Référentiel pour l’Evaluation Economique des Biens, Services et Dommages Environnementaux Liés à la Forêt Française

Rapport final

Nancy, Décembre 2008

Convention n° SU0500255 Notifiée le 2 décembre 2005 Avenant 1 (24.4.2006) Avenant 2 (23.4.2007) Entre le MEDDAT. et l’I.N.R.A (Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière).

Contributions LEF : Claire Montagné, Patrice Harou, Serge Garcia, Julien Jacob (stagiaire Mastere Nancy 2), Anne Stenger

Avec la contribution particulière de : Ståle Navrud Department of Economics and Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5033, 1432 Ås, Norway; [email protected]

Et

Anna Bartczak Warsaw Ecological Ecomics CenterWarsaw University Dluga 44/50 00-241 Warsaw Poland [email protected]

Sous la responsabilité scientifique de Anne Stenger Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière (L.E.F.) UMR INRA-ENGREF 14 rue Girardet CS 4216 54 042 Nancy [email protected]

2

Résumé L’objectif principal de ce projet est de proposer un référentiel pour les évaluations environnementales liées à la forêt française. Ce référentiel vise à promouvoir la diffusion et l’usage des évaluations économiques des biens, services et dommages environnementaux liés à la forêt française. Pour ce faire, le projet a été mené en quatre étapes. Une première étape a consisté en un recensement des études françaises portant sur l’évaluation économique de la forêt. Cette centralisation de l’information pertinente a permis ensuite, dans une deuxième étape, sur la base de ces expériences et à travers la consolidation d’un réseau d’experts internationaux, de réfléchir aux protocoles liés à la bonne mise en œuvre des différentes méthodes d’évaluation (Navrud, 2006 ; Numéro spécial Journal of Forest Economics 2009, 15(1-2)). Dans une troisième étape, les informations récoltées sur les différentes études ont été regroupées sous la forme d’une base de données. Une réflexion particulière a été menée sur la constitution d’une base de données en collaboration avec d’autres pays européens (Elsasser et al, 2009) ainsi que dans le cadre d’une action COST (E45). Conformément à notre convention, les études françaises ont également été à disposition du plus grand nombre à travers leur intégration dans le référentiel international EVRI. Enfin dans une quatrième étape, une réflexion sur le transfert de valeurs réalisés à partir des études recensées dans le domaine de la forêt a été menée (Bartczak et al, 2008) en plus des cas d’application réalisés en France (Garcia et al, 2007, Garcia et Jacob, 2008). Les résultats obtenus sont : (1) un référentiel des évaluations environnementales de la forêt en France, (2) un ensemble de protocoles recommandés pour les différentes méthodes d’évaluations appliquées à la forêt, (3) la dynamisation d’un réseau qui servira dans le futur à gérer et garantir la qualité des informations répertoriées. (4) une analyse des transferts de valeurs effectués dans le domaine de la forêt. Nous remercions ici le MEDDAT pour sa participation à l’élaboration d’un tel programme qui a permis la constitution d’un réseau européen autour des évaluations environnementales appliquées à la forêt. Deux séminaires internationaux se sont tenus, l’un en septembre 2006, l’autre en octobre 2008. Des comptes rendus sont ici joints. Un numéro spécial de la revue Journal of Forest Economics a été réalisé. Les réflexions relatives d’une part aux protocoles d’évaluation et à la nécessité de construction d’une base de données, d’autre part aux transferts de bénéfices sont nous l’espérons le début d’un travail restant à poursuivre et à parfaire dans les années à venir. Deux avenants ont été nécessaires à la réalisation de ce travail. Un premier avenant a permis de prolonger le contrat sur deux années au lieu d’une année initialement prévue. Les difficultés de recrutement d’un post doctorant ont nécessité un deuxième avenant. Un post doctorant a finalement été recruté de novembre 2007 à juin 2008. Une grande partie du rapport est rédigé en langue anglaise en raison des collaborations réalisées et de la nécessité de publier à dans des revues internationales.

3

Table des matières Table des matières................................................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction Générale .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Partie I : Recensement des Evaluations Economiques des Biens, Services et Dommages Environnementaux Liés à la Forêt Française....................................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 8 I. Forest Ecosystem Services: Description and Valuation Techniques .................................................. 9 1. What are the Forest Values? ................................................................................................................ 9 2. How to Measure These Values?......................................................................................................... 13 II. Forest Ecosystem Services Valuations in France ............................................................................... 16 1. The French Forest: an Overview........................................................................................................ 16 2. The French Forest Valuations: a Presentation and an analyse ........................................................... 17 3. Comments .......................................................................................................................................... 21 III. Forest ecosystem services valuation: stakes and future................................................................ 29 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 32 Annexe à la partie 1: Detailed overview of French forest valuation studies .............................................. 37 1. Market Prices - Revealed WTP.......................................................................................................... 38 2. Circumstantial Evidence– Imputed WTP........................................................................................... 64 3. Survey Expressed / Stated WTP ........................................................................................................ 71 4. Benefit transfer methods .................................................................................................................... 95 Partie II : Protocoles de Référence et Constitution d’un Réseau d’Experts .................................................. 98 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 98 I. Quality factors for valuation studies (Söderqvist and Soutukorva, 2009) ........................................ 100 II. Benefit Transfer Ståle Navrud (Décembre 2006) ............................................................................... 102 1. Introduction to benefit transfer......................................................................................................... 102 2. Guidelines for benefit transfer ......................................................................................................... 104 References ...................................................................................................................................................... 111 Annexe à la partie 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 113 1. Program............................................................................................................................................ 113 2. List of Speakers................................................................................................................................ 115 3. Workshop Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 116 4. Numéro Special JFE Sommaire et résumés ..................................................................................... 117 Partie III : Mise à Disposition de l’Information : Environmental Valuation Reference InventoryMC (EVRI) et autres Bases de Données ............................................................................................................................... 121 Introduction: principes et objectifs des bases de données d’évaluations environnementales................. 121 I. Existing databases of environmental valuation (S. Navrud 2006) .................................................. 122 II. Why an open source database specifically focused on European forestry valuation studies ? .... 124 References ...................................................................................................................................................... 126 Annexes à la partie 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 128 EVRI Database Studies Descriptors............................................................................................................ 128 Forest database Studies Descriptors (Elsasser et al 2009; Cost E 45)......................................................... 130 Conclusions of 16-18 October Meeting ...................................................................................................... 133 Liste des études françaises d’évaluation des biens et services non bois liés à la forêt référencées dans EVRI par le LEF ................................................................................................................................................... 135 Partie IV : Mise en Œuvre d’Evaluations et Analyse des Transferts de Bénéfices dans le Contexte Forestier ............................................................................................................................................................. 137 Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 137 I. Valuing forest biodiversity from a national survey in France: a dichotomous choice contingent valuation......................................................................................................................................................... 139 II. Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity ..... 139 III. La valeur récréative de la forêt en France : Une approche par les coûts de déplacement ........... 139 IV. Review of benefit transfer studies in the forest context................................................................... 139 References ...................................................................................................................................................... 141 Annexe à la partie 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 142 ANNEXES GENERALES ................................................................................................................................ 143 I. Réponse à l’appel d’offre Juillet 2004............................................................................................... 144 II. Etat d’avancement du projet Février 2008....................................................................................... 157 III. Liste des publications effectuées dans le cadre de ce programme .................................................. 159 IV. Index des sigles.................................................................................................................................... 160

4

Introduction Générale La gestion multifonctionnelle et durable des ressources naturelles est devenue un concept clé du développement rural. La notion de multifonctionnalité de la forêt a émergé du débat forestier international dans les années 1990, en réponse aux préoccupations globales autour des nouveaux problèmes environnementaux tels que l’érosion de la diversité biologique et le changement climatique. L’Union Européenne reconnaît que les forêts fournissent des matières premières, des biens non bois ainsi qu’un vaste éventail de services sociaux, culturels et environnementaux : “Forests create multiple benefits; they provide the raw material for renewable and environmentally friendly products and play an important role for economic welfare, biological diversity, the global carbon cycle and water balance. They are essential for providing environmental, protective, social and recreational services, especially in the light of an increasingly urbanised society. Forests are an important resource for rural development providing livelihoods for a diverse workforce, local communities, millions of forest owners as well as forest related enterprises. We, as policy makers, are responsible for achieving, in the forest sector and pro-actively with other sectors, a balance between the economic, ecological, social and cultural roles of forests in the context of sustainable development” (Fourth Conference on the Protection of Forest in Europe, Vienna Living Forest Summit Declaration, Vienna – Austria, 2003). La demande pour ces biens et services « publics », conjointement à la demande traditionnelle pour les produits bois et non bois, engendrent de plus en plus de pressions – sinon des conflits – sur l’usage des ressources forestières. La réconciliation entre ces intérêts divergents peut être considérée comme l’un des enjeux majeurs dans la conception et la mise en œuvre des politiques et de la gestion forestières contemporaines. En conséquence, et suivant les recommandations de la Convention sur la Diversité Biologique, l’Union Européenne met l’accent sur l’importance de l’évaluation économique pour améliorer la viabilité économique de la gestion durable des forêts européennes : “The commitments include […] working towards common approaches to the practical application of the valuation of the full range of goods and services provided by forests; and enhancing the competitiveness of the forest sector”, (Fourth Conference on the Protection of Forest in Europe, Vienna, 2003, resolution 2). Les décideurs publics et privés se doivent donc de considérer ces valeurs non-marchandes de la forêt pour établir des politiques forestières et des plans de gestion durables et multifonctionnels. En particulier ces évaluations apparaissent nécessaires pour calibrer les instruments économiques destinés à encourager les acteurs privés à agir de manière durable. La quantification de ces multiples contributions de la forêt au bien-être humain nécessite une connaissance profonde des mécanismes biologiques et naturels sous-jacents ainsi qu’un panel de techniques et méthodes adéquates et applicables pour mesurer et rendre comparables des valeurs aussi variées que des valeurs économiques, environnementales ou culturelles. Dans ce contexte, le présent projet vise à améliorer la connaissance des techniques d’évaluation et la diffusion des études existantes en France (et plus largement en Europe) afin d’encourager la prise de conscience et de faciliter la prise en compte de ces valeurs non marchandes notamment à travers le développement de la méthode du transfert de bénéfices. L’objectif principal de ce projet est de proposer un référentiel pour les évaluations environnementales liées à la forêt française. Ce référentiel vise à promouvoir la diffusion et l’usage des évaluations économiques des biens, services et dommages environnementaux liés à la forêt française.

5

Pour ce faire, le projet a été mené en quatre étapes. Une première étape a consisté en un recensement des études françaises portant sur l’évaluation économique de la forêt. Cette centralisation de l’information pertinente a permis ensuite, dans une deuxième étape, sur la base de ces expériences et à travers la consolidation d’un réseau d’experts internationaux, de réfléchir aux protocoles liés à la bonne mise en œuvre des différentes méthodes d’évaluation (Navrud, 2006 ; Numéro spécial Journal of Forest Economics 2009, 15(1-2)). Dans une troisième étape, les informations récoltées sur les différentes études ont été regroupées sous la forme d’une base de données. Une réflexion particulière a été menée sur la constitution d’une base de données en collaboration avec d’autres pays européens (Elsasser et al, 2009) ainsi que dans le cadre d’une action COST (E 45). Conformément à notre convention, les études françaises ont également été à disposition du plus grand nombre à travers leur intégration dans le référentiel international EVRI. Enfin dans une quatrième étape, une réflexion sur le transfert de valeurs réalisés à partir des études recensées dans le domaine de la forêt a été menée (Bartczak et al, 2008) en plus des cas d’application réalisés en France (Garcia et al, 2007, Garcia et Jacob, 2007).

6

Partie I

Recensement des Evaluations Economiques des Biens, Services et Dommages Environnementaux Liés à la Forêt Française

Septembre 2006

Claire Montagné* †, Anne Stenger* †

* †

INRA, UMR 356 Économie Forestière, F-54000 Nancy, France Agroparistech, Engref, Laboratoire d’économie forestière, F-54000 Nancy, France

7

Partie I : Recensement des Evaluations Economiques des Biens, Services et Dommages Environnementaux Liés à la Forêt Française Introduction De sa traditionnelle fonction économique de production de bois, jusqu’aux services sociaux et écologiques comme la récréation, le stockage du carbone ou le réservoir de biodiversité, le caractère multifonctionnel de la forêt est connaissance répandue et internationalement reconnue. Dans une perspective économique, le problème central est qu’il n’existe pas de marché pour la plupart de ces biens et services fournis par les forêts. Cependant, la préservation de ces fonctions est indispensable et représente des coûts directs ou indirects qui peuvent être conséquents. Mais sans marché et sans mesure tangible des bénéfices engendrés, comment décider et comment choisir entre des projets alternatifs relatifs à l’avenir de la ressource ? Ces dernières décennies, les économistes se sont intéressés à la quantification de ces multiples contributions des ressources naturelles au bien-être humain et par conséquent ont contribué à l’enrichissement de la littérature économique avec de nombreuses études visant à estimer la valeur monétaire des bénéfices engendrés. Dans cette première partie, nous proposons de donner un aperçu des concepts et méthodes d’évaluation et, en nous appuyant sur le cas particulier des valeurs attribuées aux services fournis par la ressource forestière française, de dresser un état des lieux de la recherche en France dans ce domaine. Enfin, nous discuterons des perspectives et opportunités de développements pour l’évaluation économique de la forêt en France, notamment dans une optique de développement des méthodes de transfert de bénéfices entre pays européens. Cette première partie a donc pour vocation d’assembler et d’organiser l’information sur les études françaises d’évaluation des fonctions non marchandes de la forêt à travers une revue de littérature aussi exhaustive que possible. La présentation de ce travail est organisée comme suit : − Dans un premier temps, nous proposons une courte description du contexte économique de l’évaluation des biens et services non marchands de la forêt. Dans cette présentation préliminaire, nous précisons la nature des bénéfices liés à la forêt et discutons la notion de valeur économique ainsi que les méthodes d’évaluation appropriées. L’objectif de ce développement est de fournir les principes nécessaires à la compréhension et l’interprétation des valeurs issues des études françaises résumées dans la seconde section. − Dans un second temps, nous proposons une analyse de la littérature française sur l’évaluation des bénéfices non-marchands de la forêt. − Enfin, nous concluons en apportant quelques commentaires et possibles orientations pour les recherches futures, notamment en soulignant les besoins dans le domaine de l’évaluation économique de la forêt en France et en insistant sur la nécessité d’améliorer l’applicabilité et la mise en œuvre de la méthode du transfert de bénéfices entre pays Européens.

8

I.

Forest Ecosystem Services: Description and Valuation Techniques

In the recent decades, resources economists have began the task of quantifying the multiple contributions of forest to human wellbeing, and have consequently contributed to the enrichment of the economic literature with a number of studies aiming to the definition and assessment of forest-related values. 1. What are the Forest Values? Forest ecosystems have served mankind since immemorial and they continue to play significant role for human wellbeing. This contribution is particularly important, due to the fact that world forests present a large diversity of types and conditions, which are the source of the wide range of services offered by forest ecosystems to human society. Broadly defined, these forest ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from forest (Barbier and Heal, 2006). In the economic literature, these benefits are generally classified under three categories (Després and Normandin, 1996; Barbier and Heal, 2006): − Goods. − Ecological services. − Socio-cultural benefits. Forest goods are traditionally divided up among wood (harvested timber, deadwood, bark, cork, etc.) and non-wood products (berries, mushrooms, game, etc.). Depending on whether are considered the influence of forest ecosystem on the physical natural surrounding or on the animal or vegetal living creatures, ecological services provided by forest ecosystem may be divided up among physico-chemical services (or regulation functions) and biological services (or habitat functions), Després and Normandin 1996, Costanza et al. 1997, de Groot et al. 2002. From a physical point of view, forest ecosystems notably contribute to protect soil from erosion, protect watersheds, reduce variation in water flows and regulate local hydrological system. Chemical influence of forest ecosystem consists in local and global climate regulation, carbon storage, air and water purification, etc. Forests contain the greatest assemblage of species found in any terrestrial ecosystem. This high variety of plants and animals is indicative of the biological services forest ecosystem provides: it is an important biodiversity reservoir and a vast store of genetic information. Forest ecosystems also supply numerous social and cultural services. People’s benefits from forests are related to the cultural and historical context of the society in which they live, how they view nature and their relationship with it. In this sense, forests are part of the society’s cultural and historical heritage. They are closely associated with many different cultural and spiritual traditions and are often considered as places for peace, History, education and communion with the natural world. Finally, forest aesthetic, atmosphere and scenery are important sources of recreational and landscape benefits. Faced with the increasing urbanisation of society, forests play a crucial role in quality of life improvement. As one of the last little artificialised ecosystems, wooded lands represent a privileged place for outdoor recreation and leisure. In line with Costanza et al. 1997 paper, De Goot et al. 2002 propose a classification of ecosystem functions, and summarise these ecosystem services into 23 major categories. A forest-adapted list of these groups is presented in table 1.

9

Maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems Providing habitat for wild plants for plant and animal

Regulation functions

Produ ction functi ons

Goods

Habitat functions

Ecological services

Table 1 : Ecosystem services and functions Functions

Ecosystem components

process

and Forest good examples

and

services

1. Gas regulation

Role of ecosystems in bio-geo- CO2/O2 balance, O3 for UVB chemical cycles, atmospheric protection, and SOX levels, regulation maintenance of good air quality

2. Climate regulation

Regulation of global Influence of ecosystems on temperature, precipitation, and climate, greenhouse gas other biologically mediated regulation, climatic process at global and local scale

3. Disturbance prevention

Influence of ecosystem Storm protection, flood control, structure on dampening drought recovery and other environmental disturbances aspects of habitat response to environmental variability mainly controlled by vegetation structure

4. Water regulation

Regulation of flows, runoff discharge

5. Water supply

Filtering, retention and storage Provisioning of water watersheds, aquifers

6. Soil retention

Role of vegetation root matrix Prevention of loss of soil and soil biota in soil retention (erosion) by wind, or other removal processes

7. Soil formation

Weathering of rock, Maintenance of healthy accumulation of organic matter natural productive soil

8. Nutrient regulation

Role of biota in storage and Nitrogen fixation, N, P, and other recycling of nutrient elemental or nutrient cycles

9. Waste treatment

Role of vegetation and biota in Waste treatment, pollution removal or breakdown of xenic control, detoxification, nutrient and compounds abatement of noise pollution

10. Pollination

Role of biota in movement of Provisioning of pollinators for floral gametes the reproduction of crop or wild plants populations

11. Biological control

Population control through Keystone predator control for trophic-dynamic relations prey species, reduction of herbivory by top predators, control of pests and diseases

12. Refugium function

Suitable living space for Maintenance of biological and resident or transient wild plants genetic diversity, habitat for and animals migratory species, regional habitat for locally harvested species or overwintering grounds

13. Nursery function

Suitable reproduction habitat

14. Food production

Portion of gross primary Production of game, nuts, fruits, production extractable as food by hunting, gathering, subsistence farming

hydrological Provisioning of water for and river agricultural or industrial processes or transportation of water reservoirs

by and

and

Nurseries, habitat for reproduction of wild animals

10

Providing opportunities for cognitive development

Information functions

Socio-cultural benefits

15. Raw materials

Portion of gross primary Production of lumber, fuel and production extractable as raw energy or fodder materials

16. Genetic resources

Genetic material and evolution Improving plants resistance to in wild plants and animals pathogens and pasts

17. Medicinal resources

Variety in biochemical Drugs and pharmaceutical substances and other medicinal uses of natural biota

18. Ornamental resources

Variety of biota in natural Resources ecosystems with potential handicraft, ornamental use worship, souvenirs

19. Aesthetic information and living condition

Attractive landscape features, Enjoyment of scenery and condition of life general conditions of life related to natural ecosystem

20. Recreation

Providing opportunities recreational activities

21. Cultural and artistic information

Variety in natural features with Use of nature as motive in books cultural or artistic value film, painting, folklore, national symbols, architecture, advertising…

22. Spiritual and historic information

Variety in natural features with Use of nature for religious or spiritual or historic value historic purposes

23. Science and education

Variety in natural features with Use of natural systems for school scientific and educational value excursions etc. use of nature for scientific research

for fashion, jewellery, pets, decoration and

for Eco-tourism, sport and other outdoor activities

Source: Adapted from Costanza et al. 1997, de Groot et al, 2002.

Many of these forest goods and services do not have any market price to reflect the benefits they provide to society. While several goods such as timber are priced on the market, or at least partially priced, such as game for hunting, most of the forest services mentioned above are generally non-priced public goods (leisure and recreation, watershed protection biodiversity, etc.). In many cases the demand for non-priced benefits may be increasing faster than the demand for most wood products. One result is that certain forest area are increasingly valued by the public as well as their political representatives, more for environmental or socio-cultural services these forests provide, than for their timber. Problems arise however, when policymakers and forest managers try to balance between different objectives (for example production and protection). When different interests conflict, what is the appropriate tradeoff? How to find the relevant information justifying choices between alternative management projects on a given site? The first step in answering these questions is to clearly identify the forest economic values that are at stake in order to recourse to weighted comparisons between the different interests. It is precisely the aim of economic valuation to assign a monetary value to forest goods and services in order to compare the advantages and disadvantages of different projects and ensure an equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources (facilitation of costbenefit analysis, green accounting and proper pricing of biological resources), (Pearce, in OECD, 2001).

11

The economic value of a product or service focuses on the worth it provides to human, in a given context. Thus, economic value is an anthropocentric notion. It reflects perceptions and it may be subject to different interpretation by different people. Moreover, economic value is an instrumental preference-based value. It derives from some objective function: the goal of maximising human welfare, which reflects the individual’s preferences. The central idea of economic valuation is the following: if most of the environmental goods and services provided by forest ecosystems have not got any market price, all of them have got an economic value. In this sense, they are free consumed (since they have not got price), but, as they increase human/consumer wellbeing, they are part of the individual’s utility function (they have got a value). The economic value is presently the measure of this wellbeing modification. Finally, what the economic theory wants to measure is the subjective value or utility an individual derives from a particular change in the ecosystem service (Kriström, 2001). This is measured in terms of willingness to pay – i.e. how much money would an individual give up to “buy” an ecosystem service, whether or not he actually make any payment. As economic value is based on human preferences, any kind of motivation that influence individual’s preferences can act as determining factors of the value. In other terms, economic value may be motivated by purely economic, social, cultural or spiritual concerns, (Beckerman and Pasek, 2001). Following this idea, economic values associated to forest ecosystems are traditionally classified as illustrated in figure 1 (Freeman, 1979; Pearce and Moran, 1994; Merlo and Croitoru, 2005). Forest Ecosystem Total Economic Value

Use Values

Direct Use Values

Consumptive Commercial Subsistence

Non Consumptive Tourism / Recreation Cultural / Spiritual / Historical

Non Use Values

Indirect Use Values

Option Value

Bequest Value

Landscape and ecological functions

Future direct and indirect use values

Value of leaving use and non use values for future generation

Biodiverity, conserved habitats

Existence Value

Habitats, endangered species

Habitats, Irreversible changes

Science / Education

Value decreasingly tangible

Figure 1: Forest Ecosystem Values

The types of economic value to be found in forest ecosystems are Use Values and Non Use Values. Use values refer to the willingness to pay to make direct or indirect use of forest resources. Direct use may be consumptive, either commercialised, e.g. commercial timber and non wood forest products extraction (honey, ferns, cork, etc), or for individual’s subsistence, e.g. fuel wood, or non-commercialised (mushrooms, subsistence hunting, scenic view, etc.); or non-consumptive. Non-consumptive values related to forest are derived from diverse

12

human activities such as tourism, recreation, leisure, culture, education. The other source of use values is the indirect provision of goods and services through natural processes such as watershed’s ability to maintain water quality, forest’s ability to store carbon, wetland ability to provide habitat for species. Option Values consist in people willingness to pay to conserve the possibility (option) of a future personal use of the good or service, without any certitude on the effective realisation of this use. An example of such option values is the value of protecting forest to preserve the option of extracting genetic material for future pharmaceutical products Non Use Values (or Passive Use Values) relate to a willingness to pay which is independent of any use of the resource. There is ample evidence that people value many characteristics of natural ecosystems even through they never intend to use or experience them (Randall, 1991). Non-use value of forest resources includes Existence Values and Bequest Values. Existence Values reflect the idea that people may value a natural ecosystem or specie simply because it makes them happy to know that it exists, regardless of any human use. Bequest Values are associated with a desire to protect forest ecosystem goods and services for the use or enjoyment of future generations, (Krieger, 2001; Merlo and Croitoru, 2005). A comprehensive valuation of forest ecosystem services would capture the total economic value (i.e. use and non use values). Different valuation approaches are applicable to the different components of the total economic value of forest ecosystems. Direct use values are relatively straightforward to measure and usually involve the market value of production gains. Since environmental and socio-cultural functions are rarely exchanged on markets measurement of indirect use values and non-use values typically entails more complex techniques. 2. How to Measure These Values? Since the first valuation exercises during the sixty’s (Contingent Valuation of forest recreation in Maine, Davis, 1963) and the development of the debate about the economic valuation at the end of the eighties (Ehrenfeld, 1988, Hanemann, 1988, Randall, 1988, etc.), several (non perfect) methods have been (and continue to be) developed to help quantify or give an order of magnitude for environmental non-market values. Thus an important part of the resource economics literature deals with definition and improvement of economic valuation concepts and methods (Hanneman, 1988; Pearce and Moran, 1994; Perrings et al., 1995; Randall, 1998, Nunes et al., 2003, etc.). The easiest way to quantify forest ecosystem values would be to apply the market price method (the law of supply and demand). But unfortunately, as we shown above, most of forest ecosystem services simply do not have market. Thus, there exist three families of methods for valuing forest goods and services (OECD, 2002). -

The first one (Market Prices – Revealed WTP) involves looking for markets, where the forest good or service affects that market, even though it is not bought and sold directly. Some ecosystem products, such as wood, are traded in markets. Thus, their values can be estimated by estimating consumer and producer surplus, as with any other market good. Other ecosystem services, such as clean water, are used as inputs in production, and their value may be measured by their contribution to the profits made from the final good. Some ecosystem or environmental services, like aesthetic views or many recreational experiences, may not be directly bought and sold in markets. However, the prices people are willing to pay in markets for related goods can be used to estimate their values. For example, people may pay a higher price for a home near the forest, or will take the time to travel to a special forest for enjoying recreation or for bird watching. These kinds of

13

expenditures can be used to place a lower bound on the value of the view or the recreational experience. -

The second way is based on circumstantial evidence and called “imputed willingness to pay” approach. This approach also uses people’s actual behaviour and money that is actually spent to get an idea about the value of the service. The value of some ecosystem services can be measured by estimating what people are willing to pay, or the cost of actions they are willing to take, to avoid the adverse effects that would occur if these services were lost, or to replace the lost services. For example, forests often naturally provide high quality water. The amount that people pay to treat water in areas similar to those protected by the forests can be used to estimate willingness to pay for the purification water services of the forests.

