Skip to main content

Valuing Biodiversity, Aesthetics, and Job Losses Associated with Ecosystem Management Using Stated Preferences

Buy Article:

$21.50 plus tax (Refund Policy)

The study performs a joint estimation of the values for three important attributes of forest ecosystem management—biodiversity, aesthetics, and rural employment impacts using a choice-based, stated preference approach. It develops the marginal willingness-to-pay schedule for the three attributes for timber rural, other rural, and urban communities in Washington State. In contrast to the conventional wisdom in neoclassical economics, the public perceives job losses as losses of social welfare in this study. There are differences as well as similarities among the preferences of the three communities for the attributes of ecosystem management. The results show that the overall preferences of the timber rural and urban communities towards ecosystem management are substantially different, while the preferences of other rural community are not statistically significantly different from the other two communities. The estimated environmental and social values make it possible for policy makers and resource managers to compare and assess the trade-offs of different management plans. For example, with the biodiversity index level at 60, where an index of 50 relates current conditions, and rural forest-related job losses at 5,000, each household in urban communities in Washington State is willing to pay $31.44 annually for an additional unit of improvement of biodiversity, and $45.97 annually for avoiding an additional 1,000 rural job losses. The trade-off relationship for the given biodiversity and job loss levels suggests each household in urban communities each year is willing to trade 684 additional rural forest-related job losses with one unit of biodiversity improvement, ceteris paribus. Similar trade-off relationships for households in timber and other rural communities suggest each is willing to trade 598 and 388 additional rural forest-related job losses, respectively, with one unit of biodiversity improvement, ceteris paribus. The trade-off between aesthetics and job losses are 1,229, 452, and 686 additional jobs with one unit of aesthetics improvement for urban, timber, and other rural households, respectively. The trade-off relationships provide important information for improving the efficiency and equity of forest ecosystem management. FOR. SCI. 49(2):247–257.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Data/Media
No Metrics

Keywords: Environmental valuation; aesthetics; biodiversity; ecosystem management; employment; environmental management; forest; forest management; forest resources; forestry; forestry research; forestry science; natural resource management; natural resources; stated preferences; willingness-to-pay

Document Type: Miscellaneous

Affiliations: 1: Principal Economist The Texas A&M University System, Texas Forest Service, 301 Tarrow, Suite 364, College Station, TX, 77840, Phone: (979) 458-6659; Fax: (979) 458-6655 [email protected] 2: Professor College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Box 352100 Seattle, WA, 98195, Phone: (206) 616-3218 [email protected] 3: Associate Professor College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Box 352100 Seattle, WA, 98195, Phone: (206) 616-3218 [email protected]

Publication date: 2003-04-01

More about this publication?
  • Forest Science is a peer-reviewed journal publishing fundamental and applied research that explores all aspects of natural and social sciences as they apply to the function and management of the forested ecosystems of the world. Topics include silviculture, forest management, biometrics, economics, entomology & pathology, fire & fuels management, forest ecology, genetics & tree improvement, geospatial technologies, harvesting & utilization, landscape ecology, operations research, forest policy, physiology, recreation, social sciences, soils & hydrology, and wildlife management.
    Forest Science is published bimonthly in February, April, June, August, October, and December.

    2016 Impact Factor: 1.782 (Rank 17/64 in forestry)

    Average time from submission to first decision: 62.5 days*
    June 1, 2016 to Feb. 28, 2017

    Also published by SAF:
    Journal of Forestry
    Other SAF Publications
  • Submit a Paper
  • Membership Information
  • Author Guidelines
  • Podcasts
  • Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites
  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more