, the only economically feasible way to harvest woody biomass is in conjunction with sawlogs. We examined WTH sawlogs and woody biomass from owners of family forests using data from a survey of Missouri forest owners. While their WTH increased with revenue expected from woody biomass, revenue expected from sawlogs was a stronger influence. Incentive payments for woody biomass thus are unlikely to increase its supply, and the social availability of woody biomass will remain limited unless sawlog prices rise significantly.

Suggested Citation

  • Aguilar, Francisco X. & Daniel, Marissa “Jo” & Cai, Zhen, 2014. "Family-forest Owners’ Willingness to Harvest Sawlogs and Woody Biomass: The Effect of Price on Social Availability," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 43(2), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:180419
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.180419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/180419/files/ARER%202014%2008%20Aguilar.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.180419?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kim, Ji-Hyun, 2003. "Assessing practical significance of the proportional odds assumption," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 233-239, November.
    2. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    3. Joshi, Sudiksha & Arano, Kathryn G., 2009. "Determinants of private forest management decisions: A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 132-139, March.
    4. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    5. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Gregory, S. Amacher & Christine Conway, M. & Sullivan, Jay & Gregory, S. Amacher, 2003. "Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 137-164.
    7. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    8. Gary Crow, 1997. "Estimating the Values of Cattle Characteristics Using an Ordered Probit Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 463-476.
    9. Gruchy, Steven R. & Grebner, Donald L. & Munn, Ian A. & Joshi, Omkar & Hussain, Anwar, 2012. "An assessment of nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to harvest woody biomass in support of bioenergy production in Mississippi: A contingent rating approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 140-145.
    10. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    11. Joshi, Omkar & Grebner, Donald L. & Hussain, Anwar & Grado, Stephen C., 2013. "Landowner knowledge and willingness to supply woody biomass for wood-based bioenergy: Sample selection approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 97-109.
    12. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    13. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2005. "Effect of Experimental Design on Choice-Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(3), pages 771-785.
    14. Richard Williams, 2006. "Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(1), pages 58-82, March.
    15. Akter, Sonia & Bennett, Jeff & Akhter, Sanzida, 2008. "Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 345-351, October.
    16. Shaikh, Sabina L. & Sun, Lili & Cornelis van Kooten, G., 2007. "Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 115-125, April.
    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. Cai, Zhen & Narine, Lana Landra & D'Amato, Anthony & Aguilar, Francisco Xavier, 2016. "Attitudinal and revenue effects on non-industrial private forest owners' willingness-to-harvest timber and woody biomass," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 52-61.
    2. 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).
    3. repec:ags:aaea16:235752 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Juutinen, Artti & Tolvanen, Anne & Koskela, Terhi, 2020. "Forest owners' future intentions for forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    5. Ugarte Lucas, Paula & Gamborg, Christian & Lund, Thomas Bøker, 2022. "Sustainability concerns are key to understanding public attitudes toward woody biomass for energy: A survey of Danish citizens," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 181-194.
    6. Solomon, Barry D. & Barnett, John Brad & Wellstead, Adam M. & Rouleau, Mark D., 2020. "Deciphering support for woody biomass production for electric power using an ecosystem service framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    7. Dulys, Elena & Swinton, Scott & Klammer, Sarah, 2016. "What Drives the Potential Supply of Timber Residues from Private Lands?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 242363, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    2. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    3. Bauer, Dana & Liu, Pengfei & Swallow, Stephen K. & Johnston, Robert J., 2013. "Do Exurban Communities Want More Development?," Working Papers 25, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    4. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    5. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    6. Khanal, Puskar N. & Grebner, Donald L. & Munn, Ian A. & Grado, Stephen C. & Grala, Robert K. & Henderson, James E., 2017. "Evaluating non-industrial private forest landowner willingness to manage for forest carbon sequestration in the southern United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 112-119.
    7. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    8. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    10. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    11. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    12. Banerjee, Swagata (Ban) & Martin, Steven W. & Hudson, Darren, 2006. "A Choice-Based Conjoint Experiment with Genetically Engineered Cotton in the Mississippi Delta," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35389, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2001. "Logit Models For Pooled Contingent Valuation And Contingent Rating And Ranking Data: Valuing Benefits From Forest Biodiversity Conservation," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20616, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Cai, Zhen & Narine, Lana Landra & D'Amato, Anthony & Aguilar, Francisco Xavier, 2016. "Attitudinal and revenue effects on non-industrial private forest owners' willingness-to-harvest timber and woody biomass," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 52-61.
    16. Brey, Raul & Bergland, Olvar & Riera, Pere, 2011. "A contingent grouping approach for stated preferences," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 745-755, September.
    17. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    18. Robert W. Turner & Blake Willmarth, 2014. "Valuation of Cultural and Natural Resources in North Cascades National Park," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    19. Joshi, Omkar & Grebner, Donald L. & Hussain, Anwar & Grado, Stephen C., 2013. "Landowner knowledge and willingness to supply woody biomass for wood-based bioenergy: Sample selection approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 97-109.
    20. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    21. Hudson Darren & Lusk Jayson, 2004. "Risk and Transactions Cost in Contracting: Results from a Choice-Based Experiment," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-19, February.

    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:ags:arerjl:180419. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nareaea.html .

    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.