-

Finally, the third way is called stated preferences valuation methods: it consists in directly asking people the amount of money they are willing to pay for something. This approach is also called “expressed” or “stated” willingness to pay valuation approach. It is the one technique able to capture the value of those forest services that are not traded in markets, and are not closely related to any marketed goods. Actual behaviours are not observable, thus, surveys are used to ask people directly what they are willing to pay, based on a hypothetical scenario. Alternatively, people can be asked to make tradeoffs among different alternatives, from which their willingness to pay can be estimated.

Table 2 below, presents a short description of the main valuation techniques economists have developed to estimate the values related to natural environment: Table 2 : Summary of most common valuation methods, constraints and limitations Method

Application

Description

Constraints and limits

Main references for detailed information

Market price Direct method values:

use Value is estimated from Market imperfections Garrod and price in commercial market (subsidies, lack of Willis, 1999. transparency), policy Especially wood (law of supply and demand) distortion and non-wood forest products

Market Prices – Revealed WTP

Productivity method

Specific services, Estimates the economic e.g. Soil, water… value for forest products or services that contribute to production of commercially marketed goods

Straightforward methodology and limited data requirement but the application of the method is limited to several specific services. The required specification of the biophysical relationship may be complex. Doesn’t capture consumer’s surplus

Freeman, 1993; Spash and Hanley, 1995

the

Hedonic price Indirect use, and This method is used when Only capture people’s Rosen, 1974 method non use values forest values influence the willingness to pay for Freeman, price of marketed goods perceived benefits. 1993 (e.g. houses or land) Very data intensive method. Suppose a freely functioning and efficient property market.

14

Travel method

cost Tourism recreation

and Recreational value of a site is estimated from the amount of money people spend on reaching the site

Damage cost Indirect avoided values:

Circumstantial Evidence – Imputed WTP

Protection cost

Replacement cost

Value is based on what one would have to pay to replace a set of goods, services and assets: e.g. forest biodiversity restoration

Substitute cost method

Forest service value (e.g. water quality improvement) can be estimated from the cost of building alternative facilities

Contingent valuation method

Surveys Expressed /Stated WTP

use Forest service value (e.g. erosion protection) is estimated from the cost Soil protection, damage if the erosion avoided erosion, phenomenon would occur water quality Value is based on the assumption that the value people assign to an environmental service is at least equal to the amount of money spent for protect the service.

Choice modelling Conjoint analysis

Recreation/touris This method consists in m and non use directly asking people how values much they would be willing to pay for specific environmental service. It is often the only way to estimate non use values.

Dealing with multipurpose Freeman, visits, substitute sites, 1993 treatment of travel time Hanley and utility or desutility. Spash 1995. Neglecting non-visitors. Ward, and Expensive surveys and a lot Beal, 2000 of quantitative data. It is assumed that the cost of avoided damages, replacement, protection or substitute match the original benefit but many external circumstances may change the value of the original expected benefit and the method may therefore lead to under- or over-estimates.

Pearce and Turner, 1990 Freeman 1993

Doesn’t capture consumer’s surplus.

Various sources of possible bias (incentives, Implied value, misspecification.). Hypothetical market: controversy over whether people would actually pay the amounts stated in the interviews. Respondents information. It is the most controversial of the non market valuation methods.

Mitchell, and Carson 1989 Bjornstad, and Kahn, 1996.

All forest goods Estimate values based on / and services asking people to make trade-offs among set of ecosystem or environmental services scenarios.

Does not directly ask for Bennett and willingness to pay as this is Blamey, 2001 inferred from trade-offs that includes cost attributes. Very good method in helping policy makers to Includes: Choice rank policy option. experiment, Contingent ranking, Contingent rating, Paired comparisons,

15

Benefit method

Estimates economic values transfer Ecosystem services in by transferring existing general and benefits estimates from recreational uses previous studies to another location or context in particular

Often used when it is too Brouwer, money and time expensive 2000 to conduct a new full economic valuation for a specific site. Various sources of possible bias and statistical imprecision.

Sources: Barbier EB, M. Acreman and D. Knowler 1997, King D and Mazzota M. 2006, OECD, 2002

Monetary valuation presents the double advantage to provide values which are comparable to monetary costs and benefits of alternative projects and to be directly injectable in decisionmaking processes and in the calculation of country’s richness. However, determination of such economic values comes up against important surveys costs and controversial or at least delicate methodologies. Without identifying the potential importance of several challenging issues the analyse of natural resources values will remain incomplete and contentious. These issues included (Ulibarri and Wellman, 1997): − The choice of a discount rate in assessing the present and future values of benefits and costs, − The individual’s time-preference in deriving benefits over the near term as opposed to later one, − The role of equity and fairness in resources valuations involving present and future generations, − The conceptual understanding of risk and uncertainty in the valuation of natural resources, − Qualification of the measurement errors in the application of natural resources valuation techniques. II.

Forest Ecosystem Services Valuations in France 1. The French Forest: an Overview

With almost 60 million inhabitants and a total area of about 55 million ha, France is an important country at the west border of Europe. France is characterised by a large range in altitude and a globally temperate climate with oceanic influences, leading to the coexistence of four types of bio-geographical areas: the western temperate oceanic one; the eastern temperate one with continental influences; the mountainous one in the Alps and the Pyrenees; and finally, the Mediterranean one in the south-eastern part. These factors help to explain the wide ecological diversity that is encountered in French Forests. Around 15 million hectares of mainland France are covered with forest, adding up to roughly one quarter of the country (national afforestation rate: 28%), (IFN, 2005). French forests are mainly broad-leaved (64%) and under private property (70%), (IFN, 2005). Two main types of forest are found: − Temperate forests: strongly marked by man's activity; mostly broad-leaved species in maritime regions. A mixture of broad-leaved and coniferous trees on the inland plains of mainland France, and predominantly coniferous stands in mountainous regions. − Sub-temperate or Mediterranean forests: a mixture of broadleaved species and conifers with evergreen foliage, maquis scrublands, wooded garrigue scrublands, etc.

16

Since the new forest law n°2001-602 (July 9, 2001), French forests are legally considered as multifunctional and their management is based on productive, ecological and social objectives. For long, multifunctionality has been a major objective of French forestry but its implementation is evolving and its nature has become more formal. This forest law has three main objectives: − To insert the management of French forests into an international and European framework for sustainable forest management; − To respond to new explicit and implicit social demands towards forest biodiversity and forests in general (improvement of living conditions, promotion of recreation in forests, preservation of the environment, air and water protection, production and utilisation of wood-based eco-materials); − To foster the economic valorisation of the increasing wood production potential in French forests. This principle of forest multifunctionality has to be adapted to local situations, owners and social needs and is particularly important in the less timber productive Mediterranean forests. Until recent years, wood revenues were supposed to finance the greatest part of the whole forest management, including actions towards ecological and social functions. Today, voluntary policies are established to develop non-timber benefits in an efficient way, and according to society wishes. In this context, economic evaluation is intended to play an increasing role to allocate public funds to the non-market goods and services provided by forests. 2. The French Forest Valuations: a Presentation and an analyse The proper aim of this section is to review and synthesise the valuation studies of French forest. We review about 20 studies related to French forest ecosystem valuation. This review covers almost all the French attempts in the field of forest valuation, but is probably not exhaustive. Studies refer to diverse goods, services and values, using diverse methods. An overview of these valuation results is presented in Table 3. The literature review is organised here chronologically and in terms of the main categories of forest ecosystem services valuation methods as characterised in tables 1 and 2 above. When two or more different valuation exercises clearly appear in one study (two services and two different methods), we make the choice to referring this study twice in the table 3, according to the different methods used (for example: Montagné et al. 2005, Normandin, 1998).

17

Table 3 : Overview of French forest services valuation case studies in 2003 Author / Reference Year1 1968 1. INRA, 1979

2.

Market Prices – Revealed WTP

3. 4. 1/3

5. 1/2

6. 7.

1 2

Besnehard. Peyron 1998, 2000 Dehez, 2003 Montagné, Peyron, Niedzwiedz. 2005

1998

1988 / 1999 2001

Site 3 Periurban forests near Paris Meudon Sénart Saint-Germain Vosgian massif (common spruce)

Type of value2 20. Recreation

Coastal forest 20 440ha (Gironde) France and Mediterranean area

20. Recreation

1997 Normandin 1998, Després et Normandin 1998. Peyron 2001, 2000 IFEN, 2002

Lorraine

2001

France

Peyron and al. 2002

1./2. Gas / Climate regulation

1./2. Gas / Climate regulation 14. Food production 15. Raw materials 20. Recreation

Method Sample Travel cost Meudon: 457 visitors Sénart: 579 Saint-Germain: 581

Growth / Production model Production function Market values, shadow pricing, protection cost TCM

20. recreation

TCM

Lorraine 20. recreation (Loss of value due to 1999 windstorm)

TCM

20. Recreation

TCM

Results Meudon: 30198 F/ha Sénart: 8588 F/ha Saint-Germain: 14850 F/ha

-

9000 F/ha

-

Unit cost for a visit 1988: 0.98F Unit cost for a visit 1999: 1.23F France: Gas / Climate regulation: 324 million € Food production: 33.2 million € Raw materials: 1342 million € Recreation: 1899 million €

4500 households

650 households

1400 households 4500 households

The column “year” refers to the year of the study implementation; the year of publication is indicated in the column “Author/Reference”. References refers to the category of service valued (cf. table1)

Mediterranean area: Gas / Climate regulation: 65 million € Food production: 20.4 million € Raw materials: 52 million € Recreation: 358 million € 280 million F/year 43,45 and 60,89€/household/year

18% Loss 66 million francs 1997 million Euro 83€/hh/year 125€/ha/year

8.

Le Goffe 2000 1995

Brittany

19. Aesthetic Information (living conditions)

HPM

9.

Lecat. 2004

1994 to 1998

15 urban areas (Rhône-Alpes)

19. Aesthetic Information (living conditions)

HPM

2002

Aubrac and Baronnies

1990 Circum11. Maire. 1990 stantial Evidence – Imputed 12. Peyron 2000a, 2000 WTP 2002a

Vosgian Massif 830ha

2001

France and Mediterranean area

10. Mollard et al. 2006

4 Montagné, 2/3 Peyron, Niedzwiedz. 2005

France

579 rural gîtes

% of forest surface in the neighbourhood : Beta = -3,5 (-1,7)

6905 agricultural Residential transaction: Beta = -0,35 (-2,8) transactions Agricultural transaction: Beta = -0.69 (-9,4) 4951 residential transactions 19. Aesthetic Information HPM 799 gîtes in Aveyron Significative positive impact of Forest only in (living conditions) 792 for Cantal the Drôme: beta = 0.20 740 for Lozère 730 for Drôme 12./13. Refugium / Nursery ( Protection costs Cost: 264F/ha/yeae for 15 years Endangered specie: Grand Tetras protection) 15. Raw Materials: Replacement 40 billion Francs (6 billion Euro) windstorm impact on timber cost value 3. disturbance prevention Defensive France 6. Soil retention expenditure Fight against fire: 70 million € Forest fire prevention: 31 million € Mountainous soil retention: 16 million € Coastal soil retention: 1 million €

Survey Expressed / Stated WTP

Mediterranean area

1991 / 13. Bonnieux, 1992 Guerrier, 1992 Bonnieux, Rainelli 1996 1996 14. Noublanche, Chassany 1998

Periurban forest of Rennes 3000ha

20. Recreation

Cévennes (1000 ha)

19. Aesthetic Information (Landscape)

CVM 621 groups of visitors

CVM

160 primary and secondary residents

Fight against fire: 50 million € Forest fire prevention: 23 million € Mountainous soil retention: 6 million € 110F/household/year

Mean WTP: Primary residents: 184F/year Secondary residents 231F/year

19

5.

Normandin. 1998, Després et Normandin 1998. 15. Amigues, Desaigues 1999

1997

Lorraine

12./13. Refugium / Nursery

CVM

650 households

100F/household/year

1998

Riverside Forest (Garonna) 100km

12./13. Refugium / Nursery

CVM

402 residents + 400 riverside owners

Mean WTP for respondents: from 35F/year/pers to 66F/year/pers for 5 years

2/2

16. Durand, Point. 2000

1998 1999

Pyrenees

12./13. Refugium / Nursery (Endangered species bear, sturgeon, mink)

CVM

17. Scherrer. 2002

2001 Fontainebleau Forest

CVM 2000 residents + 415 visitors

4.

2001

France and Mediterranean area

20. Recreation (Loss of value due to 1999 windstorm) 12./13. Refugium / Nursery

2003

Bonifatu Forest, Corsica

3/3

Montagné, Peyron, Niedzwiedz. 2005 2/2

18. Bonnieux, Carpentier, Ledun, Paoli. 2006

Benefit 19. Bonnieux, transfer Rainelli.2003 Total 4. Montagné, Peyron, Economic Value Niedzwiedz. 2005

2003 2001

Periurban forest (Rennes) France and Mediterranean area

3. disturbance prevention 20. Recreation 12./13. Refugium / Nursery

CVM

4500 households

WTP France: 15.2€/hh/year WTP Mediterranean area: 21.1€/hh/year

Choice Experiment

98 residents + 103 visitors

Mean WTP for residents: Protection: from 38.6 to 47.2€/year Recreation: from -22.1 to 11.2€/year

20. recreation Benefit transfer Total Economic Value

557 students

Mean WTA for riverside owners: 1400F/an Mean WTP : sturgeon: 68,40F bear: 166,18F mink: 94,83F Mean WTP: 200-240F/pers/year

-

-

Mean WTP for visitors Protection: from 3.2 to5€/year Recreation: from –1.3 to -4.1€/year 3 544F/ha TEV French Forest: 291€/ha TEV Mediterranean forest: 240€/ha

20

3. Comments Temporal distribution From a temporal viewpoint, we can remark that all the studies (except one: INRA 1979) have been implemented during the last fifteen years3. Most of them have been published since the beginning of the 2000’s (figures 2 and 3). Let’s note that several studies (recreation and biodiversity) are still in progress at the moment we write this paper. 5

4 4

3 3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2004

2005

1

0

0

0 1979

19801989

1990

1992

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2006

Figure 2 : Temporal distribution of the French valuation studies (number - year of publication)

5%

0% 32%

1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-06

63%

Figure 3 : Temporal distribution of the French valuation studies (% - decade of publication)

Support of publication: The 19 original studies reviewed represent a total of 28 publications (all formats included). Eight studies have been published under two or more different support. Figure 4, presents the repartition of the French forest valuation exercises according to the support of publication. We can remark that the most common publication format is the article in scientific review 3

This temporal distribution is based on the year of the first publication. When the study has been published several time under different format (report, scientific article…), we only consider the first year of publication. 20

(53%): we inventory 12 publications in French scientific reviews and 3 in international reviews. We also count 6 reports (working or qualificative reports) 5 chapters in books, 1 working paper and 1 article in a popularisation review.

4%

11%

18%

International review French review Popularisation review Report Book chapter Working paper 21%

42%

4%

Figure 4 : Distribution of the French valuation studies according to the support of publication (%)

Territorial distribution: The territorial repartition of the reviewed studies is illustrated in map 1, crossed with the French forest cover 4. We can underline that studied areas are unequally distributed on the territory, but they are quite representative of the French forest multifunctionality stakes. Most of these studies are concentrated on high forested areas, half of them are situated on the eastern part of France. From Vosges to Alps and Pyrenees, mountainous regions are highly represented. Periurban and under pressure forests also represent important research subjects, as is the case in the north-eastern part of the country. Valuation studies for forests benefits in the centre of the country are rare, probably due to the law density of population of this part of France and the lesser users’ conflicts induced. Three studies attempt to value forest services at a national scale (map 1).

4

Numbers in front of references refer to the numbering of studies in table 3.

22

1. INRA, 1979 17. Scherrer, 2002 5. Normandin, 1998, 6. Peyron. Després et Normandin 1998 2001, IFEN, 2002 11. Maire, 1990

19. Bonnieux and Rainelli 2003 13. Bonnieux and Guerrier 1992 Bonnieux and Rainelli 1996

2. Besnehard and Peyron, 1998 2000

8. Le Goffe. 2000 9. Lecat, 2004

10. Mollard et al. 2006 14. Noublanche and Chassagny, 1998

3. Dehez, 2003

16. Durand and Point, 1999 18. Bonnieux et al. 2006

15. Amigues and Desaigues, 1999

4. Montagné et al. 2005

France : 12. Peyron. 2000a, 2002a 7. Peyron et al. 2002 4. Montagné et al.2005

Map 1 : Geographical distribution of French forest valuation studies

Biogeographical area Linked with the co-existence on the French territory, of diverse biogeographical areas5, three main type of forest are encountered (IFN, 2005, data, cf map 26): -

Lowland and hill forests represent 61.8% of the French forest area

-

Mountain forests represent 29.2% of the French forest area

-

Mediterranean forests represent 9% of the French forest area

5

Four main types of bio-geographical areas are encountered: the western temperate oceanic one; the eastern temperate one with continental influences; the mountainous one in the Alps and the Pyrenees; and finally, the Mediterranean one in the south-eastern part, including Corsica. 6 Numbers refer to the numbering of studies in the table 3.

23

1.

17.

5. 6.

19. 13.

2. 11.

8.

9.

3.

14.

15.

10. 18.

16.

Lowland or hill

4.

Mountain Mediterranean area

France : 12. 7. 4.

Source: IFN, 2005 Map 2 : Distribution of French forest valuation studies according to the biogeographical area

Most of the valuation studies (48%) concern plain or hill forests, 19% deals with the valuation of forest services in mountainous context, 19% deals with Mediterranean concerns, and 14% are implemented at a national scale (they concerns all types of French forests), Figure 5. Comparatively to the area they represent, Mediterranean forests are over represented in the French valuation exercises of non timber forest values.

14%

Lowland or hill forest 48%

19%

Mountain forest Mediterranean forest All type of forest

19%

Figure 5 : Type of forest support to the valuations exercises (%)

24

Forest services: Table 4 and figure 6 below review the studies according to the main categories of forest ecosystem services as characterised in table 1. In several cases, the precise understanding of the object or service under valuation is not quite evident. In this sense, several choices we have made may certainly appear as debatable. For example, when landscape pattern or living conditions are valued (essentially with the hedonic price method), the motives of the elicited values are sometimes not very clear: they may gather, concomitantly to scenic benefits, such benefits as air or water quality, access to recreation facilities or food and raw material production, etc. in such cases, we consider that the studies dealing with these types of values belong to the “aesthetic information and living conditions category (as defined in table 1). When different forest benefits are valued in a same study, the study is reviewed in table 4 as many times as different benefits are valued. Table 4 : French economic valuations: repartition according to the service valued Number of French Applications

Maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems

2. Besnehard and Peyron. 1998, 2000

4. Water regulation

0

-

5. Water supply

0

-

6. Soil retention

1

7. Soil formation

0

-

8. Nutrient regulation

0

-

9. Waste treatment

0

-

10. Pollination

0

-

11. Biological control

0

-

Providing habitat for wild plants for plant and animal species

2

References

1. Gas regulation

12. Refugium function

6

Provision of natural resources

Regulation functions Production functions

Goods

Habitat functions

Ecological services

Functions

4. Montagné et al. 2005

2. Climate regulation 3. Disturbance prevention

2

4. Montagné et al. 2005 18. Bonnieux et al. 2006

4. Montagné et al. 2005

4. Montagné et al. 2005 5. Normandin. 1998

13. Nursery function

11. Maire. 1990 15. Amigues and Desaigues. 1999 16. Durand and Point. 2000 18. Bonnieux et al. 2006 14. Food production

1

4. Montagné et al. 2005

15. Raw materials

2

4. Montagné et al. 2005 12. Peyron. 2000

16. Genetic resources

0

-

17. Medicinal resources

0

-

18. Ornamental resources

0

-

25

4

19. Aesthetic information and living condition

8. Le Goffe. 2000 9. Lecat. 2004

14 Noublanche and Chassany 1998

Providing opportunities for cognitive development

Information functions

Socio-cultural benefits

10. Mollard et al. 2006

10

20. Recreation

1. INRA 1979 3. Dehez. 2003 4. Montagné et al. 2005 5. Normandin. 1998 6. Peyron 2001 7. Peyron et al. 2002 13. Bonnieux and Guerrier 1992 17. Scherrer 2002 18. Bonnieux et al. 2006 19. Bonnieux and Rainelli.2003

21. Cultural and artistic information

0

-

22. Spiritual and historic information

0

-

23. Science and education

0

-

7% 7%

1. Gas regulation 2. Climate regulation 4%

3. Disturbance prevention

36% 6. Soil retention 12. Refugium function 13. Nursery function 14. Food production 21% 15. Raw materials 19. Aesthetic information and living condition 20. Recreation 14%

4% 7%

Figure 6: French economic forest valuations: repartition according to the service valued

According to this classification we can note that existing valuation studies of French forest services tend to focus on socio-cultural benefits such as amenities related to recreation, quality of life improvement, landscape… It clearly appears that, with ten valuation attempts, recreational use is the most studied French forest service, just followed by biodiversity related services (refugium and nursery – six studies) and aesthetic information and living condition related values (four studies). Some forest services, like disturbance prevention (fire), recently appear in the French forest services valuation exercises, but there is a lack of valuation for many other services: water regulation/supply; waste treatment,… several of these non-valued

26

ecosystem services are probably difficult to transpose in the French forest context and in this sense are difficult to value (soil formation, nutrient cycling…), others such as water supply or regulation tend to appear as a new priority in policy and research concerns and should be more investigated in the future. Valuation method: Table 5 and figures 7 and 8 show a synthetic overview of the methods used in the reviewed studies. Most of the valuation methods used belongs to the revealed WTP techniques (53%), however, the more often implemented techniques are Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) and Travel Cost Method (TCM) with respectively seven and five exercises. The Hedonic Price Method (HPM) has been used three times, (Table 5, figure 7 and 8). Table 5 : French economic valuations: repartition according to the valuation technique Method

Number of French Application

References

Market price method

1

4. Montagné et al. 2005

Productivity method

2

2. Besnehard and Peyron. 1998

Surveys Expressed /Stated WTP

Circumstantial Evidence – Imputed WTP

Market Prices – Revealed WTP

3. Dehez. 2003 Hedonic price method

3

8. Le Goffe. 2000 9. Lecat. 2004 10. Mollard et al. 2006

Travel cost method

5

1. INRA 1979 4. Montagné et al. 2005 5. Normandin. 1998 6. Peyron, 2001 7. Peyron and al. 2002

Damage cost avoided

0

Protection cost

2

4. Montagné et al. 2005 11. Maire. 1990

Replacement cost

1

Substitute cost method

0

Contingent valuation method

7

12. Peyron, 2000 4. Montagné et al. 2005 5. Normandin. 1998 13. Bonnieux and Guerrier 1992 14. Noublanche and Chassany 1998 15. Amigues and Desaigues. 1999 16. Durand and Point. 2000 17. Scherrer 2002

Choice modelling analysis

Benefit transfer method

/

Conjoint

1

18. Bonnieux et al. 2006

1

19. Bonnieux and Rainelli.2003

27

Market price method Productivity method 4%

4%

4% Hedonic price method

9%

Travel cost method 13%

Damage cost avoided

31%

Protection cost Replacement cost Substitute cost method 22%

0% 4%

Contingent valuation method 9%

0% Choice modelling / Conjoint analysis Benefit transfer method

Figure 7 : French economic valuations: repartition according to the valuation technique

4%

35%

Revealed WTP 48%

Imputed WTP Expressed WTP Benefit transfer

13%

Figure 8 : French economic valuations: repartition according to the valuation technique, aggregation by family of method

The following map 3 presents the territorial repartition of the studies according to the forest ecosystem services valued (Table 1). Colours (cf. the legend) refer to the implemented valuation techniques (Table 2).

28

1. Recreation 17. Recreation 5. Recreation Refuge / nursery

6. Recreation 19. Recreation 13. Recreation

11. Refuge /nursery 2. Gas / climate regulation

9. Aesthetic information / living conditions

8. Aesthetic information / living conditions

10. Aesthetic information / living conditions 4. Total Economic Value: Raw material Food production Gas / climate regulation

3. Recreation

Disturbance prevention Soil retention 16. Refuge/ nursery

Refuge/ nursery Recreation 14. Aesthetic information / living conditions

15. Refuge / nursery France : 4. Total Economic Value:

Raw material, Food production, Gas / Climate regulation

18. Disturbance prevention Recreation Refuge / nursery

Recreation

Refuge/ nursery

Disturbance prevention, Soil retention 12. Raw Material 7. Recreation

Legend:

Revealed WTP :

HPM

Imputed WTP :

Cost based Methods

Stated WTP :

CVM

TCM

Other Market related method

Choice Modelling

Benefit Transfer

Map 3 : Geographical distribution of forest values estimated in French studies7

III.

Forest ecosystem services valuation: stakes and future

The next objective of the project is to think about some meta-analysis or benefit transfer. In this sense, the following step of our research concerns the definition of protocols for good practices in valuation of forest services. Those protocols will allow us to define quality criteria for forest valuation, and to underline those valuation exercises that deserve to be included, as the French contribution, into a European forest valuation database. In this sense, following the existing guidelines and recommendations for economic valuation, (Arrow et al. 1993; Söderqvist and Soutukorva, 2006; Navrud, 2006; Kriström, 2006), we present in the annex 1 a synthetic report for each of the French referenced study. For each type of method, we construct a standardised analysis chart, gathering and summarising, for each study, most of the information useful for the description, analyse (and eventually 7

Numbers refer to the reference of the study as it appears in table 3 and in the annex of the document.

29

replication) of the study. We record key estimation results, information on context, data generating process, valuation methodology… We present in the following pages the structure adopted for the individual reports.

30

ORIGINAL TITLE OF THE STUDY I. IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED - Type of good (according to de Groot and al. classification (de Groot et al. 2002, table 6) - Description of the good in the study/survey: value, site… II. DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED In this section we summarise the main characteristics of the valuation method used. Several items are common to all the methods and others are specific, depending on the method (Production Function –PF, Travel Cost Method –TCM, Cost Based Methods –CBM, Contingent Valuation Method –CVM, Choice Experiment –CE, Benefit Transfer –BT). These items may be useful in order to judge if the method is implemented in accordance with the theoretic roots of the method and commonly accepted guidelines or recommendations. - Type and description of the method (PF, CBM, CVM, CE, TCM, HPM, BT, cf. table 2) - Data collection - Primary or secondary data (CVM, CE, TCM, HPM) - Target population (CVM, CE, TCM, HPM) - Choice of site(s) (TCM) - Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample size, etc. (CVM, CE, TCM, HPM) - Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, involvement of experts… (CVM, CE, TCM) - Pre-test of the questionnaire (CVM, CE, TCM) - Date of the survey carrying-out - Mode of interview and degree of contact with respondent (CVM, CE, TCM) - Valuation question: scenario, type of question, vehicle of payment etc. (CVM, CE) - Description of the effects of a null alternative (CVM, CE) - Identification of winners and losers (CVM, CE) - Identification of protest answer (CVM, CE) - Non responses: rate of response, motives of non responses… (CVM, CE, TCM) III. DESCRIPTION OF THE STATISTICAL TREATMENT The aim of this section is to describe model’s specifications and statistical treatment. Several items are common to all the methods and others are specific, depending on the method (Production Function –PF, Travel Cost Method –TCM, Cost Based Methods –CBM, Contingent Valuation Method –CVM, Choice Experiment –CE, Benefit Transfer –BT). - Model - Modeling of the market (PF) - Model specification, functional form - Explanatory variables or attributes - Cost components, substitute (TCM) - Statistical treatment IV. RESULTS Here are described the main characteristics of the values elicited in the study in terms of amount, units, and related uncertainty (confidence intervals, standard deviation, sensitivity analysis…) - Values: WTP, WTA… Units - Explanatory power of the model - Confidence intervals, standard deviation - Discounting - Tests V. REFERENCES The aim of this section is to provide all the references of publication of the study (report, article…). We provide here the information needed for answering such questions as: earlier reviews?, who conducted the study? Principal funder or commissioner? - Context of the study (principal funder) - Publications VI. REMARKS AND COMMENTS - Previous registration in a valuation database (e.g. EVRI, AFGS database8…) 8

A-F-G-S database refers to the European database on forest valuation for Austria, France, Germany and Switzerland developed by Elsasser et al. (2009)

31

References Acreman M. and D. Knowler 1997, Economic valuation of wetlands: A guide for policy makers and planners. Ramsar convention on wetlands. Amigues JP, Desaigues B. 1999. L'évaluation d'une politique de protection de la biodiversité des forêts riveraines de la Garonne, In : Point, P. (éd.). – La valeur économique des hydrosystèmes. Méthodes et modèles d'évaluation des services délivrés, 211 p. - Paris : Economica, 1999, pp 37-62. Amigues, J-P, C. Boulatoff (Broadhead), B. Desaigues C. Gauthier and J.E. Keith. 2002 "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach." Ecological Economics, 43:17-31. Amigues JP, B. Desaigues, 1998, L’évaluation d’une politique de protection de la biodiversité des forêts riveraines de la Garonne. Rapport de contrat pour le GIP Hydrosystèmes. 21 p + Annexes 300 p. Arrow, Kenneth, Robert Solow, Paul R. Portney, Edward E. Leamer, Roy Radner, and Howard Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 58(10):4602-14. Barbier, E B. Heal, G M. 2006. Valuing Ecosystem Services, The Economists' Voice: Vol. 3: Iss. 3, Article 2. Beckerman, W. and J. Pasek. 2001, Justice, Posterity and the Environment. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bennett J., Blamey R. 2001. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Northampton MA, Edward Elgar. Besnehard, J. Peyron JL. 2000 La forêt, instrument économique et politique de lutte contre l'effet de serre Revue Forestière Française, nø sp "Conséquences des changements climatiques pour la forêt et la sylviculture", pp 153-162 Besnehard, J. 1998 La forêt, puits de carbone ? Exemple de l'internalisation d'un bien ou service non marchand: conséquences sur l'économie des peuplements forestiers et de l'environnement Mémoire de DEA : Economie de l'environnement et des ressources naturelles - ENGREF, Ecole Nationale du Génie Rural des Eaux et des Forêts, Nancy (Sous la direction de J.L. Peyron). 93 p. Bjornstad, D J. and J R. Kahn, 1996 The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs, Brookfield, Vt: Edward Elgar. Bonnieux, F. Carpentier, A. Paoli, J-C. 2006. Aménagement et Protection de la Forêt Méditerranéenne: Application de la Méthode des Programmes en Corse. INRA Sciences Sociales – Recherches en Economie et Sociologies Rurales. N°6/05, Mars 2006. 4p. Bonnieux, F. Carpentier, A. Paoli, J-C. 2006. Priorité des Résidents et des Visiteurs pour la Protection et l’Aménagement de la Forêt en Corse: Exemple de la Forêt de Bonifatu. Revue Forestière Française, 2-2006, pp. 167-181. Bonnieux F, Guerrier C. 1992. Rapport sur la fréquentation des forêts de Rennes INRA Rennes. Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. 2003 La technique des transferts dans l'évaluation des biens non marchands: une application. Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine 2.

32

Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. 1996. Aménités rurales des zones humides et des forêts. In: OCDE: Les aménités pour le développement rural: exemples de politiques 130p. OCDE Paris, pp.87-97. Brouwer, R. 2000. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecological Economics 32:137-52. Chassany JP, Noublanche C. 1998 Le rôle des acteurs locaux dans la valorisation économique du paysage: le cas de la vallée française des Cévennes, Revue d'économie Méridionale vol 46 n°183. Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, S. Naeem, K. Limburg, J. Paruelo, R.V. O'Neill, R. Raskin, P. Sutton and M. Van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260, 1997. Davis RK. 1963. The value of outdoor recreation : an economic study of the Maine Woods. PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA de Groot R. S., M. A. Wilson, R.M.J. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41 (2002) 393–408. Dehez J. 2003, Analyse économique des coûts de gestion des zones côtières protégées - Le cas des forêts domaniales de Gironde. Thèse pour le doctorat de Sciences économiques, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux 4, Bordeaux. 2003. Després A, Normandin D. 1996. Les services d'environnement fournis par la forêt : problèmes d'évaluation et de régulation. Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, nø 41 "Questions d'économie forestière", 1996, pp 61-91. Després A, Normandin D. 1998. Une évaluation de la demande sociale de services environnementaux de la forêt. Inra sciences sociales 2 1998/06 Despres A. 1998. Non-market benefits of forestry in managed forests and valuation methods: the case of forests in Lorraine (France). In: Institutional aspects of managerial economics and accounting in forestry. IUFRO division 4. Human capital and mobility programme. Project: the economics of managerial and mountainous areas and forests – timber – environmental systems 15-18 April 1998. Roma. Italia. Durand D, Point P. 2000. Chapitre 3: Approche théorique et empirique de la valeur d'existence: applications aux espèces animales protégées. Contrat A 848: Méthode d'évaluation contingente et décision publique. Elsasser P, Meyerhoff, J, Montagné C, Stenger A. 2009. A Bibliography and database on forest valuation studies from Austria, France, Germany and Switzerland: A possible base for a concerted European approach. Journal of Forest Economics Special Issue Vol 15/1-2. Ehrenfeld, D. 1988. Why put a value on biodiversity? In: Wilson, E.O. (ed.). Biodiversity. pp. 212-216 (quoted in Michael, 1995). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Freeman , A. M., 1979. The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: Theory and Practice. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Freeman A. M., 1993 The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods, Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future. Garrod, G., Willis, K.G., 1999. Economic Valuation of the Environment: Methods and Case Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA.

33

Hanemann M, 1988. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71, pp. 1057-1061. Hanley N. & Spash C.L., 1993. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar, London. IFEN. 2002 Rapport de la Commission des Comptes et de l’Economie de l’Environnement sur la forêt Chapitre 3 : Fonctions et services non marchands de la forêt.pp.83-124 IFN, 2005, Les indicateurs de gestion durable des forêts françaises, Inventaire forestier national. Ministère de l’agriculture et de la pêche. Edition 2005. INRA 1979. La Forêt et la ville. Essai sur la forêt dans l'environnement urbain et industriel. 1-120. Chapitre 5. Estimation de la valeur des services récréatifs rendus par les forêts périurbaines. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Recherches sur la forêt et l'environnement. King D and Mazzota M. http://www.ecosystemvaluation.org/,

2006

Ecosystem

valuation

website:

Krieger, Douglas J. 2001. Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Review. Washington D.C.: The Wilderness Society. 31pp. Kriström B, 2006 State-of-the-art Valuation and Forestry Resources Presentation by : Bengt Kriström Department of Forest Economics, SLU-Umea Sweden workshop : A Protocol and Database for the Environmental Valuation of French/European Forests Nancy. 2627sept2006. Kriström, B. 2001. “Valuing forests”. In: Chichilnisky, G., Raven, P. (Eds.), Managing Human dominated Eco-Systems. MBO Press. Le Goffe Ph. 2000. Hedonic pricing of agriculture and forestry externalities Environmental and resource economics 15 pp. 397-401 Lecat G. 2004 En quoi le cadre de vie rural contribue t il à expliquer les prix du foncier dans les espaces périurbains? Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine 1 Maire MH. 1990 Mesures de protections prise pour la sauvegarde du grand tétras dans le massif vosgien: essai de chiffrage des incidences économiques et financières directes et indirectes. Mémoire de mastère de l'ENGREF 81p. Merlo M. et Croitoru L. (eds) 2005. Valuing Mediterranean forests. Towards Total Economic Value. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, p. 406. Mitchell, R C, and R T. Carson, 1989 “Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The CVM Approach,” Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, Mollard, A., Rambonilaza, M., Vollet D. 2006, Aménités Environnementales et Rente Territoriale sur un Marché de Services Différenciés: Le Cas du Marché des Gîtes Ruraux Labellisés en France. Revue d’Economie Politique, 116 (2), pp. 251-275. Montagné C, Peyron JL, Niedzwiedz A. 2005 La valeur économique totale de la forêt méditerranéenne française, Forêt Méditerranéenne, vol 26, n°4, pp. 287-298,. Montagné C, Peyron JL, Niedzwiedz A, Colnard O. 2005. in Merlo M and Croitoru L eds. Valuing mediterranean forest: towards total economic value, Chapter France, pp.299-317. Navrud, S., 2006. Database and benefit transfer protocol for forest environmental valuation. Final report for the project titled: A Protocol and Database for the Environmental Valuation of

34

French/European Forests. Laboratoire d’Economie Forestières INRA AgroParisTech Engref. 27p. Normandin D. 1998 Opinions et attitudes des lorrains par rapport à l'environnement et à la forêt Les courriers de l'environnement de l'INRA 34. Nunes, P.A. L. D., van den Bergh, J. and Nijkamp, P. 2003 The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity: Methods and Policy Applications, Edward Elgar, Northampton. OECD, 2002. Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation: A Guide for Policy Makers. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. Pearce D. 2001 Valuing biological diversity: issues and overview. In : OECD, 2001, Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits: Selected Studies, OECD, Paris Chapter 2. Pearce D.W. D. Moran, 1994. The Economic Value of Biodiversity. Earthscan, London Pearce D W and R K Turner, 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 1st edition only Perrings C., Mäler K.-G.Folke C. Holling C.S. Jansson B.-O. eds 1995. Biological Diversity: Economic and Ecological Issues. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Peyron 2000, Evaluation rapide du préjudice subi par les forêts françaises, Forêt Entreprises, n°131, pp.64-66 Peyron, 2001 Première évaluation économique globale des dégâts forestiers dus aux tempêtes de décembre 1999, Rapport de fin d’étude pour le compte du ministère de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environnement, 42p. Peyron 2002, Des dégâts bien difficiles à évaluer monétairement, Revue Forestière Française, numéro spécial 2002, pp.31-38 Peyron JL. Harou P, Niedzwiedz A, Stenger A, 2002 National survey on demand for recreation in French forests. Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière INRA-ENGREF Nancy Peyron JL. and Colnard O. 2002 Rapport de la Commission des Comptes et de l’Economie de l’Environnement sur la forêt Chapitre 4 : Vers des comptes de la forêt ? LEF -Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière- UMR ENGREF/INRA, Nancy) Randall A. 1988 What Mainstream Economists Have to Say About the Value of Biodiversity in E.O. Wilson (Ed.), Biodiversity: National Forum on Biodiversity, National Academy Press, Washington DC Randall A. 1991. The value of biodiversity. Ambio 20, 64-68. Randall A. 1998 Beyond the Crucial Experiment: Mapping the Performance Characteristics of Contingent Valuation, Resource and Energy Economics, 20,pp. 197-206. 9 Rosen, S. 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy 82(1):34-55. SARES. 1969. Enquête sur la fréquentation des forêts de la région parisienne. Paris Scherrer S. 2002 Les pertes d'usage récréatif du patrimoine forestier après les tempêtes de 1999: le cas de la forêt de Fontainebleau. Economie et statistique 357-358. pp. 153-172. Spash, C L. Hanley, N. 1995. Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation, Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208

35

Söderqvist, T., Soutukorva, Å., 2006. An instrument for assessing the quality of environmental valuation studies. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket (The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency). Ulibarri, C.A., and K.F. Wellman. 1997. Natural Resource Valuation: A Primer on Concepts and Techniques. Battelle: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. Ward F.A., Beal D., 2000. Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Method: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Northampton.

36

Annexe à la partie 1: Detailed overview of French forest valuation studies The proper aim of this Annex is to present individual summaries of the 19 case-studies of forest services valuation reviewed in the French literature. Studies summaries are organised here in the same way of the table 3: 1.

Market Prices – Revealed WTP

2.

Circumstantial Evidence – Imputed WTP

3.

Survey Expressed / Stated WTP

4.

Benefit Transfer

37

1. Market Prices - Revealed WTP 1. ESTIMATION DE LA VALEUR DES SERVICES RECREATIFS RENDUS PAR LES FORETS PERI-URBAINES. INRA, 1979 Title translation: Estimation of the value of peri-urban forests recreative function I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good9

20. Recreation

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Direct use /non-consumptive value Recreative value

Site

3 forested site in the periurban area of Paris:

Comments

- Meudon, - Sénart, - Saint Germain No precise description of the sites

II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

Zonal TCM (Clawson’s method) For each forest: 6 zones (distance to the forest): -

0-2km 2-5km 5-10km 10-15km 15-20km >20km

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Secondary data: data collected for the survey of the SARES 1969.

Date of the survey carrying-out

1968

Target population

9 250 674 inhabitants of the region “Ile de France”

Choice of site(s)

Periurban forests with high recreative frequenting Depends on the previous survey

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample Opinion poll (no more detail) carried out on Saturday size, representativeness, etc. only Sample size: - Meudon: 457 visitors - Sénart: 579 visitors - Saint Germain: 581 visitors The sample is representative of people who frequent the forest (Hypothesis) Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, No detail involvement of experts… Pre-test of the questionnaire

No detail

Mode of interview and degree of contact with Opinion poll (no more detail) respondent

9

The number refers to the de Groot et al.’s classification of forest goods and services, table 1.

38

Non responses: rate of response, motives of non No detail responses… Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components, substitute

The cost of a visit is supposed to be equal to the amount of money necessary to reach, by car, the forest from the visitor’s house. Components of the cost function for a visit: Cj average cost of a visit for an inhabitant of the zone j c=0.15F/km cost of car-kilometre d “true” distance from the visitor’s house to the forest t travel time n=3 average number of passenger by car T=10F/h value of an hour of transportation V=30km/h average speed of the vehicle D “as the crow flies” distance from the city of the visitor’s house to the forest a=1.2 proportionality coefficient between the “true” and the “as the crow flies” distance Tj forest frequentation rate for the zone j

Model

Average cost of frequenting for zone j:

T   2a C j = K .D =  ( c + )  D V  n n

surplus/inhabitant for zone j:

∑ T (C

j = j +1

Explanatory variables or attributes IV.

j

j

− C j −1 )

No inclusion of individual socio-economic information

RESULTS

Results Values: surplus in 1968

Forest

Surplus

Surplus/ha

Meudon

4 314 000 K

3 198 K

St Germain

6 866 000 K

1 929 K

Sénart

2 900 000 K

1 115 K

Discounting Discounting factor:

1 x− y

x=8% discounting rate, y=3% frequenting increase rate Values: discounted surplus

Forest

Discounted surplus (F)

Discounted surplus/ha (F/ha)

Meudon

33 218 000

30 198

St Germain

52 868 000

14 850

39

Sénart

22 330 000

8 588

Units

F and F/ha

Tests

Test of variability according to different values of the parameters a, n, c, T, V, x, and y. Comparative static (surplus mainly sensitive to x or n variations)

V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder)

No detail

Publications Book chapter

VI.

INRA 1979. La Foret et la ville. Essai sur la foret dans l'environnement urbain et industriel. 1-120. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Recherches sur la foret et l'environnement. chapitre 5. Estimation de la valeur des services récréatifs rendus par les forêts péri-urbaines.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments First valuation exercise in France Included in the AFGS database

40

2. LA FORET, PUITS DE CARBONE ? EXEMPLE DE L'INTERNALISATION D'UN BIEN OU SERVICE NON-MARCHAND: CONSEQUENCES SUR L'ECONOMIE DES PEUPLEMENTS FORESTIERS ET DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT. Besnehard and Peyron, 1998, 2000 Title translation: Forest and carbon storage: example of non-marketed forest goods and services internatlisation. Consequences for forest and environmental economics. I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

1./2. Gas/climate regulation

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Indirect use value Carbon sequestration in a plantation of common spruce

Site

North east of France (Vosges)

Comments

The authors use a simulation of a plantation of common spruce in the north east of France

II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type of the method

Productivity method

Description of the method Biophysical relationship hypothesis

During their growth, trees fix carbon in their stem, their branches, their leafs or needles and their roots. At the same time, they are subject to several events inducing a more or less sudden return of carbon in the atmosphere (mortality, decomposition, pruning, harvesting, etc.).

Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Model

Growth model for an average stand of common spruce in the Vosges (Houllier et al, 1995; Guo and Peyron, 1995)

Explanatory variables or attributes

age, number of tree/hectare, average size of trees, dominant height, fertility

Output of the model

Volume, converted into tons of carbon contained into the stem of the tree, and then extended by estimation (Padré and Bouchon, 1988; Ranger et al., 1992) to the entire tree (branches, mass of leafs, roots, etc.).

Scenarios

Integration of management actions into the growth model (3 scenarios): -

Objective of the forest owner

“normal management”, (reference scenario in bold in the result table) - “conservatory management” - “dynamic management”. Maximisation of his satisfaction, on an unlimited time horizon. Owner’s wellbeing depends both on its net future forest income and the flux of carbon (in value) generated by the plot.

Calibration of the model

-

Standing timber price defined according to the

41

-

IV.

average volume of the harvested tree (Guo, 1994) Value of the ton of carbon is arbitrarily fixed at 125F and considered as constant over the time Management costs include the stand establishment costs (13800F/ha the first year) and an annual administrative and management cost (200F/ha/y) Reference rate of discount is 2.5%.

RESULTS

Results Optimal rotation age (years)

Discounted benefit (1000F/ha)

Timber

Timber + carbon

Timber

Timber + carbon

0.5%

82

82

260

280

1.5%

75

76

40

50

2.5%

68

69

8

17

3.5%

64

65

-8

0

0F/tc

68

/

8

/

125F/tc

68

69

8

17

250F/tc

68

71

8

26

375F/tc

68

72

8

35

18m

75

77

-8

-1

24m

68

69

8

17

30m

62

62

30

40

5 years

67

68

8

16

10 years

68

69

8

17

12 years

69

70

8

17

Rate of discount

Price of carbon ton

Size of 50 years old tree

Harvesting rotation

Values

For a “normal forest management” (reference scenario in bold in the table), if the forest owner’s only value the timber harvested, the optimal rotation age is 68 years old, for a discounted benefit of 8000F/ha. If the ton of carbon is valued on a market up to 125F, the optimal rotation age become 69 years old and the discounted benefit increase up to 17000F/ha. In the reference case the forest ecosystem service of carbon storage represents a value of 9000F/ha.

Discounting

0.5%, 1.5%, 2.5%, 3.5%

Units

F/ha

V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder)

No detail

Publications Besnehard, J. Peyron JL. La forêt, instrument

42

French review

Student report

VI.

économique et politique de lutte contre l'effet de serre Revue Forestière Française, nø sp "Conséquences des changements climatiques pour la forêt et la sylviculture", 2000, pp 153-162 Besnehard, J. La forêt, puits de carbone ? Exemple de l'internalisation d'un bien ou service non marchand : conséquences sur l'économie des peuplements forestiers et de l'environnement Mémoire de DEA : Economie de l'environnement et des ressources naturelles - ENGREF, Ecole Nationale du Génie Rural des Eaux et des Forêts, Nancy (Sous la direction de J.L. Peyron). - 1998, 93 p.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments -

43

3. ANALYSE ECONOMIQUE DES COUTS DE GESTION DES ZONES COTIERES PROTEGEES - LE CAS DES FORETS DOMANIALES DE GIRONDE. Dehez, 2003 Title translation: Economic analysis of protected coastal areas management costs: a case study for public forests of Gironde I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED 20. recreation

Type of good Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Direct use /non-consumptive value Recreative value

Site

Costal forest of Gironde, (south west of France) 20 440ha.

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED Production function

Type of method Description of the method

Data collection Date of the survey carrying-out

Data were collected for the 1988-1999 period.

Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Model

Production function for a given forest service:

g ( F , q, xi , K ) Cost function: Explanatory variables or attributes

CD ( y j , F , q, wi , K )

q is the quality of the service xi, the quantity of natural, human and capital inputs K the natural or material characteristics yj represents the other forest services wi the unit price of inputs

Application

IV.

Are considered in the construction of the cost function for recreation: 5 forest services (Soil protection, Ecological richness conservation, timber production, and public recreation) and 3 steps of management (facilities installation, maintenance, and landscape preservation).

RESULTS

Results 1988

1999

44

Total direct cost

13 291 777

16 669 453

Number of visits

13 600 000

13 600 000

0.98F

1.23F

Unit cost Values

0.98F/visit for 1988 1.23F/visit for 1998

Units V.

F/visit, 1999 constant francs REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications PhD dissertation

VI.

Dehez J. (2003), Analyse économique des coûts de gestion des zones côtières protégées - Le cas des forêts domaniales de Gironde. Thèse pour le doctorat de Sciences économiques, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux 4, Bordeaux.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments -

45

4. VALUING MEDITERRANEAN FOREST: TOWARDS TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE FRANCE 1/3 Montagné et al. 2005a, 2005b Title translation: Evaluation de la forêt méditerranéenne : vers la valeur économique totale : France I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

1./2. Gas regulation / climate regulation 14. Food production 15. Raw materials 20. Recreation

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Direct use values (consumptive and non consumptive) Indirect use values

Site

Whole of France French Mediterranean region

Comments

II.

Attempt of valuation of the total economic value of French and Mediterranean forests

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

Market price method (Food production, Raw materials, Carbon) Travel cost (recreation)

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Secondary data: data were initially collected in the context of a survey funded by EUROSTAT

Date of the survey carrying-out

2002 (reference year: 2001)

Target population

Whole of France

Choice of site(s)

No choice of specific sites

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample 4504 households chosen in the French directory size, representativeness, etc. This sample size was considered to assure a statistical accuracy not only to national figures but also to regional results, once France is divided into two to three areas. The household has been chosen as the sample unit Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, 1. involvement of experts… 2. 3. 4.

Statement about forest and forestry Leisure activities Contingent analysis (forest biodiversity) Household characteristics and lifestyle

No psychologist expert intervention Pre-test of the questionnaire

none

Mode of interview and degree of contact with Phone interview conducted by students respondent Non responses: rate of response, motives of non Rate of response 45%

46

responses…

Among the non responses 76% are unwilling to answer or a non forest motive and 24% for a motive related to forest

Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Market price method (Food production, Raw materials, Stumpage price for roundwood estimates Carbon) Wholesale or forest price for non wood products Shadow pricing for carbon (20€/tC) Travel cost (recreation)

Estimation of the travel cost for a visits -

IV.

vehicle cost: estimated to 0,24 €/km on average for 2001 (0,24 €/km in 2000 and 0,23 €/km in 1999) time cost due to the travel distance; it has not been taken into account here

RESULTS

Results 2001 data ROUNDWOOD (Stumpage price method) Hardwood logs Softwood logs Pulpwood Other marketed Non marketed Total NON-WOOD PRODUCTS (Wholesale or forest price) Truffles Cork Miscellaneous Total FOREST SERVICES (total costs) Hunting Picking Recreation Total CARBON SEQUESTRATION (Shadow pricing: €20/tC) Soil Vegetation, foliage Standing timber Roots Total Values:

Quantity

FRANCE Price

Value

Quantity

MED Price

Value

MED / FRANCE

Million m3

€/m3

Million €

Million m3

€/m3

Million €

% of value

8.0 15.2 11.4 3.2 26.2

Tons/year

60 10000

Million visits

10 20 394

62 32 7.2 9.4 9.4

€/ton

400000 300

€/visit

10 4.2 4.4

496 484 82 30 247 1339 Million €

24 3.0 9.2 36.2 Million €

0.1 0.8 0.7 0.4 3.8

Tons/year

48 10000

Million visits

96 85 1718 1899 million €

104 8 178 34 324 France

0.3 3 46

31 32 3.6 4.7 4.7

€/ton

400000 300

€/visit

20.1 8.9 7.0

2.5 24.6 2.4 1.6 17.9 49

0.5% 5% 3% 5% 7% 4%

Million €

19 3.0 1.4 23.4

80% 100% 15% 65%

Million €

5.8 27 325 358

6 31 19 19

million €

38 3 20 4 65 Mediterranean area

37% 36% 11% 11% 20%

47

Food production:

33.2 million €

20.4 million €

Raw materials:

1342 million €

52 million €

Carbon:

324 million €

65 million €

Recreation

1899 million €

358 million €

Discounting

None

Units

Food production: €/ton, million € Raw materials: €/m3 (timber), €/ton (cork), million € Carbon: million € Recreation: €/visit, million €

V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder)

Primary survey funded by EUROSTAT Estimation of the French forest total economic value included in the MEDFOREX project

Publications French review

Book chapter

VI.

Montagné C, Peyron JL, Niedzwiedz A. La valeur économique totale de la forêt méditerranéenne française, Forêt Méditerranéenne, vol 26, n°4, pp. 287298, 2005.

Montagné C, Peyron JL, Niedzwiedz A, Colnard O. in Merlo M and Croitoru L eds. Valuing mediterranean forest: towards total economic value, Chapter France, pp.299-317, 2005.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database (travel cost method only)

48

5. UNE EVALUATION DE LA DEMANDE SOCIALE DE SERVICES ENVIRONNEMENTAUX DE LA FORET. 1/2 Després and Normandin 1998, Normandin, 1998 , Depres, 1998 Title translation: Valuing social demand for environmental forest services I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

20. recreation

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Direct use /non-consumptive value Recreative value

Site

Lorraine region (east of France)

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

TCM

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

June 1997

Target population

Lorraine’s inhabitants (east of France)

Choice of site(s)

Forest of Lorraine: 840000ha of forest

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample 650 households size, representativeness, etc. weak representativeness of income distribution in the sample compared to the one of the total target population possible sample selection bias Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, involvement of experts… Pre-test of the questionnaire Mode of interview and degree of contact with Postal survey respondent Non responses: rate of response, motives of non Rate of reply: 17% (4000 questionnaires sent) responses… Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components

Travel cost (0.3F/km) Average distance to the forest 15km

Model Explanatory variables or attributes IV.

RESULTS

Results

49

Number of visits

90 million of visits for a year

Values:

Between 256 and 280 million francs/year Average value for a visit between 6 and 10 francs

Discounting Units Tests V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications French review

French review

Book Chapter

VI.

Normandin, 1998, Opinion et Attitudes des Lorrains par Rapport à la l’Environnement et la Forêt, Le Courrier de l’Environnement de l’INRA n°34. 5p.

Després A, Normandin D. 1998. Une évaluation de la demande sociale de services environnementaux de la forêt Inra sciences sociales 2 1998/06

Despres A. 1998. Non-market benefits of forestry in managed forests and valuation methods: the case of forests in Lorraine (France). In: Institutional aspects of managerial economics and accounting in forestry. IUFRO division 4. Human capital and mobility programme. Project: the economics of managerial and mountainous areas and forests – timber – environmental systems 15-18 April 1998. Roma. Italia.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database

50

6. PREMIERE EVALUATION ECONOMIQUE GLOBALE DES DEGATS FORESTIERS DUS AUX TEMPETES DE DECEMBRE 1999 Peyron, 2001, IFEN, 2002 Title translation: A first attempt at valuing the global forest economic loss due to 1999 windstorms I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED 20. recreation (loos of value due to the 1999 windstorm)

Type of good Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Direct use value – non consumptive value

Site

Lorraine (east of France)

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED Travel cost

Type and description of the method Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

2001

Target population

Lorraine’s inhabitants

Choice of site(s)

Forest of Lorraine: 840000ha of forest

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample 1400 households (1532 contacted) size, representativeness, etc. Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, involvement of experts… Pre-test of the questionnaire Mode of interview and degree of contact with By phone respondent Non responses: rate of response, motives of non Rate of response: 91% responses… Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components

Travel cost (0.23€/km and 0.24€/km) Average distance to the forest 14.1km

Model Explanatory variables or attributes IV.

RESULTS

Results Year

Number of visits

Total distance

Unit cost

Total

1999

22 million

237 million km

0.23€/km

361 million F

2000

17 million

188 million km

0.24€/km

295 millions F

51

Values:

A 18% decrease of the recreative value of Lorraine forests is observed, (ie. 66 million F)

Discounting

-

Units

Monetary unit: F2000

Tests

-

V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications Book chapter

Peyron, 2001 Première évaluation économique globale des dégâts forestiers dus aux tempêtes de décembre 1999, Rapport de fin d’étude pour le compte du ministère de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environnement, 42p.

Report

VI.

IFEN. 2002 Rapport de la Commission des Comptes et de l’Economie de l’Environnement sur la forêt Chapitre 3 : Fonctions et services non marchands de la forêt.pp.83-124

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database

52

7. NATIONAL SURVEY ON DEMAND FOR RECREATION IN FRENCH FORESTS Peyron et al. 2002 Title translation: Enquête nationale sur la demande de récréation dans les forêts françaises I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED 20. recreation

Type of good Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Direct use value – non consumptive value

Site

France

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

TCM

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

2002 with the year 2001 as reference period.

Target population

Whole of French population

Choice of site(s)

French forests

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample Initial sample 4504 size, representativeness, etc. - households not accessible by phone -78 Contacted households 4426 - unwilling to answer generally -2427 [unwilling to answer for forest related reasons] [581] Respondents 1999 Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, 3 parts: questions related to forest recreation, involvement of experts… biodiversity, socio-economic characteristics Pre-test of the questionnaire Mode of interview and degree of contact with Telephone respondent Non responses: rate of response, motives of non responses… Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components Model Explanatory variables or attributes IV.

RESULTS

Results Total number of households

Rate of forest frequenting

Average distance (A/R) Total annual cost

23 810 million

9,0 times a year

38,4 km

Values:

1 997million €

83 €/household/year and 125 €/ha/year

53

Discounting Units Tests V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder)

Eurostat

Publications Working paper

VI.

Peyron JL. Harou P, Niedzwiedz A, Stenger A, 2002 National survey on demand for recreation in French forests. Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière INRAENGREF Nancy

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database

54

8. HEDONIC PRICING OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY EXTERNALITIES Le Goffe, 2000. Title translation: une approche hédoniste des externalité agricoles et forestières I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

19. Aesthetic information: living conditions

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Not clearly defined

Site

The area of the study was limited to the intensive livestock farming region of Brittany in the western part of France.

Aim of the study

identify the agricultural or sylvicultural activities which affect public welfare through tourism profitability

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

HPM

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

1995 summer season

Choice of site(s)

Britanny

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample 579 gîtes was selected in such a way as to create a size, representativeness, etc. sufficient variability in the use of the soil (Intensive or extensive agriculture, degree of forest cover). Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, Are considered, in this study, the weekly renting prices involvement of experts… of gîtes for the 1995 summer season and three main categories of attributes: Intrinsic: Lodging capacity (number of persons), Gîte rating (stars), Adjacent gîte, Shared courtyard. Geographic: Distance from the sea (km), Distance from Paris (km), Geographical location (north / south). Environmental: Livestock density (ANU10/ha TSA11), Fodder crops (%TSA2), Permanent grassland (%TSA2), Cereal crops (%TSA2), Forests (%TSA2). Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Dependant variable

renting price of rural self catering cottages or gîtes

Hedonic price function

for a gîte i

Explanatory variables or attributes

intrinsic, location and environmental attributes of the gîte,

10 11

H i = H (I i , Li , Qi )

ANU = Animal Nitrogen Unit, Pig per head=0.1 ANU, Poultry per head = 0.005 ANU TSA = Total Surface Area.

55

Estimation procedure

OLS estimation using the Eicker-White procedure

R²

linear model – R²=0.65

IV.

RESULTS

Results Attribute

Intrinsic

Coefficient

Constant

396

-

Lodging capacity (number of persons),

197

18.0

Gîte rating (stars)

179

9.9

-117

-3.7

Shared courtyard (1 = yes, 0 = no)

-79

-2.2

Distance from the sea (km)

-8.4

-8.6

Distance from Paris (km)

1.4

4.6

Geographical location (1 = north , 0 = south)

-96

-3.7

Livestock density (ANU/ha TSA)

-123

-3.9

Fodder crops (%TSA)

-4.9

-4.1

Permanent grassland (%TSA)

-5.1

2.2

3.3

1.8

-3.5

-1.7

Adjacent gîte (1 = yes, 0 = no)

Geographic

Environmental

t-value

Cereal crops (%TSA), Forests (%TSA). Discounting Units Tests Comments

V.

Results show that among the environmental attributes only three are clearly significant: it appears that the renting price of a gîte is negatively influenced by intensive fodder and livestock farming and positively related to permanent grassland. The implicit price of the proportion of forests, even if not significant, have a fairly robust negative sign

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications International review

VI.

Le Goffe, Ph. 2000, Hedonic Pricing of Agriculture and Forestry Externalities, Environmental and Resource Economics 15, pp. 397-401.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database Included in the EVRI database

56

9. EN QUOI LE CADRE DE VIE RURAL CONTRIBUE-T-IL A EXPLIQUER LES PRIX DU FONCIER DANS LES ESPACES PERIURBAINS? Lecat, 2004 Title translation: how rural living conditions may contribute to explain land prices in periurban areas? I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED 19. Aesthetic information: Living conditions

Type of good Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Not clearly defined

Site

Area of 15 urban zones, located on the east of France (Ain, Rhône, Isère)

Aim of the study

Analyse of the influence of environmental attributes on living conditions in peri-urban residential spaces.

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

HPM

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

All the transactions from 1994 to 1998

Choice of site(s)

Urban areas and multipolar cities of Rhône, Ain and Isère

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample 6 905 agricultural transactions and 4 951 residential size, representativeness, etc. transactions Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Dependant variable

land prices

hedonic price function

log pi = H ( Ai , SEi , CEi , I i , AEi , NEi )

Explanatory variables or attributes

pi, the price of the parcel i, is a function of A (vector of accessibility attributes), SE (vector of socioeconomical environment attributes), CE (vector of communal equipment characteristics), I (vector of intrinsic characteristics of the transaction), AE (vector of agicultural environment attributes) and NE (vector of natural environment attributes).

Estimation procedure

MCO

IV.

RESULTS

Results Attribute

Residential transactions Coefficient t-value

Agricultural transactions Coefficient

t-value

57

Accessibility

Socioeconomical environment Intrinsic

Communal equipment Agricultural environment

Urban area (15 cities reference Bourgoin-Jallieu) Lyon Grenoble Vienne Bourg-en-Bresse Mâcon Villefranche Amberieu La-Tour-du-Pin Oyonnax Roussillon Tarare Belley Saint-Marcellin Voiron Distance to the urban pole Distance to the highway Communal population Pole average taxable income/distance to pole Periurban average taxable income/distance to pole Multipole mean taxable income/distance to pole Surface Nature of the building (reference: no building) Residential building Agricultural Other Nature of the seller (reference: farmer) Unknown Natural person Legal entity Retired person Nature of the buyer (reference: farmer) Unknown Natural person Legal entity Date (reference: 1994) 1995 1996 1997 1998 Land destination (reference: development site) Residential without building Residential with building Other Cadastral nature (reference: ploughable land) Grassland Meadow Fallow land Orchard, vine Forest Garden, quarry No chief characteristic Outdoor recreational site Footpath Lack of farmer

0.36 0.26 0.03 -0.17 -0.41 -0.06 -0.40 -0.31 0.42 -0.18 0.03 0.13 -0.10 0.21 -0.01 -0.01 0.08 -0.03 0.08

6.4 3.5 0.3 -2.5 -4.2 -0.6 -1.7 -2.2 3.7 -1.3 0.2 1.0 -0.8 1.4 -4.5 -6.5 3.9 -1.9 1.1

0.38 0.41 0.02 -0.21 -0.38 0.31 -0.18 -0.03 0.06 -0.18 0.12 -0.05 0.06 0.50 -0.01 -0.01 0.10 -0.04 -0.23

8.7 7.0 0.1 -3.8 -5.9 3.1 -1.0 -0.2 0.6 -1.9 1.0 -0.6 0.5 4.8 -6.1 -6.9 7.3 -2.4 -3.7

-0.21 0.40

-2.4 32.5

-0.13 0.83

-1.9 104.1

1.34 0.37 -0.28

9.5 2.3 -1.3

2.05 1.89 0.31

36.0 35.7 1.7

0.17 0.37 0.38 0.14

3.1 7.8 5.2 2.9

-0.17 -0.06 0.09 -0.10

-5.0 -1.9 1.3 -3.2

0.24 0.33 0.26

3.8 7.8 4.1

0.11 0.17 0.28

1.4 6.2 3.8

0.05 0.06 0.10 0.18

1.2 1.6 2.5 4.4

0.38 0.94 -1.19

2.4 24.4 -20.0

0.07 0.03 -0.57 0.47 -0.35 0.41 0.32 0.06 0.07 0.24

1.5 2.4 -3.6 2.5 -2.8 8.4 7.3 1.6 1.8 5.4

-0.12 -0.07 -0.57 0.28 -0.69 1.17 -0.01

-4.8 -1.8 -9.4 2.7 -9.4 12.8 -0.4

-0.10 -0.06

-3.8 -3.0

58

Natural environment

Communal farm (reference: big farming) Bovine breeding in plain areas Bovine breeding in mountainous area Ovine or caprine breeding in mountainous area Ovine or caprine breeding in plain areas Permanent farming Market gardening, horticulture Mixed farming, breeding Other Granivorous breeding Listed remarkable site Registered remarkable site Remarkable site for birds (ZICO)

Constant

0.01 0.16 0.07 -0.09 0.36 0.46 0.10 0.06 -0.01 0.11 0.03 0.17 7.09

0.2 2.2 0.6 -0.9 6.1 4.3 2.4 0.7 -0.2 1.6 0.6 4.0

0.00 0.14 0.32 -0.08 0.60 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.21

-0.1 2.5 3.0 -1.2 13.0 1.6 4.7 1.8 3.4

-0.11

2.9

3.73

Values: Discounting Units Tests Comments

V.

It appears that the forested nature of land has a negative impact on the price: on the residential market, forestlands are 29% cheaper than ploughable lands and 50 % cheaper than ploughable lands on the agricultural market. However, proximity of protected natural areas such as remarkable site for birds richness (ZICO) is positively valued on the residential market (+18%), when registered remarkable sites depreciate and related agricultural constraints the price of agricultural land (-10%).

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications French review

VI.

Lecat, G. 2004. En Quoi le Cadre de Vie Rural Contribue-t-il à Expliquer les Prix du Foncier Dans les Espaces Périurbains? Revue d'Economie Régionale et Urbaine 1.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database

59

10. AMENITES ENVIRONNEMENTALES ET RENTE TERRITORIALE SUR UN MARCHE DE SERVICES DIFFERENCIES: LE CAS DU MARCHE DES GITES RURAUX LABELLISES EN FRANCE Mollard et al. 2006. Title translation: environmental amenities and territorial rent on a market of differentiated services: the case of rural labellised gîtes in France I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

19. Aesthetic information: Living conditions

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Not clearly defined

Site

two reference sites: -

Aim of the study

Aubrac in the Massif Central – departments of Aveyron, Cantal and Lozère - Les Barronies in the Drôme The aim of this application of the hedonic price method to the French market of labelled rural gîtes is to empirically test the existence of a territorial rent and to analyse the differentiation of tourist services according to their environmental characteristics.

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

HPM

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

2002

Target population

Labellised rural gîtes of Aubrac Cévennes Ardèche and Drôme

Choice of site(s)

The first site knows a renewed tourist interest (Aubrac in the Massif Central – departments of Aveyron, Cantal and Lozère) when the second is a traditional tourist destination (Les Barronies in the Drôme). However, these two regions present quite similar environmental characteristics: uplands, low density of population, agriculture as main activity. Two different label exist on the market and are considered in the study: “Gîtes de France” and “Clévacances”.

Database design

The database contains the weekly lodging prices and characteristics of rural gîtes in the four relevant French departments i.e. 799 observations for the Aveyron, 792 observations for the Cantal, 740 observations for the Lozère and 730 for the Drôme.

Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Dependant variable

weekly lodging prices P

60

Hedonic function

LogPik = β + γI k + δAk + µEk + ε ik

Explanatory variables

I a vector of intrinsic characteristics of the gîte, A a vector of localisation characteristics which includes data related to accessibility to services and amenities, and isolation, and E a vector of socio-demogaphic and natural environment attributes.

Estimation procedure IV.

RESULTS

Results Attribute

Cantal Coeff.

Constant Label: France

5.10 Gîtes

Lozère

Stat. 17.34

de

Coeff.

Aveyron*

Stat.

Coeff.

Drôme*

Stat.

Coeff.

Stat.

6.08

30.04

5.19

18.91

5.37

38.00

0.03

1.93

0.05

3.03

-0.10

-4.68

Class

0.24

21.17

0.15

12.58

0.20

17.53

0.23

17.15

Capacity

0.08

18.23

0.09

16.79

0.10

17.92

0.10

15.60

-0.004

-0.02

0.04

1.58

-0.03

-1.44

0.02

1.17

Character gîte

0.07

4.46

0.13

3.46

0.11

2.33

Isolation

0.07

4.50

-0.02

-1.31

0.06

3.70

0.11

5.71

0.001

1.00

0.00

1.99

0.003

2.12

-0.001

-1.39

0.21

3.42

0.03

1.55

-0.12

-2.10

-0.08

-1.04

Distance to services

-0.15

-2.56

-0.006

-0.24

0.13

2.21

0.13

1.61

Distance to urban centre

-0.02

-0.81

0.03

1.44

0.002

0.12

-0.01

-0.52

Density (log)

-0.01

-0.47

0.01

1.47

-0.02

-2.26

-0.006

-0.48

Altitude (log)

-0.06

-1.56

-0.15

-5.55

-0.06

-1.34

-0.07

-3.40

-0.03

-0.54

-0.01

-0.43

-0.03

-0.58

-0.06

-0.94

Rougier

-0.02

-0.35

Lévezou

-0.05

-1.40

Farmhouse gîte

Number of gîte in the commune Distance equipment

to

Causse Aurillac

0.16

3.73

Massiac

-0.09

-1.89

Saint-Flour

0.10

2.72

Châtaigneraie

0.17

4.14

Cézallier

0.10

2.11

East Limousin

0.26

3.97

Artense

0.15

3.76

Cantal

0.18

5.55

-0.02

-0.46

Margeride Cévennes

61

Viadène

-0.08

-2.03

Ségala

-0.06

-1.67

Lacaune

-0.05

-1.01

Quercy

-0.07

-1.09

Royans

-0.18

-2.67

Dios

-0.11

-4.06

0.02

0.51

Valloire

-0.27

-5.15

Gallaure et Herbasse

-0.21

-5.85

Pays de Bourdeaux

-0.06

-1.82

Vercors

-0.15

-4.37

Bochaine

-0.14

+1.95

Plaine Rhodanienne

Tricastin Forest surface

0.10

Fodder/corn surface Grassland surface Moor surface Chow’s test R² Number observations

of

(1)

-2.27 0.20

(1)

0.10

(1)

-2.43

0.16

(1)

0.33

(1)

-0.19

-2.38

0.21

3.40

-0.09

-2.25

1.80

(1)

0.20

3.93

0.28

(1)

-0.18

-1.44

1.93

(1)

1.90

(1)

0.93

(1)

1.80(1)

-

0.90

4.89

3.58

0.63

0.58

0.58

0.59

792

740

799

730

Stat. = Student statistic except (1) = Fisher statistic, * Aveyron and Drôme results correspond to total sample estimate results, for detailed results by label cf. full paper Values: Discounting Units Tests

In a first time, the model is estimated for each departmental market (heteroscedasticity is corrected by the mean of the white procedure). The stability of coefficient between the two sub-samples “Gîtes de France” and “Clévacances” is tested for Aveyron, Lozère and Drôme markets, with the Chow’s Test. A significant difference between “Gîtes de France” and “Clévacances” is underlined for Drôme and Aveyron sub-samples: the two labels do not adopt the same price strategy in these two departments. For these departments two hedonist equations are then considered. The inclusion of environmental attributes in the hedonic equation follows a two-steps procedure: the four variables were included in the hedonic model, when one of them is non significant the fisher omission test give the pertinence of the variable inclusion in the model and finally are only included in the estimated hedonic equation those environmental attributes with a

62

significant fisher test. Comment

Summary of significance and nature of environmental variables impacts

The significance and the nature of the impacts of environmental variables on the price of gîtes depend on the market and on the specific landscape structure of the region. Forest surface have a positive impact on the price of gîtes in the Drôme. It is the only case of the study where the variable forest is significant: Cantal

Lozère

Aveyron*

Drôme*

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

+

-

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

Grassland surface

n.s.

-

n.s.

n.s.

Moor surface

n.s.

+

n.s.

n.s.

Forest surface Fodder/corn surface

n.s. Non significant +/- : positive/negative impact on the price V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder)

INRA-CEMAGREF-CIRAD project: multifunctionality and rural areas

Publications French review

VI.

Mollard, A., Rambonilaza, M., Vollet D. 2006, Aménités Environnementales et Rente Territoriale sur un Marché de Services Différenciés: Le Cas du Marché des Gîtes Ruraux Labellisés en France. Revue d’Economie Politique, 116 (2), pp. 251-275.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database

63

2. Circumstantial Evidence– Imputed WTP 11. MESURES DE PROTECTIONS PRISE POUR LA SAUVEGARDE DU GRAND TETRAS DANS LE MASSIF VOSGIEN: ESSAI DE CHIFFRAGE DES INCIDENCES ECONOMIQUES ET FINANCIERES DIRECTES ET INDIRECTES. Maire, 1990 Title translation: protection measures for safeguarding the “Grand Tetras” in the French Vosges. An attempt of valuation of economic and financial, direct and indirect consequences. I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED 12./13. Refugium / Nursery

Type of good Description of the good in the study/survey Value

protection of an endangered specie: the” Grand Tetras” (15-years program)

Site

832ha of public forest situated in the “Haute-Meurthe Massif (Vosgian massif north east of France) .

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

protective costs

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

1990

Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components

IV.

Specific opening, regeneration clumps, clump immobilisation, Information, signposting and marking, Surveillance, Scientific follow-up

RESULTS

Results Measure

Infrastructure cost

Cost (F/ha/yea)r

Specific opening Creation of 7.5 ha of opening for bilberry (10000F/ha)

75000

Maintenance and management (3000F/ha)

22500

Plantation of Scots Pine 13.5F/plant

202500

7.80

18.00

(buying + protection of plants 7.5ha, 2000 plants/ha) Maintenance and management (3000F/ha)

22500

Regeneration Clumps Preliminary study (35 Men-Day: 930F/Man-Day)

32550

Delimitation (225F/ha of clumps, 35h.day worker +paint)

22000

4.40

Clump immobilisation Harvest deficit (6m3/ha/an on 67.2ha or annual loss of 1000F/ha of clump – most pessimist case)

100800

81.00

64

Total (parquets and openings)

1385050

111.20

24500

2.50

Information, signposting and marking 7 metallic fences (3500F/unit) Replacement of 2 fences during the period

7000

2 Boards “no thoroughfare”

4200

Replacement

4200

Specific signposting (biodiversity reserve) 10 boards

2000

Replacement

2000

10 wooden fences

3000

Replacement

3000

3 informative boards (10000F/unit)

30000

Maintenance every 5 years

4500

70 administrative information boards (85F/unit)

6000

Replacement

6000

1 informative board 10000F

10000

Maintenance every 5 years

1500

Total (Information, Signposting and marking)

0.70

0.30

0.50

2.75

0.95

0.90

107900

8.60

558000

44.7

2 hiding places (3000F/unit)

6000

0.95

Maintenance

6000

Surveillance 40 Men-Day/year: 930F/Man-Day Scientific follow-up

Observation (20 nights/year = 40 Men-Day/year)

558000

44.7

Battue (8 Men-Day)

111600

8.90

69750

5.60

418500

33.50

Trapping (equipment)

2000

0.70

Replacement

2000

Rifle

2500

Replacement

2500

5 statements of kilometric abundance indicator (5 Men-Day) Trapping (working)

Annual report (5 Men-Day)

69750

5.60

Total (Surveillance + Scientific follow-up)

1806600

144.70

Total for the entire project

3299550

264F/ha/year

Values: Discounting Units Tests V.

REFERENCES

65

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications Student Report

VI.

Maire MH. 1990. Mesures de protections prise pour la sauvegarde du grand tetras dans le massif vosgien: essai de chiffrage des incidences économiques et financières directes et indirectes. Mémoire de mastère de l'ENGREF 81p.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments -

66

12. DES DEGATS BIEN DIFFICILES A EVALUER MONETAIREMENT Peyron, 2000, 2002 Title translation: on the difficulty of the valuation of 1999 windstorms damages. I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

15. Raw materials

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Consumptive Use Value

Site

France

Aim of the study

Provide a quick estimation of the 1999 windstorm damages on a timber production point of view

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

Cost based approach

Data collection Date of the survey carrying-out

2000

Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components Model Explanatory variables or attributes IV.

RESULTS

Results Loss of timber value due to 1999 windstorms, results Market value loss: Estimated volume of windthrow

138 million m3

Average Price

280F/m3

Value of windthrow

39 billion F

- Value of commercialised timber

-12 billion F

Total market value loss

27 billion F

Future value loss

7.5 billion F

Reconstitution cost Unit cost

5000F/ha

Totally or partially damaged surface

1 050 000ha

Total reconstitution cost

5 billion F

Total

40 billion F (6 billion Euros)

67

Discounting Units Tests V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications Professional review

French review

VI.

Peyron 2000, Evaluation rapide du préjudice subi par les forêts françaises, Forêt Entreprises, n°131, pp.64-66

Peyron 2002, Des dégâts bien difficiles à évaluer monétairement, Revue Forestière Française, numéro spécial 2002, pp.31-38

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments -

68

4. VALUING MEDITERRANEAN FOREST : TOWARDS TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE FRANCE 2/3 Montagné et al. 2005 Title translation: Evaluation de la forêt méditerranéenne : vers la valeur économique totale : France I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

3. Disturbance prevention 6. Soil retention

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Conservative values Fight against forest fires, Prevention of forest fires, Defence costs in mountains, Defence costs along coasts

Site

Whole of France French Mediterranean region

Comments

II.

Attempt of valuation of the total economic value of French and Mediterranean forests

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

Defensive expenditure method

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

2002 (reference year 2001)

Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components

Fight and prevention against forest fires, Defence costs in mountains, Defence costs along coasts

Model Explanatory variables or attributes IV.

RESULTS

Results

OTHER FOREST SERVICES: Conservative values (Defensive expenditure method) Fight against forest fires Prevention of forest fires Defence costs in mountains Defence costs along coasts Total Values:

France

Mediterranean area

million €

million €

70 31 16 1 118

50 23 6

75% 75% 40%

79

67%

MED / FRANCE

Discounting Units Tests

69

V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder)

MEDFOREX

Publications Article

Montagné C, Peyron JL, Niedzwiedz A. La valeur économique totale de la forêt méditerranéenne française, Forêt Méditerranéenne, vol 26, n°4, pp. 287298, 2005.

Book chapter

VI.

Montagné C, Peyron JL, Niedzwiedz A, Colnard O. in Merlo M and Croitoru L eds. Valuing mediterranean forest: towards total economic value, Chapter France, pp.299-317, 2005.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments -

70

3. Survey Expressed / Stated WTP 13. RAPPORT SUR LA FREQUENTATION DES FORETS DE RENNES Bonnieux and Guerrier, 1992 – Bonnieux and Rainelli, 1996 Title translation: Report on Rennes Agglomeration’s Forest Frequenting I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

20. recreation

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Direct use /non-consumptive value Recreative value

Site

Periurban forest of Rennes city (west of France: Brittany) domanial (public) forest of 3000ha that borders a 250 000 inhabitants city.

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

CVM

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

1991 – 1992

Target population

Rennes Agglomeration inhabitants

Choice of site(s)

The main function of this forest is the production of timber, however, the proximity of the city and the low rate of afforestation of French Brittany, confer to the site an important social / recreative function. This important frequenting coupled with the economic growth of the city lead to diverse threats and pressures.

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample 621 groups of visitors and residents, i.e. 1661 persons size, representativeness, etc. Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, involvement of experts… Pre-test of the questionnaire Mode of interview and degree of contact with on site survey and postal survey respondent Vehicle of payment

Increase in local taxes

Non responses: rate of response, motives of non responses… Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components Model Explanatory variables or attributes IV.

RESULTS

71

Results Total number of visits

The total number of visits is estimated around 330 000 for a year (2.8 person/ha).

main on-site activities of visitors

walking, jogging and cycling, followed by nature observation.

Values:

The estimated users’ WTP for the benefit of forest services (Contingent Valuation Method) is about 110F/household/year

Discounting Units Tests V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications Working paper

Book chapter

VI.

Bonnieux F, Guerrier C. Rapport sur la fréquentation des forêts de Rennes INRA Rennes.1992. Bonnieux et Rainelli, 1996. Aménités rurales des zones humides et des forêts périurbaines en France, in : Les Aménités Pour le Développement Rural, Exemples de politiques. OCDE, pp.87-97

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database

72

14. LE ROLE DES ACTEURS LOCAUX DANS LA VALORISATION ECONOMIQUE DU PAYSAGE. LE CAS DE LA VALLEE FRANÇAISE EN CEVENNES Chassany and Noublanche, 1998 Title translation: Chestnut landscapes in the Cévennes (South of France): an economic appraisal of its uses and its perception from the perspectives of local actors I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

19. Aesthetic information: landscape

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Landscape value

Site

Cevenol chestnut grove landscapes (south east of France), 1000ha

Aim of the study

The aim of the paper is to elicit the value people assign to the landscape characteristic of Cevenol chestnut groves.

Comments

The study explores both the supply and demand sides of Cevenol chestnut grove landscapes.

II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

CVM

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

1997

Target population

Chestnut grove owners (farmers) Primary and secondary residents and visitors

Choice of site(s)

These typical landscapes are consecutive to an ancestral agricultural activity that has modelled the chestnut tree’s geographical area and sustained for a long the local economy.

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample Supply side: 21 farmers owning chestnut groves. size, representativeness, etc. Demand side: 160 residents and visitors Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, Questionnaire structure: involvement of experts… - opinions about landscape - valuation of chestnut grove restoration - socio-economic characteristics Pre-test of the questionnaire Collection of monographic data during interviews, talks and meetings with local stakeholders, in order to measure the importance of chestnut grove landscape among local concerns. Mode of interview and degree of contact with Supply side: interviews respondent Demand side: interviews Non responses: rate of response, motives of non responses… Valuation scenario

The hypothetical scenario proposes a renovation program on 1000 hectares of chestnut grove. A financial assistance would be paid by local authorities to chestnut grove owners in compensation to

73

management investment. This financial support would be partly funded by an increase in local tax for residents and an increase in tourist tax for visitors. Valuation question

What is the amount or percentage of tax people would be able to pay in order to contribute to the program.

Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components Model Explanatory variables or attributes IV.

RESULTS

Results Rate of acceptance

83% of the interviewed visitors are favourable to the idea of an increase in local tax for the financing of the project, when 68% of secondary residents and 56% of primary residents are agree.

Values:

Average WTP are 184F/year for primary residents, 231F/year for secondary residents and 128F/year for visitors.

Discounting Units Tests Comments

V.

The main difficulty in this exercise was to determine the real contribution of landscape characteristics in the value people assign to chestnut groves: if almost all the respondents are agree with the idea of chestnut groves preservation only 40% mention landscape concern as a motive of preservation. Other mentioned concerns are linked with recreational (36%), environmental (22%), economic (27%) or cultural (57%) values.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications French review

VI.

Noublanche C., Chassany, JP. 1998. Le Rôle des Acteurs Locaux Dans la Valorisation Economique du Paysage. Le Cas de la Vallée Française en Cévennes. REM. Revue de l'Economie Méridionale, vol. 46, nø 183, pp 289-299.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database

74

5. UNE EVALUATION DE LA DEMANDE SOCIALE DE SERVICES ENVIRONNEMENTAUX DE LA FORET Normandin, 1998 – Després et Normandin, 1998 (2/2) Title translation: Valuing social demand for environmental forest services I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

12./13. Refugium / Nursery

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Essentially non use values and option value Preservation value

Site

Lorraine region (east of France)

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

CVM

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

June 1997

Target population

Lorraine’s inhabitants

Choice of site(s)

Forests of Lorraine (840000ha)

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample 650 Lorraine’s households size, representativeness, etc. weak representativeness of income distribution in the sample compared with the total target population possible sample selection bias Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, involvement of experts… Pre-test of the questionnaire Mode of interview and degree of contact with Postal survey respondent Non responses: rate of response, motives of non Rate of reply 17% (4000 questionnaires sent) responses… Valuation question

It is asked to the, if they are willing to pay something in order to improve ecological services forest provides.

Vehicle of payment

The more popular vehicle of payment for the respondents is the implementation of an environmental tax on pollutant activities.

Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components Model Explanatory variables or attributes

75

IV.

RESULTS

Results Acceptance rate

54% of respondents declare oneself agree with this idea, but only 65% of those who are agree finally declare a positive amount.

Values:

The average amount of money households would be willing to pay is 100F/hh/year, i.e. a total of 80 million F/year

Discounting Units Tests V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications French review

French review

Book chapter

VI.

Normandin, 1998, Opinion et Attitudes des Lorrains par Rapport à la l’Environnement et la Forêt, Le Courrier de l’Environnement de l’INRA n°34. 5p.

Després A, Normandin D. 1998. Une évaluation de la demande sociale de services environnementaux de la forêt Inra sciences sociales 2 1998/06

Despres A. 1998. Non-market benefits of forestry in managed forests and valuation methods: the case of forests in Lorraine (France). In: Institutional aspects of managerial economics and accounting in forestry. IUFRO division 4. Human capital and mobility programme. Project: the economics of managerial and mountainous areas and forests – timber – environmental systems 15-18 April 1998. Roma. Italia.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database

76

15. L'EVALUATION D'UNE POLITIQUE DE PROTECTION DE LA BIODIVERSITE DES FORETS RIVERAINES DE LA GARONNE Amigues and Desaigues, 1999 Title translation: The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED 12./13. Refigium / Nursery

Type of good Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Essentially non use values and option value Preservation value

Site

Riverside forest in the Garonne valley (south of France) near the 600 000 inhabitants city of Toulouse. It consists in a section of 100 km along the Garonne river.

Aim of the study

The aim of this research is to offer to public decisionmakers quantitative information about direct and indirect costs and benefits induced by actions in favour of biodiversity protection or conservation. The idea is to value both benefits of biodiversity protection policies and related costs (amount of money to give to landowners in order to promote their participation to actions that constrain and limit their land valorisation possibilities).

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

CVM

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

1996

Target population

Residents of the zone and riverside landowners

Choice of site(s)

The particular interest for this site follows from an important knowledge of biologic characteristics of the site, with a noticed decline of local biodiversity due to human activity.

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample 402 questionnaires completed size, representativeness, etc. Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, The questionnaire is constructed in five parts as involvement of experts… follows: -

-

context of the presentation of the contingent scenario contingent valuation question: it is asked how much respondents would be annually willing to pay in order to support the program during five years. set of questions intended for testing several sources of bias in the contingent valuation socio-economic characteristics of respondents

77

Pre-test of the questionnaire Mode of interview and degree of contact with Riverside landowners: postal survey respondent Valuation scenario

The contingent scenario consists in a protective and conservative program for Garonne biodiversity, valid for a number of years, and funded on public financing. This program includes a range of measures such as: creation of prohibited areas, ecological fittings on the river, periodically inundated areas, wooded cover restoration, specific fauna and flora protective actions, etc., and provides for an annual financial compensation by hectare though contractual agreements (10 years renewable) with riverside landowners. Three hypothetical scenarios with increasing constraints and obligation for the owner are described. The adhesion to one of these programs is concretised by a renewable contract for 10 years, with an annual financial compensation by hectare.

Valuation question

WTP for the preservation of the riverside forest: Two formats are tested for this question: open-ended question (162 respondents) or closed question followed by an open-ended revision (240 respondents).

Landowners’ willingness to accept for compensating losses of land exploitability consecutive to the program Vehicle of payment

It is also asked to choose the vehicle of payment: local tax or specific funds.

Non responses: rate of response, motives of non Rate of response responses… riverside landowners: 24% Respondents characteristics

Among the 400 riverside landowners 95 respond to the postal survey; 40% of them are farmers and others are forest owners or simply residents. The average size of an agricultural exploitation is 57ha when the average size of a non-agricultural property is around 5 ha.

Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components Model

A probit regression on the entire sample allows to explain the yes or no response to the payment question Linear and semi-linear estimations are implemented for the estimation of the WTP

Explanatory variables or attributes IV.

RESULTS

Results Rate of acceptance

Around half of the farmer and 40% of the surveyed residents are agree with the idea of the program and accept to participate in exchange for payment

78

WTP modelling Contribution acceptance modelling - WTP Variable

Coef.

T-stat

Constant

-1.953

-7.001

On-site Frequentation

0.06

3.062

0.373

2.397

0.489

2.905

0.031

2.295

1.203

6.62

0.113

2.478

-0.386

-1.504

(Log number of days on-site) Favourable (=1 if favourable to the program) Donation (=1 if would give for environmental protection) Income (mean annual income – 6 classes) Seriousness (=1 if respondent questionnaire)

seriously

respond

to

the

Education level (7 classes) On-site recreation expenses (annual amount) Predictive quality:

WTP=0: 68%; WTP>0:80%

Values:

The mean willingness to pay is estimated between 66F/year/person and 35F/year/person, according to the econometric specification of the model.

Variable

Linear model Coef.

Semi-linear model T-stat

Coef.

T-stat

Constant

-5.97

-0.31

-2.41

-5.75

Toulouse

-34.55

-2.12

-0.69

-1.57

27.55

2.44

0.64

2.12

122.43

10.15

3.96

12.10

-21.15

-2.20

7.54

2.63

0.23

2.96

40.11

3.58

1.99

6.51

(=1 if lives in Toulouse) Donation (=1 if would give for environmental protection) Effective Donation (=1 if donation in the year) Sex (Woman=1) Education level (7 classes) Seriousness (=1 if respondent questionnaire)

seriously

respond

to

the

79

Family

-17.31

-2.31

16.95

1.85

-1.81

-1.62

0.09

2.76

17.54

1.70

0.69

2.46

-0.90

-1.91

(number of person) Children (number of children) On-site frequentation (Log number of days on site) Favourable (=1 if favourable to the program) On-site recreation expenses (annual amount) Adjusted R²

0.33

0.46

Mean WTP

66F

35F

WTA modelling Non-farmers

200F/ha/year

Farmers

2700F/ha/year

Total sample

1400F/ha/year

Discounting Units Tests Comments

Among the respondents, 48% have a positive willingness to pay, preferably by the mean of a specific fund (60% of those who have a positive WTP). Results show that the first program, which is the less restricting for the owner is the most popular among the respondents (more than 60%). The main characteristics of the owners that accept to participate to this program are: property size between 10 and 50ha, income inferior to 6200F/month, younger respondents. The preferred compensation mode is the direct subsidy by hectare. Levels of compensation asked by respondents (Willingness To Accept – WTA) increase with the constraints attached to the chosen program and differs according to the farmer or non farmer nature of the owner

Cost benefit analysis

Finally, whether the average WTP by household is considered to be equal to 60F/ha/year, during 5 years, the aggregate willingness to finance the biodiversity protection program upon the 250 000 residents of the zone, reaches 75 millions Francs. Moreover, the aggregate cost, spend by public decision makers in subsidising the 200 landowner of the area, reaches 2.8 millions Francs. According to these results, the biodiversity protection program appears to have a profit balance.

V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder)

80

Publications Book chapter

Amigues JP, Desaigues B. L'évaluation d'une politique de protection de la biodiversité des forêts riveraines de la Garonne, In : Point, P. (éd.). - La valeur économique des hydrosystèmes. Méthodes et modèles d'évaluation des services délivrés, 211 p. - Paris : Economica, 1999, pp 37-62 Amigues JP, B. Desaigues, 1998, L’évaluation d’une politique de protection de la biodiversité des forêts riveraines de la Garonne. Rapport de contrat pour le GIP Hydrosystèmes. 21 p + Annexes 300 p.

Report

Amigues, J-P, C. Boulatoff (Broadhead), B. Desaigues C. Gauthier and J.E. Keith. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach." Ecological Economics, 43:17-31. International review VI.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database Included in the EVRI database

81

16. APPROCHE THEORIQUE ET EMPIRIQUE DE LA VALEUR D’EXISTENCE: APPLICATION AUX ESPECES ANIMALES PROTEGEES Durand and Point. 2000 Title translation: A theoretical approach of existence value: applications to endangered species I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

12./13. Refugium / Nursery

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Existence value of three protected species (bear, mink and sturgeon) among which at least two live in forest habitats.

Site

Pyrenees

Context

Exploratory research aiming to approach both theoretically and empirically the notion of existence value. The empirical part of the study intends more to illustrate the theoretical discourse than to guide any decision making process.

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

CVM

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

April 1998 and January 1999

Target population

Students

Choice of site(s) Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample 557 students from the University of Bordeaux IV size, representativeness, etc. (south-west of France), Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, involvement of experts… Pre-test of the questionnaire Mode of interview and degree of contact with Interview respondent Non responses: rate of response, motives of non About 29% of the sample refuse any idea of payment responses… for preserving endangered species. Among these 159 respondents, 24% justify their rejection by the idea that protecting these species is not a right priority; they are called “right 0-bid” (the modification of the environment probably does not affect their wellbeing), and they might be included in the calculation and explanation of mean WTP. The others “protestation 0-bids” might be excluded of the sample as their constitute a potential source of bias. Valuation question

Willingness to pay to protect each of the three species separately and together. Format: Dichotomous, Open-ended (scale), Openended (scale)

82

Vehicle of payment

Council tax, Donation to specific fund or Council tax

3 types of questionnaire: Notation

Vehicle of payment

CV question format

Number of questionnaires

QTD

Council tax

Dichotomous

344

QDE

Donation to specific fund

Open-ended (scale)

102

QTE

Council tax

Open-ended (scale)

111

Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components Treatment of 0-wtp

Inclusion of right 0 only

Model Explanatory variables or attributes IV.

RESULTS

Results Motivation to pay something for the preservation of endangered species Type of value (Francs) Francs

Sturgeon

Bear

Mink

Presence value (existence value: 36.1% of the sample)

73.27

160.85

85.65

Survival value (future existence value: 60.5% of the sample)

66.30

172.53

101.00

Values: Estimates results for mean WTP by specie, and type of questionnaire (without protestation 0-bid) Mean WTP QTD

80.04

190.20

110.87

QDE

61.39

136.77

92.11

QTE

41.95

124.05

52.65

Aggregate

68.4

166.18

94.83

Discounting Units Tests Comment

V.

The analysis shows that if there is no statically significant difference in WTP according to the vehicle of payment, the choice of the CV question format is important: dichotomous format may induce a starting point bias. REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications

83

Report

VI.

Durand et Point, 2000. Approche théorique et empirique de la valeur d’existence: application aux espèces animales protégées in: Methode d’evaluation contingente et décision publique Rapport pour le GIS Microéconomie de l’environnement, pp.58-94. REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database

84

17. LES PERTES D'USAGE RECREATIF DU PATRIMOINE FORESTIER APRES LES TEMPETES DE 1999 Scherrer, 2002. Title translation: loss of forest recreative value due to 1999’s windstorms I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

20. recreation

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Loss of recreative value due to storm damages

Site

Fontainebleau forest

Context

The windstorms Lothar and Martin that occurred in December 1999 caused an estimated 500 000 hectares damage to French forests. Scherrer’s study (2002) proposes a monetary estimate of the induced loss of recreational value in the forest of Fontainebleau.

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

Contingent valuation method

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

autumn 2001

Target population

Residents and visitors of riverside forest

Choice of site(s) Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample 415 visitors size, representativeness, etc. 2 000 residents Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, involvement of experts… Pre-test of the questionnaire Mode of interview and degree of contact with on site (415 visitors) and by phone (2 000 residents), respondent Valuation question

how much people would be willing to pay for the restoration of the forest; i.e. how much people would be willing to give up in order to recover their pre-storm level of wellbeing? In a first time, people were asked if they accept to pay something (according to vehicle of payment) and then how much they would be willing to pay (opened question format).

Vehicle of payment

increase in local tax, donation to a specific fund, establishment of an entrance fee

Non responses: rate of response, motives of non responses… Comments

85

III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components Model

Tobit model, following the Heckman’s method

Treatment of 0 WTP response

inclusion or not of 0-bids in the calculation of WTP

IV.

RESULTS

Main Results only “right 012” included Phone survey (residents)

On site survey (visitors)

Local tax

Donation to Entrance fee specific fund

Local tax

Donation to Entrance fee specific fund

Rate of rejection 67.5%

55.2%

72.9%

64.3%

52.7%

76.2%

Of which “right 27.5% zeros” (% of non-response)

31.9%

15.6%

11.4%

14.4%

5.7%

Only “right 0” are included in the calculation of WTP. Mean (Francs)

WTP 204

219

11.7

231

309

13.2

PHONE SURVEY Contribution acceptance modelling Local tax Coef.

Donation to specific fund

Wald

Coef.

-0.61

+

High

0.41

-

Medium

0.33

+

Ref

+

Entrance fee

Wald +

Wald

0.07

-

18-24

-043

+

25-34

-0.14

-

35-49

Ref

+

50-64

0.03

-

-0.18

-

Constant

0.46

Coef.

Frequency of visits

Low Age

>65 Job Farmer

n.s

n.s

Artisan-trader

0.19

-

0.38

-

Senior management

0.08

-

0.20

-

Ref

+

Ref

+

Intermediate profession

12

Are called “Right zeros” whose rejection of payment that are motivated by the insufficiency of the respondent’s income or by the idea that the restoration of the forest is not necessary, (Desaigues and Point, 1993).

86

Employee

0.04

-

-0.18

-

Worker

-0.14

-

-0.12

-

Retired

-0.44

+

-0.55

+

Other

-0.05

-

-0.02

-

25000 Francs

0.92

+

0.54

+

0.58

+

Ref

+

0.25

-

-0.02

-

Jogging

0.40

-

Climbing

0.33

-

Picnic

0.12

-

Gathering

0.17

-

-0.91

+

Income (by month)

Activity Walk Trekking Bike

Nature

Frequency of visits (number/year) 1-2

0.37

-

0.46

+

3-8

050

+

0.54

+

Once a month

Ref

+

Ref

+

Every 2 weeks

0.30

-

0.23

-

Once a week

0.48

+

0.16

-

Twice a week

0.38

-

0.39

-

> twice a week

0.03

-

-0.97

-

Every day

0.61

+

0.38

-

0.07

-

0.03

-

[6; 15[

Ref

+

Ref

+

[16; 30[

0.12

-

0.25

-

>30 minutes

0.39

+

0.53

+

Travel time 4hours

0.82

+

0.75

+

Activity Walk

Lenght of visit

88

n.s = Non Significant Ref. = benchmark item Wald statistic: + means significant coefficient, an explanatory variable is supposed significant when at least on of its items is significant. WTP modelling (log WTP) Phone survey

On site survey

Local tax Coef.

St.

Constant

521.02

7.25

Lambda

-293.21

-2.20

Donation to specific fund Coef.

Travel time

St.

5.35 72.46 -0.66

-4.21

-0.0045

-2.41

Entrance fee Coef. 38.37

St. 3.93

-5.71 -0.46

0.00072 -2.08

Income Donation

0.00099 18.54

Local tax Coef. St. 5.20 30.35 -0.26

-1.45

Donation to specific fund Coef.

St.

Entrance fee Coef.

St.

4.34 21.10

17.39

6..86

0.38

0.78

-0.98

-0.13

0.000025

3.25 0.00029

4.39

0.0014 12.82 -0.0012

-2.13

Values: Discounting Units Tests V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications French review

VI.

Scherrer S. 2002, Les Pertes d'Usage Récréatif du Patrimoine Forestier Après les Tempêtes de 1999: Le Cas de la Forêt de Fontainebleau. Economie et Statistique 357-358. pp. 153-172.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database Included in the EVRI database

89

4. VALUING MEDITERRANEAN FOREST: TOWARDS TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE 3/3 Montagné et al. 2005 (continuation). Title translation: Evaluation de la forêt méditerranéenne : vers la valeur économique totale France I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED 12./13. Refuge/nursery

Type of good Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Essentially non use values and option value Preservation value

Site

Whole of France and French Mediterranean area

Comments

Attempt of valuation of the total economic value of French and Mediterranean forests

II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

Contingent valuation method

Data collection Primary or secondary data

Secondary data, data were initially collected in the context of a survey funded by eurostat

Date of the survey carrying-out

2002 (reference year 2001)

Target population

Whole of France

Choice of site(s)

French forests

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample 4504 households chosen in the French directory size, representativeness, etc. This sample size was considered to assure a statistical accuracy not only to national figures but also to regional results, once France is divided into two to three areas. The household has been chosen as the sample unit Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, involvement of experts…

1. 2. 3. 4.

Statement about forest and forestry Leisure activities Contingent analysis (forest biodiversity) Household characteristics and lifestyle

No psychologist expert intervention Pre-test of the questionnaire

none

Mode of interview and degree of contact with Phone interview conducted by students respondent Valuation question

-

‘In France, among animal species (vertebrates) living in forests, 2% are threatened with disappearance; moreover, 12% are vulnerable and 6% are rare; as for plants, about 2% are threatened or vulnerable. Thus the biological diversity of forests appears as a patrimony to be preserved by various protection and maintenance measures that have direct and indirect costs. On behalf of your household, would you be ready to dedicate annually to biodiversity of the French forests an amount of [x, 0 < x < €90]?’ (the precise amount

90

was a multiplier of 6€ and 15 different amounts were randomly proposed). - ‘What is the maximum amount you would pay?’ Non responses: rate of response, motives of non Rate of response 45% responses… Among the non responses 76% are unwilling to answer or a non forest motive and 24% for a motive related to forest Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components Model Explanatory variables or attributes IV.

RESULTS

Results 2001 Data

Biodiversity (Contingent valuation method) Values:

FRANCE

MED DEP

Quantity

Price

Value

Quantity

Price

Value

Households 23.8 million

€/hh 15.2

Million € 362

Households 3.0 million

€/hh 21.1

Million € 63.3

MED/ FRANCE % of value 17%

Discounting Units Tests V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications

French review

Montagné C, Peyron JL, Niedzwiedz A. La valeur économique totale de la forêt méditerranéenne française, Forêt Méditerranéenne, vol 26, n°4, pp. 287298, 2005.

Book chapter

Montagné C, Peyron JL, Niedzwiedz A, Colnard O. in Merlo M and Croitoru L eds. Valuing mediterranean forest: towards total economic value, Chapter France, pp.299-317, 2005.

VI.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database

91

18. AMENAGEMENT ET PROTECTION DE LA FORET MEDITERRANEENNE: APPLICATION DE LA METHODE DES PROGRAMMES EN CORSE. Bonnieux et al. 2006 Title translation: management and protection of Mediterranean forests: choice experiment application in Corsica I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

3. Disturbance prevention 20. Recreation 12. / 13. Refugium / nursery

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Direct use / non consumptive value Recreation value Non use values and option value Preservation value

Site

Forest of Bonifatu (North Corsica). The forest covers 3000 hectares at an altitude between 300 and 2000m.

Comments

The aim of this study is to provide to public authorities, local councillors and citizens factual data and thought factors in order to define a sustainable strategy of development combining environmental protection and tourist activities in Mediterranean mountainous areas.

II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method Data collection Primary or secondary data

Primary data

Date of the survey carrying-out

2003

Target population Choice of site(s)

The site is faunistically and floristically remarkable and human activities are shifting from traditional grazing to tourism and recreation. The most serious threat against this natural patrimony is related to forest fire and a supplementary risk of degradation follows from the over frequenting of the site.

Sampling: sampling procedure, sample frame, sample 2 samples: size, representativeness, etc. 98 residents 103 visitors Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, involvement of experts… Pre-test of the questionnaire Mode of interview and degree of contact with respondent Non responses: rate of response, motives of non responses… Scenario

Four management and protection projects (fauna and

92

flora protection, fire prevention, tourist access organisation, creation of installations for recreation), are defined. Vehicle of payment

Parking fee or specific fund (Two interview surveys were conducted according to the vehicle of payment proposed. It was asked to respondents to chose between alternative programs)

Survey procedure

The first sample (specific fund) surveyed in June 2003, comprises 98 resident households. Four realistic values for specific fund donation (5€, 15€, 25€, 35€) have been determined in a preliminary study. Among the 64 possible programs, 16 have been selected (experiment plan method) and proposed to respondents. The second sample (parking fee) surveyed in July 2003, comprises 103 visitors. The same methodologies have been implemented for the selection of four realistic parking price (5€, 6€, 7€, 8€) and 16 programs. A combination of these projects, coupled to a vehicle of payment (parking fee or specific fund) constitutes a “program”. A project is thus an attributes of a program.

Example of program

Project

Program 1

Program 2

Program 3

Fire prevention

Yes

Yes

No

Fauna and flora protection

No

Yes

No

Public access organisation

Yes

Yes

No

Public recreation installations

Yes

Yes

No

Parking price

6€

7€

3€

Choice Comments III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Cost components Model Explanatory variables or attributes IV.

RESULTS

Results Mean WTP Standard deviations are given between parenthesis Inclusion of socio-economic variables

Aggregate WTP (€/ha)

Residents

Visitors

(€/year)

(€/visit)

Yes

No

No

Statu-quo

39.5 (22.8)

32.7 (14.0)

-4.3 (0.9)

Fire prevention

39.5 (15.1)

47.2 (13.3)

Fauna and flora protection

30.8 (22.7)

38.6 (9.9)

Residents

Visitors

Yes

No

No

5 (1.1)

87.1

104.2

28.7

3.2 (0.6)

68.0

852

18.4

93

Public access organisation

-17.8 (16.8)

-22.1 (8.8)

-1.3 (0.6)

Public recreation installations

11.2 (13.1)

-14.3 (7.8)

-4.1 (1.0)

Total

155.2

189.4

47.1

Values: Discounting Units Tests Comments

V.

Results show that, residents and visitors are mainly sensitive to the patrimonial value of Bonifatu forest. Although the two samples widely differ from a socioeconomic point of view (residents are older and have a more modest income than visitors), respondents express quite similar preferences: priority is given to fire prevention and flora and fauna protection. However, the statu-quo choice is more frequent for residents than for visitors.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications French review

French review

VI.

Bonnieux, F. Carpentier, A. Paoli, J-C. 2006. Aménagement et Protection de la Forêt Méditerranéenne: Application de la Méthode des Programmes en Corse. INRA Sciences Sociales – Recherches en Economie et Sociologies Rurales. N°6/05, Mars 2006. 4p. Bonnieux, F. Carpentier, A. Paoli, J-C. 2006. Priorité des Résidents et des Visiteurs pour la Protection et l’Aménagement de la Forêt en Corse: Exemple de la Forêt de Bonifatu. Revue Forestière Française, 2-2006, pp. 167-181.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database

94

4.

Benefit transfer methods

19. LA TECHNIQUE DES TRANSFERTS DANS L’EVALUATION DES BIENS NON-MARCHANDS: UNE APPLICATION. Bonnieux and Rainelli, 2003 Title translation: Benefit transfer in the context of non market goods: an application I.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOOD VALUED

Type of good

20. recreation

Description of the good in the study/survey Value

Direct use / non consumptive value Recreation value

Site

Periurban forest near Rennes (300 000 inhabitants – Brittany west of France).

Comments II.

DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD AND DATA USED

Type and description of the method

Benefit transfer Single unit value transfer

Primary or secondary data

Secondary data

Date of the transfer

1995

Primary study characteristics (method, data collection and results) Type of method

Zonal TCM Five concentric areas are considered

Date of the survey carrying-out

1991 - 92

Target population

Agglomeration of Rennes Population

Choice of site(s)

Study site: 3000ha of forest near to Rennes agglomeration

Sample size

Approximately 1700 visitors

Questionnaire design: structure of the questionnaire, socio-economic, geographic, and leisure characteristics involvement of experts… Distance to the forest:

Visitors mainly live close to the surveyed forest area (90% cover less than 30km for a round trip)

Rate of frequenting:

Visitors visit the site regularly (at least once a month for 74% of the sample)

Average length of a visit:

one hour and a half

Annual number of visits

Estimated around 240 000

Favourite activity:

Walking (64% of visitors).

Average travel cost:

2F/km/vehicle.

Vehicle of payment

Simulation of an increasing entrance reservation price is 120F).

Value

Total annual surplus of visitors is more than 6.9 millions francs, or 29F/visit

fee (the

Study site characteristics Choice of site(s)

Forest area (900ha) included in the previous reference

95

site Target population

Rennes inhabitants

Comments

the characteristics of the two sites are sufficiently similar for allow a benefit transfer

III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Model Model IV.

Single unit value transfer RESULTS

Results Values:

The transfer of this unit value of 29F to the new site, gives, for 110 000 visitors/year, an annual surplus of 3.2 millions francs, i.e. 3544F/ha.

Discounting Units Tests V.

REFERENCES

Context of the study (principal funder) Publications French review

VI.

Bonnieux F., Rainelli P., 2003, La technique des Transferts dans l’Evaluation des Biens NonMarchands: Une Application. Revue d’Economie Régionale et Urbaine n°2, pp 187.208.

REMARKS AND COMMENTS

Remarks and comments Included in the AFGS database

96

Partie II

Protocoles de Référence et Consolidation d’un Réseau d’Experts

Claire Montagné*†, Anne Stenger*† Patrice Harou Pinchot Institute For Conservation 1616 P Street NW Suite 100 Washington DC 20036. USA [email protected]

Ståle Navrud Department of Economics and Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5033, 1432 Ås, Norway; [email protected]

Nancy Meeting Participants Cost E45 participants

* †

INRA, UMR 356 Économie Forestière, F-54000 Nancy, France Agroparistech, Engref, Laboratoire d’économie forestière, F-54000 Nancy, France

97

Partie II : Protocoles de Référence et Constitution d’un Réseau d’Experts Introduction Pour promouvoir l’usage de l’évaluation économique des biens, services et dommages environnementaux liés à la forêt dans les processus de prise de décision, il est nécessaire que les processus de détermination des valeurs soient transparents et compris de tous. Plusieurs méthodes existent pour assigner une valeur à un bien ou service non marchand ; certaines sont tangibles et facilement abordables dès lors qu’elles sont basées sur des marchés existants ou approchants (valeurs de marché ou préférences révélées) ; voir figure 1 cidessous. Figure 1: Overview of evaluation methods Value of Environmental Goods and Services

Market Price Avainlable

Efficient Price

No Market Price Available

Distorted Price

Revealed Preference

Shadow Price

Direct Proxy

No Proxy Available

Indirect Proxy

Reppplacement Costs RC

Productivity Loss PL

Travel Cost TC

Cost of Illness CI

Human Capital Cost HC

Hedonic Price HP

Substitute Price POS

Response Costs AMC

Wage Differential WD

Shadow Project SP

Aid Cost AC

Residual Value RV

Opportunity Cost OC

Cost Price CP

Implicit Value IV

Contingent Valuation CV Artifical Market AM

Source: Markandya et al. 2002

Avant de procéder à une évaluation, il est préalablement nécessaire de s’interroger sur l’existence ou non d’un marché même partiel pour le bénéfice non marchand considéré. Si c’est le cas, il faut utiliser ce marché comme référence pour dériver une valeur du bien non marchand. Par exemple, les prix des licences des clubs de randonnée peuvent être considérés comme une première approximation de la valeur minimale accordée à cette activité récréative en forêt. De telles valeurs sont généralement faciles à obtenir et aisément acceptées par les décideurs. Si un tel marché n’existe pas, des méthodes par approximation directe (« direct proxy ») sont disponibles. L’utilisation de ces méthodes et l’acceptation par le public des valeurs dérivées sont relativement aisées du fait que les évaluations de coûts sur lesquelles ces techniques reposent sont tangibles et observables. Les méthodes de révélation des préférences utilisent des approximations indirectes (« indirect proxy ») pour attribuer une valeur aux biens et services non marchands. La mise en œuvre de ces techniques et la diffusion des valeurs obtenues sont plus complexes et coûteuses. Il est donc important d’expliciter clairement la démarche suivie et les hypothèses posées lors de l’utilisation de ces techniques afin de rendre les valeurs obtenues plus acceptables. L’adoption d’une démarche systématique et claire peut contribuer à répondre à de telles difficultés.

98

Enfin, les méthodes de déclaration des préférences sont utilisées lorsqu’aucun marché approchant n’est disponible. Ces techniques sont souvent utilisées car se sont les seules capables d’appréhender les valeurs de non usages liées aux ressources naturelles. Pour conduire à des estimations robustes, valides et utilisables dans des transferts de bénéfices, la mise en oeuvre de ces méthodes doit suivre des recommandations théoriques et pratiques précises et systématiques et leur diffusion doit présenter de manière claire non seulement la technique d’évaluation, mais aussi l’environnement économique et naturel dans lequel s’est tenue l’évaluation. La deuxième étape du projet a donc consisté, sur la base des expériences d’évaluation en France et à travers la consolidation d’un réseau d’experts internationaux, à décrire et qualifier des protocoles pour la bonne mise en œuvre, diffusion et utilisation des valeurs obtenues grâce aux différentes méthodes d’évaluation. La synthèse ci-dessous présente les débats et conclusions qui résultent du workshop : « A Protocol and Database for the Environmental Valuation of French / European Forests » qui s’est tenu à Nancy en septembre 2006 à Nancy ; ainsi que des discussions dans le cadre du projet européen COST E45 (EUROFOREX). Les présentations liées au workshop « A Protocol and Database for the Environmental Valuation of French / European Forests » sont disponibles dans le document joint à ce rapport et sur le site Internet du Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière, à l’adresse suivante : http://lef.nancy-engref.inra.fr/workshop200609.php En outre, les discussions menées lors de cette rencontre ont conduit à la publication d’un numéro spécial du Journal of Forest Economics. Le sommaire de ce numéro est présenté en annexe, les articles en texte intégral sont disponibles à l’adresse suivante : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/11046899 Les sections suivantes présentent donc une synthèse des réflexions menées en partenariat avec des chercheurs Européens spécialistes de l’évaluation environnementale. Cette synthèse présente les protocoles de référence pour chaque type de méthode. Ces guidelines ont été définis à partir des recommandations propres à la mise en oeuvre de chaque méthode, en tenant compte des spécificités liées au milieu forestier et dans l’optique de permettre une application plus robuste de la méthode du transfert de bénéfices. La section I présente les recommandations pour la bonne mise en œuvre et utilisation des techniques d’évaluation « classiques ». La section II propose enfin de discuter des bonnes pratiques relatives au Transfert de Bénéfice.

99

I.

Quality factors for valuation studies (Söderqvist and Soutukorva, 2009)

The increasing demand for using environmental valuation results in a policy context implies that it becomes increasingly important that those results are reliable. Several studies have tried to define good practices guidelines for stated preferences methods (Mitchell and Carson 1989, Arrow et al 1993, Carson 2000, Bennett and Blamey 2001, Bateman et al. 2002, Hensher, Rose and Greene2005, Söderqvist and Soutukorva, 2009). All of them concluded that careful design and implementation of the study are crucial and consequently expensive! It appears from this literature that some points are key element in the construction of such a study irrespective of the valuation method when others are specific to the employed method. Söderqvist and Soutukorva (2009) propose a Quality Assessment Instrument (QAI) that aims at being based on objectively observable study characteristics as far as possible. The QAI is based on the identification of a number of quality factors, each of which is in turn made concrete by at least one check question to be answered by "yes", "no", "don't know" or by a piece of information about the study being assessed. Examples of these items are presented in the next two tables. A more comprehensive description of this instrument is available on the article Söderqvist and Soutukorva (2009) in the special issue of the Journal of Forest Economics. Table 1. Quality factors for all valuation studies irrespective of valuation method employed. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Earlier reviews Principal/funder Valuation method Sensitivity analyses related to results from statistical/econometric analyses 5. Are future values discounted? 6. Primary data or secondary data? 7. Data collection Source: Söderqvist and Soutukorva, 2009

Survey, population and sample The design of the data collection work Data collection method Non-response Survey instrument 8. Access to data 9. Validity test 10. Natural scientific/medical basis

Table 2. Quality factors for particular valuation methods employed.

100

The production function method 1. 2. 3.

Natural scientific basis Estimation of changes in producer surplus Modelling of the whole market including dynamic effects

The travel cost method 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Definition of site(s) Sampling strategies Model specification Calculation of travel costs Opportunity cost of time Multipurpose trips Selection of environmental quality variable

The property value method 1. 2. 3. 4.

Property values Property attributes Selection of environmental quality variable Choice and estimation of model

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Description of effects of the environmental change Information on the null alternative Winners or losers? Payment and delivery conditions Willingness to pay or willingness to accept compensation? 7. Valuation function 8. Test for hypothetical bias 9. Specific quality factors for the contingent valuation method 10. Specific quality factors for choice experiments The replacement cost method a 1. 2. 3.

The performance of the man-made system as a substitute The cost-effectiveness of the man-made system Willingness to pay for replacement costs?

The human capital method a

The defensive expenditure method

1. 2. 3.

1. 2.

Valuation based on the costs of realising political decisions a

Properties of the good Procedure for estimation of the economic value

Stated preferences methods 1.

1. 2.

Theoretical considerations Technological development To estimate the value of lost productivity

Cost-effectiveness Willingness to pay the costs?

Acceptance and understanding of the valuation scenario a These methods are less firmly rooted in welfare economics than the other methods, but are still included in the QAI because they are often used for environmental valuation. Source: Söderqvist and Soutukorva, 2009

It should be noted that some check questions in some cases cannot be answered because of missing pieces of information in journal articles and other types of publications characterized by tight space restrictions. In such a case, a fair quality assessment might require that additional information about the study has to be collected. The last step of QAI is to judge the overall quality of a valuation study. While the instrument was not designed for producing a simple grading of studies, there is still a need to come to some kind of conclusion. Söderqvist and Soutukorva (2009) propose to use the following main categories of overall judgements: (1) no serious shortcomings were found, (2) a more detailed quality assessment is required if the study is to be used in a policy context, and (3) the study has shortcomings that make it unsuitable to use in a policy context. These categories reflect a view that quality becomes really crucial when valuation results are used as a support to decision-making. This might be especially true in a situation where the valuation results hold the balance for what decision to make. While using the QAI and answering the check questions should indicate the quality of a valuation study, assessing quality is not an easy task. However, what might be the most important feature of the QAI is not to find a precise answer to a particular check question or to arrive at an unambiguous conclusion on overall quality, but that the QAI simply gives useful hints to an evaluator on what to look for in a study in order to get an idea of its quality. The QAI can also serve as a check list of issues that should be considered when designing new valuation studies.

101

II.

Benefit Transfer Ståle Navrud (Décembre 2006)

The main aims of this section are: 1. Present a protocol for benefit transfer of environmental values with clear steps to be used, and refer to existing protocols for valuation methods that can be used to assess the quality of primary environmental valuation studies (with special reference to environmental goods in forests) 2. Propose a parallel data base for complementary information and survey data storage that would facilitate transfers 3. Provide an overview of Forestry Environmental Valuation studies in EVRI, and existing Meta-analyses of studies valuing environmental goods in forests.

1. Introduction to benefit transfer Due to limited time and resources when decisions have to be made, new environmental valuation studies often cannot be performed, and decision makers must rely on transfer of economic estimates from previous studies (often termed study sites) of similar changes in environmental quality to value the environmental change at the policy site. This procedure is most often termed benefit transfer, but damage estimates can also be transferred and a more general term would be value transfer. However, the term benefit transfer seems to be dominating the literature in this area. In order to perform benefit transfer, we need a database of primary valuation studies and benefit transfer techniques. There are two main groups of benefit transfer techniques (Navrud 2004): 1. Unit Value Transfer i) Simple unit transfer ii) Unit Transfer with income adjustments 2. Function Transfer i) Benefit Function Transfer ii) Meta analysis

Simple unit transfer is the easiest approach to transferring benefit estimates from one site to another. This approach assumes that the wellbeing experienced by an average individual at the study site is the same as will be experienced by the average individual at the policy site. Thus, we can directly transfer the benefit estimate, often expressed as mean willingness-topay (WTP)/household/year, from the study site to the policy site. For the past few decades this procedure has routinely been used in the United States to estimate the recreational benefits associated with multipurpose reservoir developments and forest management (USDA Forest Service). The selection of these unit values could be based on estimates from only one or a few valuation studies considered to be close to the policy site (both geographically and in terms of the good valued), or based on an average WTP estimate from literature reviews of many studies (in terms of meta analysis). The obvious problem with this transfer of unit values for recreational activities is that individuals at the policy site may not value recreational activities the same as the average individual at the study sites. There are two principal reasons for this difference. First, people at the policy site might be different from individuals at the study sites in terms of income, education, religion, ethnic group or other socio-economic characteristics that affect their demand for recreation. Second, even if individuals´ preferences for recreation at the policy

102

and study sites were the same, the recreational opportunities (i.e., substitute sites and activities) might not be. Unit values for non-use values of e.g. ecosystems from CV studies might be even more difficult to transfer than recreational (use) values for at least two reasons. First, the unit of transfer is more difficult to define. While the obvious choice of unit for use values are consumer surplus (CS) per activity day, there is greater variability in reporting non-use values from CV surveys, both in terms of WTP for whom, and for what time period. WTP is reported both per household or per individual, and as a one-time payment, annually for a limited time period, annually for an indefinite time, or even monthly payments. Second, the WTP is reported for one or more specified discrete changes in environmental quality, and not on a marginal basis. The simple unit value transfer approach should not be used for transfer between countries with different income levels and costs of living. Therefore, unit transfer with income adjustments has been applied. The adjusted WTP estimate B p' at the policy site can be calculated as:

WTPp' = WTPS (Yp / YS ) β

(1)

where WTPs is the original WTP estimate from the study site, Ys and Yp are the income levels at the study and policy site, respectively, and ß is the income elasticity of demand for the environmental good in question. Income elasticity of WTP ß for different environmental goods are typically smaller than 1, and often in the 0.4 - 0.7 range. (Note that this is the income elasticity of WTP, and not of demand; and that there is no simple relationship between the two measures). When we lack data on the income levels of the affected populations at the policy and study sites, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita figures have been used as proxies for income in international benefit transfers. However, this approach could give wrong results in international benefit transfers when income levels at the local study and/or policy site deviates from the average income level in the countries. Using the official exchange rates to convert transferred estimates in U.S. dollars to the national currencies does not reflect the true purchasing power of currencies, since the official exchange rates reflect political and macroeconomic risk factors. If a currency is weak on the international market (partly because it is not fully convertible), people tend to buy domestically produced goods and services that are readily available locally. This enhances the purchasing powers of such currencies on local markets. To reflect the true underlying purchasing power of international currencies, the U.S. International Comparison Program (ICP) has developed measures of real GDP on an internationally comparable scale. The transformation factors are called Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs). Even if PPP adjusted GDP figures and exchange rates can be used to adjust for differences in income and cost of living in different countries, it will not be able to correct for differences in individual preferences, initial environmental quality, and cultural and institutional conditions between countries (or even within different parts of a country). Transferring the entire benefit function is conceptually more appealing than just transferring unit values because more information is effectively taken into account in the transfer. The benefit relationship to be transferred from the study site(s) to the policy site could be estimated using either revealed preference (RP) approaches like TC and HP methods or stated preferences (SP) approaches like the CV method and Choice Experiments (CE). For a CV study, the benefit function can be written as:

103

WTPij = b0 + b1G j + b2 H ij + e

(2)

where WTPij = the willingness-to-pay of household i at site j, Gj = the set of characteristics of the environmental good at site j, and Hij = the set of characteristics of household i at site j, and b0 , b1 and b2 are sets of parameters and e is the random error. To implement this approach the analyst would have to find a study in the existing literature with estimates of the constant b0 and the sets of parameters, b1 and b2. Then the analyst would have to collect data on the two groups of independent variables, G and H, at the policy site, insert them in equation (1), and calculate households´ WTP at the policy site. The main problem with the benefit function approach is due to the exclusion of relevant variables in the WTP (or bid) function estimated in a single study. When the estimation is based on observations from a single study of one or a small number of recreational sites or a particular change in environmental quality, a lack of variation in some of the independent variables usually prohibits inclusion of these variables. For domestic benefit transfers researchers tackle this problem by choosing the study site to be as similar as possible to the policy site. Instead of transferring the benefit function from one selected valuation study, results from several valuation studies could be combined in a meta-analysis to estimate one common benefit function. Meta-analysis has been used to synthesize research findings and improve the quality of literature reviews of valuation studies in order to come up with adjusted unit values. In a meta-analysis, several original studies are analysed as a group, where the result from each study is treated as a single observation in a regression analysis. If multiple results from each study are used, various meta-regression specifications can be used to account for such panel effects. The Meta-analysis allows us to evaluate the influence of a wider range in characteristics of the environmental good, the features of the samples used in each analysis (including characteristics of the population affected by the change in environmental quality), and the modelling assumptions. The resulting regression equations explaining variations in unit values can then be used together with data collected on the independent variables in the model that describes the policy site to construct an adjusted unit value. The regression from a metaanalysis would look similar to equation (2), but with one added independent variable; Cs representing characteristics of the study s (and the dependent variable would be WTPs = mean willingness-to-pay from study s).

2. Guidelines for benefit transfer There are few detailed guidelines on value transfer. In the US there exist guides that cover the key aspects of conducting a value transfer, notably Desvouges et al (1998) aimed at transfer for valuing environmental and health impacts of air pollution from electricity production. Adapted to the economic valuation of non-timber environmental goods of forests, I would propose the following eight steps guidelines: 1. Identify the change in the environmental good to be valued at policy site 2. Identify the affected population at the policy site 3. Conduct a literature review to identify relevant primary studies (based on a database) 4. Assessing the relevance and quality of study site values for transfer 5. Select and summarize the data available from the study site(s)

104

6. Transfer value estimate from study site(s) to policy site 7. Calculating total benefits or costs 8. Assessment of uncertainty and acceptable transfer errors

STEP 1 - Identify the change in the environmental good to be valued at policy site (i)

Type of environmental good

The Total Economic Value (TEV) of Non-timer goods in forests can be broadly classified in three groups: (i) Direct Use Value (i.e. recreational activities like walking, fishing, hunting; and non-timber commercial forest products (berries, mushrooms etc)) (ii) Indirect Use Values (i.e. ecosystem services of forests like biological diversity, climate regulation and carbon sequestration, watershed services (water quality and quantity), soil stabilisation and erosion control, aesthetic value of forest scenery) and Non-use Values (Existence and preservation/bequest values including historic/cultural heritage values of forests, and endangered species habitat). (ii) a)

Describe (expected) change in environmental quality

baseline level,

b) magnitude and direction of change (gain vs. loss; and prevention13 vs. restoration)

STEP 2 – Identify the affected population at the policy site Desvousges et al. (1998) use this as the last step in their Value transfer guide. However, it is important to identify the size of the affected population at the policy site before we review the valuation literature and evaluate the relevance of selected studies. The transferred value should come from the same type of affected individuals in terms of spatial scale. If we just want to establish the use value of some activity, the relevant, affected population is the recreationists. If we would like to estimate both use and non-use values, and the policy site is only of local importance (e.g. a small forest area with many substitutes regionally), we should use only the population of the municipality. If there are few substitutes for the sites at the regional level, the population in several communities, or even the county population, should be used. If the good is of national importance, e.g. a national park, or the single site of an endangered species in the country, the national population should be used. For use values, the number of individual recreationists should be estimated (before and after the change), while for non-use values (or use and non-use values combined) the number of households should be the unit of aggregation at the relevant geographical scale (community, regional/county or national level).

STEP 3 - Conduct a literature review to identify relevant primary studies The next step is to search databases like EVRI www.evri.ca, ENVALUE (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/envalue/StudyCnt.asp) or ValueBaseSWE (http://www.beijer.kva.se/valuebase.htm) to identify similar studies from the same country or other closely located countries. This recommendation is based on value transfer validity tests showing that studies closer spatially tend to have lower transfer errors. Studies closest in time should be selected for the same reason. However, one should note that this evidence is not conclusive. If there are no or only very few primary studies of the environmental good in 13

A distinction should be made between prevention (which preserves the original/undisturbed environmental good) and restoration. People have been found to put a higher value on keeping the original (i.e. prevention) than restoration.

105

question, or the valued change in the quality of the environmental good is outside the range considered at the policy site, the same databases and other bibliographies (e.g. the UK valuation studies list) should be searched for relevant studies. Meta-analyses (including also North American studies) could also be consulted, bearing in mind the limitations for value transfer of meta analyses with a broad scope (i.e. too large variation in definition of the environmental good). I am only aware of one meta-analysis of valuation studies of non-timber benefits of forests use, covering both non-use values. Lindhjem (2006) have constructed a spreadsheet database of all non-timber benefits valuation studies in Norway, Sweden and Finland, and used this to perform a meta-analysis. Two important conclusions emerged from this study: (1) WTP is found to be insensitive to the size of the forest, casting doubt on the use of simplified WTP/area measures for complex environmental goods; and (2) WTP tends to be higher if people are asked as individuals rather than on behalf of their household. For recreational use values of forests, results from North American meta-analyses of recreational activities (Rosenberger & Loomis 2000, Shrestha & Loomis 2003) and European studies (Bateman & Jones 2003, Zandersen and Tol 2005) can be used. Databases of valuation studies do not always have all the data needed for the relevance of the study site to be evaluated, and the full study report should be collected.

STEP 4 – Assessing the relevance and quality of study site values for transfer Here, the quality of the relevant valuation studies is assessed in terms of scientific soundness and richness of information. Desvousges et al. (1998) identify the following criteria for assessing the quality and relevance of candidate studies for transfer:

i) Scientific soundness - The transfer estimates are only as good as the methodology and assumptions employed in the original studies -

Sound data collection procedures (for Stated Preference surveys this means either personal interviews, or mail/internet surveys with high response rate (>50 %), and questionnaires based on results from focus groups and pre-tests to test wording and scenarios

-

Sound empirical methodology (i.e. large sample size; adhere to “best practice”guidelines guidelines for (see e.g. Bateman et al 2002 for a manual in Stated Preference studies, and Söderquist and Soutokorva 2006 for a guideline in assessing the quality of both revealed and stated preference primary valuation studies)

-

Consistency with scientific or economic theory (e.g. links exists between endpoints of dose-response functions and the unit used for valuation, statistical techniques employed should be sound; and CV, CR, CE, HP and TC functions should include variables predicted from economic theory to influence valuation)

ii) Relevance - the original studies should be similar and applicable to the “new” context -

Magnitude of change in environmental quality should be similar

-

Baseline level of environmental quality should be similar

-

Affected eco-system services and environmental goods should be similar

-

The affected sites should be similar when relevant (e.g. when assessing recreational values)

-

Duration and timing of the impact should be similar

-

Socio-economic characteristics of the affected population should be similar

106

-

Property rights, culture, institutional setting should be similar

iii) Richness in detail – the original studies should provide a detailed dataset and accompanying information -

Identify full specification of the original valuation equations, including precise definitions and units of measurements of all variables, as well as their mean values

-

Explanation of how substitutes (and complementary) goods were treated

-

Data on participation rates and extent of aggregation employed

-

Provision of standard errors and other statistical measures of dispersion

All three criteria and their components are equally important for assessing the relevance and quality of the study.

STEP 5 – Select and summarize the data available from the study site(s) Several parallel approaches should be applied, and the results from these should be used to present a range of values: -

Search the studies to provide low and high estimates, which can define a lower and upper bound for the transferred estimate, respectively. Collect data on the mean estimate and standard error, and specific spatial transfer errors if available (if not use the general transfer errors of + 25-40 % based on a review of studies testing the validity of benefit transfer). Consult relevant meta-analyses (e.g. Rosenberger et al 2001 for recreational activities, and Lindhjem 2006 for both use and non-use values) to see if the scope of these is narrow enough to provide relevant information about the estimate to be transferred. The scope could be too wide to produce reliable estimates if the meta-analysis consists of studies which vary a lot in terms of methodology, and the environmental good considered.

-

Compare the magnitude of the value from the meta-analyses, when methodological parameters in the meta-function is set according to the best practice guidelines and a context corresponding to the policy site. Methodological variables in metaanalyses (of CV studies) that reflect best practice guidelines include survey mode (preferable in-person interviews or mail surveys with high response rates), studies should be conducted after the NOAA Panel guidelines to CV (Arrow et al. 1993) (year of study often used as a proxy variable for quality in some meta-analyses), similar as possible in magnitude and direction of change, substitutes, characteristics of the population; and a realistic and fair payment vehicle (not voluntary contribution without a provision point mechanism, and not payment vehicles that create a large degree of protest behaviour).

STEP 6 – Transfer value estimate from study site(s) to policy site a) Determine the transfer unit The recommended units of transfer for use and non-use values are: i) use value: For recreation: Consumer surplus per activity day14 For ecosystem services: WTP/household/year 14

An activity day is defined as one individual performing recreation for a shorter or longer period during one day.

107

For recreation, consumer surplus per year (or per visit) per visitor could also be used, but then the average number of activity days (or visits) per year should be the same at the study and policy sites. For some ecosystem services, alternative estimates could be used, i.e. a unit cost per ton of carbon (with a sensitivity analysis) for carbon sequestration if this cost is based on abatement costs (in terms of market price of tradable permits for CO2) of modeled damages e.g. Richard Tol´s FUND –model). ii) non-use value: WTP/household/year15 The use of total WTP per ha ecosystem or landscape type assumes both the same size of the affected population and that the value pr. ha is constant. However, empirical evidence shows that WTP does not increase proportionally with the number of ha. of ecosystems or landscape types (for non-timber benefits of forests; see Lindhjem 2006). Since SP surveys clearly show that WTP per unit of area varies widely, I should caution against converting households´ stated mean WTP for a discrete change in environmental quality to marginal values like WTP pr km or ha per household. However, this unit is ”better” than total WTP per km or ha, because in the latter case one also has to assume similar population density at the policy and study sites.

b) Determine the transfer method for spatial transfer If the policy site is considered to be very close to the study sites in all respects, unit value transfer can be used. If we have got several equally suitable study sites to transfer from, they should all be evaluated and the transferred values calculated to from a value range. For unit transfers between countries, differences in currency, income and cost of living between countries can be corrected for by using Purchase Power Parity (PPP) corrected exchange rates; see e.g. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/56/1876133.xls. Within a country we could also use unit value transfer with an adjustment for differences in income level, and an income elasticity of WTP lower than 1. Function transfer can be used if value functions have sufficient explanatory power16 and contain variables for which data is readily available at the policy site. Most often the ”best” model is based on variables where new surveys have to be conducted at the policy site to collect data. Then one could just as well perform a full-blown primary valuation study. If models are constructed based on variables for which there exist data at the study site, they very often have low explanatory power. In general, WTP functions based on Stated Preference surveys (especially Contingent Valuation) have much lower explanatory power than functions based on Travel Cost (TC) and Hedonic Price (HP) studies. Thus, it could be more relevant to use function transfer transferring estimates from these Revealed Preference methods.17 If relevant meta-analyses are identified (see previous step), estimates from these could also be used in a comparison of several transfer methods. Sensitivity analysis could be performed to

15

Some studies of use and non-use values have asked for individual WTP. However, we view the household as the smallest “economic” unit for none-use values of environmental goods in forests. Multiplying individual WTP with the mean number of adults per household would tend to overestimate household WTP. Therefore, we have conservatively assumed that the reported individual WTP is equivalent to household WTP. 16 Roughly said to be having a higher adjusted R2 than 0.5, i.e. explaining more than 50 % of the variation in value 17 This does, however, not mean that we should concentrate on RP studies when we perform new primary studies, as only SP methods are capable of valuing non-use values and future changes in environmental quality.

108

see how much the transferred value estimate could vary. The constructed upper and lower values should be used to bound the transferred estimate. To conclude, unit value transfer is recommended as the simplest and most transparent way of transfer both within and between countries. This transfer method has in general also been found to be just as reliable as the more complex procedures of value function transfers and meta-analysis. This is mainly due to the low explanatory power of willingness-to-pay (WTP) functions of Stated Preference studies, and the fact that methodological choice, rather than the characteristics of the site and affected populations, has a large explanatory power in metaanalyses. Generally speaking, error bounds of + 25-40 % should be used if the study and policy sites are very similar (which we should strive for); see Navrud (2004). If there is less similarity between study and policy sites, error bounds of + 100 % should be used.

c) Determine the transfer method for temporal transfer The value estimate should be adjusted from the time of data collection to current currency using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the policy site country. If we transfer values from a study site outside the policy site country, we first convert to local currency in the year of datacollection; using PPP corrected exchange rates in the year of data collection, and then use the local CPI to update to current-currency values. However, environmental goods could also increase more or less in value than the goods the CPI is based on. However, there is no general rule for adjustments of preferences for environmental goods over time.

STEP 7 - Calculating total benefits or costs For non-use values, mean WTP/household/year is multiplied by the total number of affected households to derive the annual benefit or cost. If WTP at the study site is stated as annual WTP for e.g. 5 or 10 years, the total benefits or costs should be calculated as the Present Value (PV) over that same period. On the other hand, if WTP is stated as one-time amounts the amounts must be viewed as a present value (of all benefits from the environmental good in question). The general equation for calculation the present value of the benefits PV (B) is: T

Bt t t = 0 (1 + r )

PV ( B ) = ∑

Where Bt is the total benefits in year t, T is the time horizon (for the stated WTP amounts) and r is the social discount rate (r = 0.03 (3% p.a.) is the social discount rate currently used by the European Commission. Benefits and the discount rate are stated in real terms, i.e. 2006-euro and the discount rate is a real rate of return (i.e. corrected for inflation, and not a nominal rate). If the time horizon is not stated in the WTP question in SP surveys, we must assume that this is an annual payment over an infinite time horizon, i.e. t
∞ . In this case, and if the annual benefits Bt are the same each year, the precedent equation can be simplified to: P PV ( B ) =

Bt r

Annual benefits Bt are equal to aggregated WTP over the affected population (WTPtot), which can be calculated as: WTPtot = n × WTPi

109

Where n = number of affected households, and WTPi = mean Willingness–To–Pay for household i. Since WTP per household varies between different parts of the affected population (e.g. with distance from the site, whether users and/or non-users are considered etc.), the estimates from the study site(s) should be based on the same type of affected population as at the policy site. If this is not possible, distance decay in WTP (e.g. percentage reduction in WTP pr km increased distance from the environmental good) could be assumed, based on empirical evidence from relevant study sites (if such evidence does exist and suggests this). If we calculate use values, we just substitute households with individual recreationists in the equation above and use estimates for consumer surplus per activity day times the increase or decrease in number of activity days to calculate total use value of the project. For uses other than recreation, values are often elicited on a household basis, and the same procedure as for non-use values can be employed. When aggregating damages and costs of environmental goods, we also need to consider whether these goods are independent (meaning we can just add them up), or if they are substitutes or complementarities. In the first case we would overestimate aggregated damage or benefits, while in the latter case we would underestimate.

STEP 8 Assessment of uncertainty and acceptable transfer errors Validity tests of benefit transfer (Navrud 2004) indicate that the transferred economic estimates should be presented with error bounds of + 40 %. However, if the sites are very similar, or the primary study was designed with transfer to sites similar to the policy site in mind, an error bound of + 25 % could be used. If the study and policy sites are not quite close, unit transfer could still be used, but arguments for over- and underestimation in the transfer should be listed and the unit value should be presented with error bounds of + 100 % (based on the observed large variation in individual estimates observed in validity tests (Navrud 2004). When performing a Cost-benefit analysis of a new project or policy, the estimated PV of benefits (costs) should be compared with the corresponding PV of costs (benefits). The effect on total annual benefits (costs) due to an expected general transfer error of 25-40 % should be calculated in order to see if this reduces the PV of benefits (increases the costs) to a critical level, i.e. the PV of net benefits becomes negative (from positive). If this is so, the transfer errors are large enough to change the outcome of our CBA, and we should try to increase the accuracy of the transferred estimate (either by conducting a full primary study or calibrating the transferred value by conducting a small scale primary study). When there is a need for estimates of environmental goods for policy purposes, a CBA of conducting a new environmental valuation study should be performed in order to determine whether the costs of a new primary study is worth the benefits in terms of lower probability of making the wrong decision. These decision rules could be used as a rough test of whether value transfer has acceptable transfer errors.

110

References Arrow, K.J., R. Solow, E. Leamer, P. Portney, R. Radner and H. Schuman. 1993: Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601-4614 (January 15, 1993). Bateman, I. J., R. T. Carson, B. Day M. Hanemann et al. 2002: Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques. A Manual. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (UK) and Northampton, (MA, USA). Bateman, I.J. and A.P Jones. 2003: Contrasting conventional with multi-level modelling approaches to meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. Land Economics 79(2): 235-258. Bennett, J. and R. Blamey. 2001. The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing. Northampton, MA. pp. 269. Carson, R. 2000. Contingent valuation: A user's guide. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(4), 1413-1418. Desvousges, W.H, F. R. Johnson and H.S. Banzhaf. 1998: Environmental Policy Analysis with Limited Information.Principles and Applications of the Transfer Method. New Horizons in Environmental Economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., & Greene, W.H. 2005. Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 742 + xxiv pp. Lindhjem, H. 2006: Non-Timber Benefits from Fennoscandian Forests: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Forest Economics Issue 4. Mitchell R.C. and Richard T. Carson. 1989, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C. Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins University Press, 480 pp. Markandya, A., Patrice Harou, L. Bellu and V. Cistulli. 2002 Environmental Economics for Sustainable Growth—A Handbook for practitioners. Elgar, UK. 565 p. Navrud, S. 2004: Value transfer and environmental policy. Chapter 5 (pp. 189-217) in Tietenberg, T. and H. Folmer (eds.) 2004: The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 2004/2005. A survey of Current Issues. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA. Navrud, S., 2006. Database and benefit transfer protocol for forest environmental valuation. Final report for the project titled: A Protocol and Database for the Environmental Valuation of French/European Forests. Laboratoire d’Economie Forestières INRA AgroParisTech Engref. 27p. Rosenberger RS and Loomis JB. 2000. Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: In-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resources Research 36(4): 1097-1107. Shrestha RK and Loomis JB. 2003. Meta-Analytic Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Economic Values: Testing Out-of-Sample Convergent Validity. Environmental & Resource economics 25: 79-100. Söderqvist, T. and Å. Soutukorva. 2006: An Instrument for assessing the quality of environmental valuation studies. Report. Swedish Envioronmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket) http://www.naturvardsverket.se/bokhandeln/pdf/620-1252-5.pdf

111

Söderqvist T and Soutukorva A, 2009, On how to assess the quality of environmental valuation studies, Journal of Forest Economics vol 15/1-2. Zandersen, M and R. Tol. 2005: A Meta-analysis of Forest Recreation Values in Europe", Working Paper no. FNU-86, Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change.

112

Annexe à la partie 2

A Protocol and Database for the Environmental Valuation of French/European Forests

September 26-27, 2006. Laboratory of Forest Economics (LEF) UMR INRA/ENGREF Nancy 1. Program The French Laboratory of Forest Economics is co-ordinating a project18 on the creation of a protocol and the use of a database for the environmental valuation of French Forests in parallel with the same exercise which just started in July for Europe (Cost E-45). The goal of the program is to further the use of forest environmental valuation in the decision making process in France and in Europe. The overall objective of this project is to collect existing forest related environmental valuation studies and enter the estimated values into a data base following guiding protocols to ease value transfers. The project includes the following steps: •

Assemble the information through a literature review and the creation of a network of interested professionals; - Elaborate a protocol for each valuation method to be used as guide when entering the forest environmental valuations estimates in a data base and to prepare valuation estimates in the future; - Enter the valuation studies in the EVRI data base; - Organize for each study the data collected (survey, interviews, WTP raw data, etc…) in a complementary data base to be created; - Provide some useful information for data transfer from the study.

This opening workshop will take place in Nancy (France), on 26-27 September 2006. The aim of this first meeting is to initiate the experts consultation, to gather the existing studies in France, to benefit from the European experience in furthering the objective of the project and to synchronize the project with E-45. Further information on place and agenda details can be found on web site: http://lef.nancy-engref.inra.fr/ If you have any questions, please contact: Claire Montagné : [email protected]

18

This project is funded by the French Ministry of Environment and personally co-ordinated by Anne Stenger (LEF Director)

113

Program

26/09 Hôtel de Ville, Place Stanislas 17:00 18:00

18:20-18:40 18:40-19:00 19:00-19:20

19:20 20:00

Welcome at the Town Hall Roman-Amat Bernard Environmental Valuation of Nancy School of Forestry French Forests – Some Historical Director Examples Anne Stenger Opening: Aim of the Project Director LEF Lazdinis Marius EU Forestry Action Plan and European Commission Need of Environmental Valuation Larsson Tor-Bjorn, Ecological Assessment European Environment Framework, Indicators and Data Agency for European Forests Reception at the Town Hall Dinner “A la Table du Bon Roi Stanislas”, 7, rue Gustave Simon Nancy

27/09 Galerie Daubrée ENGREF, 14 rue Girardet 8:30 8:45-8:50 8:50-9:20 9:20-9:50 9:50-10:20

10:20-10:50 10:50-11:00 11:00-11:30 11:30-12:00

12:00-13:30 13:30-14:00 14:00-14:30 14:30-15:00 15:00-15:50 15:50-16:00 16:00-16:15 16:15-16:30

Coffee Moderator: Patrice Harou Stale Navrud Environmental Valuation – Contingent Valuation Marianne Zandersen Travel Cost François Bonnieux Introduction to Choice Experiment: Evidence From a Forest in Corsica Mattias Boman Issues in Valuation Coffee break Stale Navrud Benefit Transfer Protocol Roberto Leon Gonzalez Robust Benefit Function Transfer: A Bayesian Model Averaging Approach Lunch Bengt Kristrom State-of-the-art Valuation and Forestry Resources Marc-Antoine Kleinpeter EVRI: Internet Infobase on - Stale Navrud Environmental Valuation Pere Riera Cost E-45 EUROFOREX Participants’ Tour de Table- Forestry Valuations Coffee break Next steps in France and COST E-45 Stale Navrud Summary-Closure

114

2. List of Speakers Boman Mattias Southern Swedish Forest Research Center SLU Box49 SE 230 53 ALNARP SWEDEN +46 40 415 129 [email protected]

Leon Gonzalez Roberto University of Leicester Department of Economics LEICESTER LE1 7RH UNITED KINGDOM +44 116 252 3420 [email protected]

Bonnieux François INRA ESR Rennes. 4, allée Adolphe Bobierre. CS 61103. 35011 RENNES cedex FRANCE +33 2 23 48 53 83 [email protected]

Navrud Ståle Norwegian University of Life Sciences Department of Economics and Resources Management PO Box 5033 AAS NORWAY +47 64 96 57 04 [email protected]

Harou Patrice Laboratoire d'Economie Forestière UMR INRA ENGREF 14, rue Girardet CS 14216 54042 NANCY cedex FRANCE +33 3 83 39 68 68 [email protected]

Riera Pere Departament d'Economia Aplicada, Campus UAB, 08193 BELLATERRA SPAIN +34 93 581 2993 [email protected]

Kleinpeter Marc-Antoine Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Développement Durable Direction des Etudes Economiques et de l’Evaluation Environnementale 20, Avenue de Ségur 75302 PARIS 07SP FRANCE +33 1 42 19 25 22 [email protected] Kriström Bengt Department of Forest Economics SLU Umea 90183 UMEA SWEDEN +46 90 786 84 48 [email protected] Larsson Tor-Björn European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 DK 1050 COPENHAGEN DENMARK +45 33 36 71 20 [email protected]

Bernard ROMAN-AMAT Directeur délégué de l'ENGREF NANCY 14, rue Girardet CS 14216 54042 NANCY Cedex FRANCE +33 3 83 39 68 02 [email protected] Stenger Anne Laboratoire d'Economie Forestière UMR INRA ENGREF 14, rue Girardet CS 14216 54042 NANCY cedex FRANCE +33 3 83 39 68 63 [email protected] Zandersen Marianne Hamburg University Department of Wood Science Leuschnerstrasse 91 21031 HAMBURG GERMANY +49 40 73 962 323 [email protected]

Lazdinis Marius #8-157, L130 European Commission BRUSSELS, B-1049 BELGIUM +32 2 29 84 448 [email protected]

115

3. Workshop Conclusions L’atelier sur « A PROTOCOL and DATABASE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION OF FRENCH/EUROPEAN FORESTS », 26-27 septembre 2006 conclut en cinq points : 1. la nécessité de spécifier les protocoles des méthodes « préférences énoncées et préférences révélées ». Même si des revues existent sur le sujet, un bon point de départ est le guide suivi par les pays scandinaves (http://www.enveco.se/) 2. la nécessité de faire une vérification de qualité de l’étude au regard du protocole retenu en 1. 3. entrer les études dans la base de données de EVRI qui devient la base de référence pour les études en évaluation environnementale même si cette base n’est pas parfaite et doit être complémentée par des informations propres au secteur forestier telle que la bonne description des sites étudiés. Finalement, la construction d’une base de données contenant les « raw data » est nécessaire. 4. Le transfert doit être fait avec précaution en regroupant les données suivant le même bien à évaluer et la même méthode d’évaluation dans la mesure du possible. 5. Les actes pour être publiés doivent contenir les textes accompagnant les power points. Certains papiers seront choisis pour être publiés dans un numéro spécial du Journal of Forest Economics.

4. Numéro Special JFE Sommaire et résumés Le texte intégral de ces articles est disponible en ligne à l’adresse suivante: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/11046899

Editorial: Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests Anne Stenger, Patrice Harou, Ståle Navrud The purpose of this special issue of the Journal of Forest Economics is to illustrate the use and limitations of environmental valuation in decision making related to the management of forest resources in Europe. The contributions to this special issue are organized following the conclusions of a workshop on forest valuations in Europe in Nancy, France (September 26– 27, 2006). The aim is to (1) establish guidance protocols for forest valuation studies, (2) organize the estimated values in a database and (3) use the database for meta-analysis and value transfer. As these guidance protocols are firmly established and followed, and the frequency and quality of these studies increase, their increased use in the decision-making process should help the forestry sector in finding its just place in the sustainable development strategy for Europe.

Testing the stability of the benefit transfer function for discrete choice contingent valuation data D.I. Matthews, W.G. Hutchinson and R. Scarpa This paper examines the stability of the benefit transfer function across 42 recreational forests in the British Isles. A working definition of reliable function transfer is put forward, and a suitable statistical test is provided. A novel split sample method is used to test the sensitivity of the models’ log-likelihood values to the removal of contingent valuation (CV) responses collected at individual forest sites. We find that a stable function improves our measure of transfer reliability, but not by much. We conclude that, in empirical studies on transferability, considerations of function stability are secondary to the availability and quality of site attribute data. Modellers’ can study the advantages of transfer function stability vis-à-vis the value of additional information on recreation site attributes.

To pay or not to pay for biodiversity in forests – What scale determines responses to willingness to pay questions with uncertain response options? Mattias Boman In applied contingent valuation research, the so-called multiple-bounded dichotomous choice (MBDC) willingness to pay (WTP) question format allows respondents to express uncertainty about their valuations. Response data from such questions are typically treated as ordinal, since the response scale is based on rank-ordered verbal expressions. Their probabilistic nature in combination with a review of empirical survey results suggest, however, that WTP response data based on verbal expressions of uncertainty reflect an underlying unmeasured variable at the ratio scale level. The implications were empirically analysed using data from a recent contingent valuation study on forest land protection for biodiversity purposes. The verbal response categories to the MBDC (WTP) question were recoded as probabilities. The effects of different probability recodings were analysed when the distribution of uncertain WTP was assumed to be known. Taking uncertainty into account by means of the underlying probability of acceptance will make contingent valuation results more meaningful and transparent for both analysts and users.

A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe Marianne Zandersen and Richard S.J. Tol

117

This paper presents a meta-analysis of forest recreation in Europe based on studies that have applied the travel cost method covering 26 studies in nine countries since 1979. We conduct the meta-regression with an increasing number of variables where level I includes only data available from the studies, level II aggregate socio-economic variables and level III sitespecific characteristics such as diversity, fraction of open land and location. Data shows that consumer surplus varies between €0.66 per trip to €112 with a median of €4.52 per trip. Results of the model with the best overall summary indicate that the application of the individual travel cost method, inclusion of opportunity cost of time and average distance travelled lead to increasing benefits whereas the year of the study and estimations from theses and dissertations reduce welfare estimates. Including exogenous variables shows that site attributes, GDP per capita and population density play a significant role.

A bibliography and database on forest benefit valuation studies from Austria, France, Germany, and Switzerland – A possible base for a concerted European approach Peter Elsasser, Jürgen Meyerhoff, Claire Montagné and Anne Stenger This article briefly presents the structure and the content of a database on forest valuation studies in France and in the German-speaking countries (Austria, Germany, and Switzerland). This database already covers (at least most of) the existing studies in the mentioned countries (presently these are 45 studies from all four countries). The studies are characterised by 46 descriptors for the associated publications, the valuation object, details of the statistical and economic methods applied, the results of the valuation exercise, and some other features of study quality. We propose expanding this database in order to cover further countries, thus developing a comprehensive information base on forest values throughout Europe, and we invite researchers from other countries to contribute to this effort. The database is (and will remain) freely downloadable from the internet in order to ease the access to the existing information. Both decision-making and further research will profit from this information, especially with regard to benefit transfer and meta-analysis approaches.

Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: Evidence from two choice experiments in Germany Jürgen Meyerhoff, Ulf Liebeb and Volkmar Hartjea In this paper, we present the results from two choice experiments that were employed to measure the benefits from changed levels of biodiversity due to nature-oriented silviculture in Lower Saxony, Germany. We also discuss different variants of calculating welfare measures for forest management strategies. The variants differ, among other things, with respect to taking the alternative specific constant (ASC), indicating the status quo option, into account or not. While including the ASC results in our study in overall negative welfare measures, excluding it causes positive measures. However, both variants might be inappropriate because of an underestimation or an overestimation of the benefits. Avoiding an underestimation or an overestimation would require differentiation between respondents who demand compensation for a move away from the status quo, and respondents who would not suffer a loss but chose the status quo alternative because of choice task complexity, for instance.

On how to assess the quality of environmental valuation studies Tore Söderqvist and Åsa Soutukorva The increasing demand for using environmental valuation results in a policy context implies that it becomes increasingly important that those results are reliable. A few years ago, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency concluded that there is a need for tools that enable assessments of the quality of valuation studies and initiated the development of a quality

118

assessment instrument (QAI). The result was a QAI that aims at being based on objectively observable study characteristics as far as possible. The QAI is based on the identification of a number of quality factors, each of which is in turn made concrete by at least one check question to be answered by “yes”, “no”, “don’t know” or by a piece of information about the study being assessed. The paper presents the QAI by applying it to two Swedish valuation studies on forest issues. It also discusses some of the difficulties associated with quality assessments.

Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity Serge Garcia, Patrice Harou, Claire Montagné and Anne Stenger In this article, we use two formats of contingent valuation (CV) questions to elicit willingness to pay (WTP) for maintaining biodiversity in forests: the dichotomous choice (DC) or referendum format and the open-ended (OE) question. A large population of French households were surveyed nationwide by phone. The sample of respondents was later divided into two subsamples: people who have recreational activities in forests and those who do not. This dichotomy potentially biases WTP as the decision to have recreational activities in forests is endogenous. We estimate a Probit model with sample selection to correct this bias in the DC question. With the OE question, a second source of selection bias related to nonrandom censoring is present: some respondents are unwilling to pay. We use an extension of Heckman's approach to the double selection problem. The empirical application shows that ignoring these sample selection problems leads to biased estimates of mean WTP for biodiversity in a national survey for France.

119

Partie III

Mise à Disposition de l’Information : Environmental Valuation Reference InventoryMC (EVRI) et autres Bases de Données

Claire Montagné*†, Anne Stenger*† Peter Elsasser Bundesforschungsanstalt für Forst- und Holzwirtschaft Institut für Ökonomie Leuschnerstr. 91 21031 Hamburg Germany [email protected]

Jurgen Meyerhoff Technische Universitat Berlin EB 4-2, Strase des 17. Juni 145 10623 Berlin Germany [email protected]

Ståle Navrud Department of Economics and Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5033, 1432 Ås, Norway; [email protected]

Cost E45 participants

* †

INRA, UMR 356 Économie Forestière, F-54000 Nancy, France Agroparistech, Engref, Laboratoire d’économie forestière, F-54000 Nancy, France

120

Partie III : Mise à Disposition de l’Information : Environmental Valuation Reference InventoryMC (EVRI) et autres Bases de Données Introduction: principes environnementales

et

objectifs

des

bases

de

données

d’évaluations

Aujourd’hui il est primordial d’identifier et collecter les études d’évaluation existantes pour deux raisons principalement (Elsasser et al, 2009) : -

D’abord, la demande pour les services non bois est de plus en plus importante, et ces services entrent de plus en plus en compte dans les préférences des consommateurs (Mill et al. 2007). Cependant le caractère non marchand de ces biens et services conduit à des problèmes d’allocation (sur-utilisation, sous-production) ainsi que des problèmes de redistribution des richesses engendrées. Une information sur les estimations monétaires des valeurs en jeu peut aider à contourner ces défaillances du marché et contribuer à offrir de nouvelles opportunités de revenu pour les propriétaires (Katila et Puustjarvi 2004).

-

De plus, ces informations liées aux valeurs environnementales d’une manière générale éclairent la mise en œuvre des politiques incitatives et des instruments de politique publique notamment.

Ainsi, que l’on souhaite mener une étude originale ou mettre en œuvre un transfert de bénéfice, la disponibilité des études existantes et une information détaillée sur les contextes et méthodes de leur mise en œuvre est un prérequis indispensable. L’accessibilité à ces études pose souvent problème : -

La plupart des études existantes sont des exercices académiques (thèses, articles scientifiques) ou des rapports qu’il n’est pas toujours aisé de se procurer.

-

Si les études sont accessibles, les caractéristiques pertinentes de leur mise en oeuvre ne sont pas toujours mentionnées ou dispersées entre plusieurs publications.

-

La barrière de la langue peut aussi constituer un obstacle à l’utilisation d’études conduites dans d’autres pays européens

Une base de données bibliographique sur les évaluations environnementales résumant les informations pertinentes des études existantes peut contribuer à surmonter ces obstacles.Une telle base de données est un outil destiné à proposer une vue complète de études au niveau international, et à appuyer les chercheurs, les décideurs et les politiques qui souhaitent recourir au transfert de bénéfice. Dans le cadre de ce projet, deux démarches complémentaires ont étés entreprises quant à l’accessibilité des études françaises d’évaluations des biens non marchands de la forêt : -

d’une part, les études françaises recensées dans la partie I de ce rapport ont été entrées dans la base de données générale sur l’évaluation économique de l’environnement : EVRI.

-

D’autre part, à la suite du workshop qui s’est tenu à Nancy en Septembre 2006 et en collaboration avec l’action COST E45, un réseau d’experts internationaux s’est constitué pour construire une base de données européenne spécifique à la forêt.

Dans cette partie, nous présentons brièvement les bases de données existantes (I) et soulignons l’intérêt de construire une base de donnée spécifique à l’évaluation des biens, services et dommages environnementaux liés à la forêt (II).

121

I.

Existing databases of environmental valuation (S. Navrud 2006)

Several international valuation databases already provide information and data about primary environmental valuation studies (McComb et al., 2006). Among the most famous are: Name

Website

Purpose of the database

EVRI – Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory ENVALUE – Environmental Valuation database RED – Review of Externality Data

http://www.evri.ca/

To help policy analysts using the benefits transfer approach to estimate economic values for changes in environmental goods and services or human health

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/envalue/

To help stakeholders value changes in environmental quality

http://www.red-externalities.net/

To assist policy makers in capturing the effects of externalities from new policies that have sustainable development as their core concern To provide a data and analysis portal to assist the informed estimation of the economic value of ecosystem services

ESD – Ecosystem www.esd.uvm.edu Services Database Source: McComb, 2006

Such databases, gathering most of the high quality valuation exercises in the world, will facilitate the researcher’s choice of an appropriate set of primary studies matching with the context of the current program or policy. Databases generally propose various classifications of the studies, for example according to the related ecosystem, the good or service valued, the country or the method used. For each study are available at least: the full reference and a summary including a description and the main results of the valuation exercise. Several databases also contain information and guidelines about valuation methods and approaches that may assist the design of new valuation studies or the quality assessment of existing valuation studies. In the long run, such databases will allow to illustrate the gaps in the body of valuation research with respect to environmental goods and services and different parts of the world. With more than 1800 in 2007, the EVRI is probably the most important and recognised internet InfoBase of valuation studies on the environment. The EVRI is developed by Environment Canada as a tool to help analysts using the benefits transfer approach to estimate values for government policies since mid-1990s. The “EVRI Club” includes: the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and France. It aims essentially to maintain and expand the EVRI database, to promote the use of environmental valuation within members countries and to provide access to EVRI for member country citizens. Information and data are input to EVRI records, which are searchable summaries of valuation studies. A capturing module allows studies to be entered into the database via the Internet where project staff review and edit them for quality. During the 1990s, the categories and subcategories or fields in these records were subjected to an extensive peer review process with leading valuation experts in North America. The result is information organized so the analyst can easily identify pertinent results for a benefits transfer. The main categories in an EVRI record include: study reference, study area and population, environmental focus, study methods, a table of values and an abstract. These items are detailed in annex to Partie III. To search for studies in EVRI, two ways are possible:

122

-

a text search similar to many on the Internet, or

-

a searching protocol that allows users to choose options under various categories of the record.

To assist users with benefits transfer, a bibliography of methodology studies on the topic is included at the website, with some studies available for download. The EVRI Search Protocol does not include a clearly defined “forest” search category. The search category “Land general” does not contain “forests” as an option, and broader categories like “open areas” or “landscape produce a large number of studies not relevant for benefit transfer in forests. However, the search category “Plants” contains both options “trees” and “woodlands” which give 149 and 107 hits, respectively (Navrud, 2006). Using controlled General Environmental Asset terms “rainforest” or “trees” or “woodland”, 213 studies are pulled up, but not all are primary studies (Kleinpeter, 2006). These records can be broken down by various items: -

Type of study: primary: analysis/synthesis:11.

158,

secondary/benefit

transfer:

45,

meta

-

Geographic area: North America: 88, Europe: 85, Asia: 38, Africa: 10, South America: 8.

-

Type of environmental good or service valued: non extractive uses: 139, extractive uses: 82, passive uses:82, ecological functions: 79, human health: 16.

-

Environmental stressors: infrastructure development/habitat conservation: 41, resource extraction:40.

-

Valuation technique: CVM: 130, TCM: 42, Actual expenditure/market price: 29, Combined revealed and stated preferences: 9, HPM: 6, contingent ranking: 4.

There are relatively few meta-analyses of non-timber benefits studies, and most of them are on recreational use values, and contains mostly TC studies19. Rosenberger and Loomis (2001) and Shrestha and Loomis (2003) analyze US studies, Bateman and Jones (2003 consider UK studies, and Zandersen and Tol (2005) analyse 25 studies in 9 countries. Scarpa et al (2006), however, test the validity of transferring WTP values from similar CV studies in 26 recreational forests in Ireland (by conducting benefit function transfer from a meta analysis of 25 forests to predict WTP in the 26th forest, and comparing it to the original CV result). To my knowledge, Lindhjem (2006) is the only meta analysis which considers both use and nonuse values of forests, and also contains the growing number of SP studies Contingent Valuation, Contingent Ranking and Choice Experiments). Lindhjem op. cit considers valuation studies in Norway, Sweden and Finland only. The EVRI database contains 60 French valuation studies (all fields or methods). In 2007, only 3 of the 19 reviewed French forest valuation studies (Partie I of this report) were captured in the EVRI database (Amigues et al. 2002; Le Goffe 2000; Scherrer 2002). This is now being done to capture all French Forest valuation studies in EVRI. The procedure for the integration of French forest valuation studies in the EVRI database may be summarised according to 4 main steps: 19

Hedonic Price (HP) studies of forests also consider mainly use values in terms of recreational use and landscape aesthethic value; see e.g. Tyrväinen and Miettinen (2000) and Birr-Pedersen (2006) , but no metaanalysis of the few esisting HP studies on forest has been conducted.

123

-

Produce a list of candidate studies to be entered in the EVRI web-based database

-

Realise a quality assessment of these candidate studies according to existing guidelines for environmental valuation (Arrow et al., 1993; Soderqvist et al., 2006; Navrud, 2006; Kriström, 2006, etc.)

-

Ask for the agreement of Environmental Canada

-

And capture the new studies that pass the quality check in EVRI

Such a same experience is conducted in Nordic countries. In this way, we would have all studies available in a web-based and updated database for valuation studies in general, and at the same time have the data for all forest environmental valuation studies available in one spreadsheet database. II.

Why an open source database specifically focused on European forestry valuation studies ?

For various reasons, an open source database specifically focused on European forestry valuation studies seems necessary (Elsasser et al, 2009): -

Most of the international databases concentrate on sources in English language; that is, other languages (and hence, studies from the respective countries) are widely neglected.

-

Many databases are more or less outdated (Envalue for example, which is the biggest freely accessible source, and the second biggest of all databases mentioned in the survey by McComb et al. 2006, barely contains studies conducted after 1990s, its last update dating from April 2004).

-

The most comprehensive database by far, the Canadian EVRI, is generally not accessible to researchers in most European countries (with the exception of the United Kingdom and France).

-

Moreover, forests are rather marginally addressed by many of the databases (again using EVRI as an example, an indication of this is that the EVRI search protocol does not even include a clearly defined search category for forests).

-

And lastly, many of the databases contain only limited information with regard to methodological details of the included studies.

The database constructed in the context of this project, in coordination with the COST action E45 intends to surmount such obstacles with regard to the valuation of forest externalities. Its goals are (Elsasser et al. 2009): -

to ease the access to the existing valuation studies, focussing specifically on environmental values of European forests (initially: from the German and French language area);

-

to facilitate the exchange between environmental valuation researchers within our countries and abroad;

-

to compile quality-relevant details of the individual studies in a systematic manner; and thus

-

to increase the awareness about methodological qualities of valuation studies.

The idea is to expand this database in order to cover further countries, thus developing a comprehensive information base on forest values throughout Europe.

124

The database is written in English; it is (and will remain) freely downloadable from the internet in order to ease the access to the existing information. The database contains for each study some 46 descriptors, structured as follows: 1. Contributor 2. Data Set Descriptors 3. Publication descriptors 4. Valuation object descriptors 5. Sample descriptors 6. Valuation method descriptors 7. Study results The extend list of descriptors is available in the annex of this partie III. In October 2008 the Cost E45 database task group met in Nancy tied to a workshop on metaanalysis organised by Nancy University20. The main aims of this workshop were: -

Topic 1: proceed with work on software and descriptors

-

Topic 2: Present database during a special session of the meta-analysis workshop and ask again experts for comments.

A list of participants and the main results and next steps of this workshop are available in annex of Partie III.

20

“International Workshop on Meta-Analysis in Economics and Business” Nancy University 16-18 October 2008

125

References Amigues, J-P, C. Boulatoff (Broadhead), B. Desaigues C. Gauthier and J.E. Keith. 2002 "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach." Ecological Economics, 43:17-31. Arrow, Kenneth, Robert Solow, Paul R. Portney, Edward E. Leamer, Roy Radner, and Howard Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 58(10):4602-14. Bateman, I.J. and A.P Jones. 2003: Contrasting conventional with multi-level modelling approaches to meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. Land Economics 79(2): 235-258. Birr-Pedersen, K. 2006: Measurement and benefit transfer of amenity values from afforestation projects – A spatial economic valuation approach using GIS technology. National Environmental Resarch Institute, Denmark. Ph.D. Thesis. Elsasser P, Meyerhoff, J, Montagné C, Stenger A. 2009. A Bibliography and database on forest valuation studies from Austria, France, Germany and Switzerland: A possible base for a concerted European approach. Journal of Forest Economics Special Issue Vol 15/1-2. Katila M, Puustjärvi E 2004 Markets for forest environmental services: reality and potential. Unasylva 219(55):53–59 Kleinpeter M. 2006, EVRI: Internet Infobase on Environmental Valuation Presentation by : Marc-Antoine Kleinpeter Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable D4E, workshop : A Protocol and Database for the Environmental Valuation of French/European Forests Nancy. 26-27sept2006. Kriström B, 2006 State-of-the-art Valuation and Forestry Resources Presentation by : Bengt Kriström Department of Forest Economics, SLU-Umea Sweden workshop : A Protocol and Database for the Environmental Valuation of French/European Forests Nancy. 2627sept2006. Le Goffe Ph. 2000. Hedonic pricing of agriculture and forestry externalities Environmental and resource economics 15 pp. 397-401 Lindhjem, H. 2006: Non-Timber Benefits from Fennoscandian Forests: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Forest Economics Issue 4. McComb G, Lantz V, Nash K, Rittmaster R 2006 International value databases: Overview, methods and operational issues. Ecological Economics 60:461–472 Mill, G.A., van Rensburg, T.M., Hynes, S., Dooley, C., 2007. Preferences for multiple-use forest management in Ireland : Citizen and consumer perspectives. Ecological Economics 60(3), 642-653. Navrud, S., 2006. Database and benefit transfer protocol for forest environmental valuation. Final report for the project titled: A Protocol and Database for the Environmental Valuation of French/European Forests. Laboratoire d’Economie Forestières INRA AgroParisTech Engref. 27p. Rosenberger RS & Loomis JB 2000 Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: In-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resources Research 36(4): 1097-1107.

126

Scarpa, S., W.G. Hutchinson, S. Chilton; and J. Buongiorno. 2006: Benefit value transfers conditional on site attributes: some evidence of reliability from forest recreation in Ireland. Chapter 10 in Navrud, S and R. Ready (eds.) 2006: Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods. Springer (Kluwer Publishers), Dordrect, The Netherlands. Scherrer S. 2002 Les pertes d'usage récréatif du patrimoine forestier après les tempêtes de 1999: le cas de la forêt de Fontainebleau. Economie et statistique 357-358. pp. 153-172. Shrestha RK and Loomis JB. 2003. Meta-Analytic Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Economic Values: Testing Out-of-Sample Convergent Validity. Environmental & Resource economics 25: 79-100. Söderqvist, T. and Å. Soutukorva. 2006: An Instrument for assessing the quality of environmental valuation studies. Report. Swedish Envioronmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket) http://www.naturvardsverket.se/bokhandeln/pdf/620-1252-5.pdf Tyrväinen, L. and A. Miettinen. 2000: Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39, 205-223. Zandersen, M and R. Tol. 2005: A Meta-analysis of Forest Recreation Values in Europe", Working Paper no. FNU-86, Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change.

127

Annexes à la partie 3 EVRI Database Studies Descriptors 1.0. Study reference EVRI Ref. Number: Date of update and Original capture: Document Type: − Book − Chapter in book − Conference paper − Dissertation thesis − Journal − Magazine article − Report (government/ non-government) − Working paper Authors: Title: Source of Study (=reference de publication) Date of Reference: (= mois et année de publication) Study Link: Library Code (référence EVRI pour le gouvernement canadien) Record's Status: (= référence approuvée par le staff EVRI)

2.0. Study Area and Human Population Characteristics Country − Afrique − Asie − Europe − Amérique du sud − Amérique du nord Country's state of development: Lower Middle Income, Lower Income, High Income, Upper Middle Income State/Province: Location: Availability of Substitutes and Substitute Sites: Study Population Characteristics: Demographic information may be found in the following categories: - Income - Education - Household Size - Age/sex distribution - Employment and/or occupations profile - Population of cities, towns - Unemployment rate - Employment and/or occupations profile - Population density

3.0. Environmental focus of the study Animals:

Air general: Global Local Regional Land general:

Man made environment/ infrastructure:

Water general:

Beach Landscape Open space Preservation of agricultural land Soil Surface mining reclamation Wetlands/constructed wetlands Buildings Cultural monuments Food control/dams Other assets Weather information Canal Drinking water Estuaries Fresh water Ground water Salt water

Plants:

Birds Endangered species Fish Invertebrates mammals Heather Crops Rainforest Riparian Trees Woodland

Micro-organisms: Bacteria Fungi Viruses Human: Human capital Human health

128

4.0. General Environmental Asset (menu déroulant – plusieurs choix possibles) General Type of Environmental Goods and Services Valued:Built environment − ecological functions, − extractive uses, − human health − non extractive uses, − passive uses Specific Environmental Goods and Services and Environmental Asset Extent of Environmental Change: Environmental Stressor: − Bioaccumulative Substance − Biotechnology Organisms − Congestion/Crowding − Climate Change − Noise − Infrastructure Development/Habitat Conversion − Non-toxic Substance − Predominantly Anthropogenic Substance − Persistent Substance − Resource Extraction − Solid Waste − Toxic Substance Specific Environmental Stressor:Source of Stressor: − Accidental − Effluent − Emission − Land—Controlled − Land—Uncontrolled − Mobile − Stationary − Transboundary 5.0. Study methods Type of Study − Primary − Secondary/benefit transfers − Meta/synthesis analysis Survey/Study Information: Available Study Information: − Risk Assessment (Dose-response Relationships) − Maps/pictures − Code Book or Code Documentation − Scenario Descriptions/classification Schemes − Questionnaire or List of Questions Used − Data Sets − Tables Year of Data: Economic Measure: − Compensating Surplus − Compensating Variation − Consumers Surplus

− Cost of Injury/Replacement − Equivalent Surplus − Equivalent Variation − Willingness to Accept − Willingness to Pay − Other Valuation Technique: − Count data models − Choice experiment − Actual expenditure/market price of output − Averting behaviour (preventing defensive) − Change in productivity − Combined revealed and stated preferences − Conjoint analysis − Contingent ranking − Contingent valuation dichotomous choice − Contingent valuation iterative bidding − Contingent valuation open ended − Contingent valuation payment card − Demand analysis − Experimental cash market value − Hedonic property − Hedonic wage − Replacement costs − Travel cost method multi site – regional – hedonic − Travel cost method RUM − Travel cost method single site Valuation Equation/Function information 6.0. Estimated values Estimated (Service Flow) Values: − mean − median − range − standard errors − $/day − $/visit − $/trip − $/participant − $/unit of land − $/unit catch − $/unit output − $/emergency room visit − $/mortality Discount Rate: 7.0. Abstact and alternative languages summaries

Forest database Studies Descriptors (Elsasser et al 2009; Cost E 45) 1. Study descriptors study/data set Short descriptor of data set (not identical with publication, since one publication may have addressed several different target populations and/or different goods, or it may have applied different methods) study qualification Academic theses at undergraduate level (diploma) or at graduate level (PhD), or other research projects. Diploma theses typically are not thoroughly reviewed and are often not publicly available; PhD theses must be published and are reviewed by at least two senior researchers which normally must be university professors or people with a “Habilitation” (venia legendi). study funding Studies may be funded by independent organisations (labelled as “research grant”) or commissioned by administrations, or not funded at all (i.e. financed by an institute’s or an individual researcher’s own resources). Administrations may try to influence study results to some degree, but this need not necessarily be the case. 2. Publication descriptors authors, year, title, details Since a data set may be analysed in several different publications, these entries apply to the “main source”, i.e. typically the publication which contains the most comprehensive description of the data set. This is sometimes grey or unpublished literature. Most entries in the data base refer to the main source, but this may be supplemented by data from “related publications”. In cases where the main source was not available, entries are only based at “related publications”. (Keep in mind that details may occasionally differ between sources). related publications Other publications which relate to the same data set (often methodological analyses about specific problems, or shorter summaries). These entries may often not be complete since it is not easy to trace every publication. Again, keep in mind that details may occasionally differ between sources. type Refers to main source. language First entry refers to main source; if (related) publications exist in other language, this is noted as a second entry. review If any of the publications related to the data set have been formally reviewed (as a journal peer review or as a PhD review), this is noted here. Keep in mind that only some of the publications related to the data set may have been reviewed, others not. (A review typically encourages researchers to stick to some technical rules, but it is no guarantee for quality. Inversely, the lack of a review needs not necessarily indicate lower precision). 3. Valuation object descriptors land use form In part I, forest or a mix of land use forms which include forestry. service valued A short label for the service (or good) valued, as typically defined in the texts of publications. object valued A more concrete description of what has been valued in the study. This is mainly based on the description of the good in the questionnaire. If this description has been vague, you will find a vague entry here, too. (In some cases, “service valued” and “object valued” do not completely correspond. Keep in mind that here is some level of interpretation here. We might have interpreted the questionnaire differently from the authors of the original studies – and there might have been a third interpretation by the survey respondents). scope Local, regional (i.e. including several study sites, or addressing a larger area), or nationwide. region, country Localisation of the valued good or service. 4. Statistical method descriptors primary/secondary

Primary studies are based on separately collected data, secondary studies on previously existing data. Some studies used a combination of primary and secondary data. target population Population which has been sampled. sampling type This is often not well described in the studies. For example, samples chosen by commercial survey institutes are often described as “random” even if the institutes applied some kind of systematic or quota sampling. Therefore these entries are rather rough. data collection mode Again, this is not always well described in the studies; on the other hand, the details of the sampling procedures actually applied may sometimes be too complicated to be aggregated in this data base. Hence these are again rather rough indicators. It is highly recommended to consult the original studies on this. gross sample size Total number of elements of the target population which have been attempted to include in the sample (i.e. before any sample losses, e.g. due to interview refusals), but except of sample neutral losses. Not reported in many cases. net sample size Number of elements of the target population which are actually included in the sample (i.e. after sample losses e.g. due to interview refusals). utilisable for valuation Number of elements of the target population for which usable valuation data exist (i.e. after losses e.g. due to question specific refusals). data collection dates Year and months of data collection. survey method Mostly face-to-face, mail, telephone, or a combination of these. 5. Valuation method descriptors method Short descriptor for the applied valuation approach (BT: Benefit Transfer [including benefit function transfer]; CBM: Contingent Behaviour Method; CE: Choice Experiment [or Contingent Choice]; CVM: Contingent Valuation Method; TCM: Travel Cost Method). Concerning the TCM, there is sometimes a confusion between the welfare theoretic approach (i.e. estimating consumer surplus as the area below the demand curve by using travel cost data) and a cost-based approach (i.e. interpreting travel costs as some indicator of “value”). This is indicated under “specification” and “measure”. reference method Alternative method of value estimation (if any). Same abbreviations as above. specification Specification of the valuation method. For the TCM this is either “zonal” or “individual”. For stated preference methods, an indication is given what kind of estimate is given under “results” (e.g., mean estimates, mean estimates based on regression analysis, weighted means). measure Abbreviations: CS (Consumer Surplus); WTA (Willingness To Accept); WTP (Willingness To Pay; different Hicksian measures not distinguished); ‘WTP to avoid’ (WTP to avoid a proposed environmental change). payment vehicle Method by which the payment for the valued commodity would take place in the hypothetical market. For revealed preference methods, this does not apply (marked as ‘–‘). elicitation method Stated preference methods: Dichotomous Choice (DC) is used as a generic term, including variants of this approach (e.g. double/triple bounded DC). The term PC (Payment Card) approach is used with various meanings in the literature. Here it refers to a separate card (most of the respective studies used a variant of a card with some graphical elements at the centre and bid proposals arranged around which has been developed and tested to avoid anchoring biases; see ELSASSER

131

1996:65ff.). Other lists of proposed bits which were part of the questionnaire are labelled “choice between xy bids”. Additionally it is indicated whether answers are analysed with DC techniques or as open-ended responses. Revealed preference methods: it is indicated whether travel costs do or do not include time costs (or both, in different calculation variants). zeros/protests (Does not apply to revealed preference methods). Respondents stating a zero WTP either may have a genuine zero WTP or may have refused the valuation question. If a study has tried to distinguish these by additional questions (and accordingly by different treatment in the analysis), this is labelled as “distinguished”. Exclusion of all zeros likely biases results upwards; the other way round, accepting all dubitable zeros likely biases results downwards. If authors analysed the relation between WTP and attitudes towards protest motives this is labelled as “analysed”. Their results suggest that the average true WTP of people stating a “protest zero bid” might be higher than zero, but indeed lower than the full sample’s WTP. This additionally backs the arguments against an exclusion. regression Indicates whether results have been analysed by regression techniques, and type of regression approach used. validity experiments Number of separate experiments to test for validity of results associated with the data set. sensitivity analysis Indicates whether and which different calculations were conducted in order to reveal influence of necessary assumptions. focus group A preceding small study in order to develop questionnaire; may range from very informal to very elaborate. Often not reported or not fully described in studies. pilot A preceding small study in order to test whether questionnaire design works under field conditions. questionnaire available Indicates whether questionnaire is printed in publication or at least available from authors. valuation question disclosed Indicates whether the valuation question (as part of the questionnaire) is printed in the publication. (It is not possible to interpret stated preferences without knowledge of the valuation question). 6. Results mean Average CS/WTP. dispersion measure, dispersion value CI: Confidence Intervals (95%, if not otherwise noted); CV: Coefficient of Variation (in % of the mean); SD: Standard Deviation of the mean. (It is not possible to interpret statistical reliability without any of these values). aggregated result Mean estimates aggregated to whole population (if aggregated to hectares, this is indicated). data available Indicates whether data are available for further analyses. remarks Other observations characterising the study which did not fit the preceding inventory scheme (necessarily more subjective in some cases).

132

Conclusions of 16-18 October Meeting

Protocol of the third E45 Task Group meeting for the development of a database of environmental forest valuation studies in Europe Nancy, 16. -18. October 2008 Participants: Anna Bartczak (AB – PL) Patrice Harou (PH – F) Jette Bredahl Jacobsen (JBJ – DK) Tzipi Eshet (TE – IL) Henrik Lindhjem (HL – NO) Robert Mavsar (RM – SI) Jürgen Meyerhoff (JM – DE) Anne Stenger (AS – F) Objective Main objectives of the E45 Task Group meeting in Nancy were(i) to test the first version of the database software (EnValBase), and (ii) to present the structure and software to experts on benefits transfer and meta analysis during a special session at the “International Workshop on Meta-Analysis in Economics and Business”, Nancy-University. Activities and results Thursday 16 and Friday 17 October 1) RM presented the first version of the database software. To test and demonstrate the functioning of the database software, various valuation studies (covering a range of valuation methods) were entered into the database. Additional purposes were to gain experience on entering data, , to test whether the current data descriptors are defined precisely enough. The entered data was also used for the demonstration of the data base structure and functioning at the special session (see 4). 2) The data descriptors were revised, since the comments received at the E45 meeting in Cork, September 2008, had revealed some possible weaknesses (e.g. too many descriptors were defined as mandatory, what could hinder the data entry). 3) The final version of the presentation for the special session at the “International Workshop on Meta-Analysis in Economics and Business” was prepared, i.e., adding questions to the experts on critical issues of the database and its use for benefit transfer and meta-analysis. Saturday 18 October 4) The special session “European Database of Valuation Studies” took place. Two experts in the field of benefit transfer and meta-analysis, namely Robert J. Johnston (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut) and Randal Rosenberger (Forest Resources, Corvallis) joint the special session. At the session JM introduced objectives and main characteristics of the E45 database project, while RM presented the database software, showing the various modules of the database. During the presentation the modules were commented and discussed (i.e. whether sufficient descriptors are specified to capture the information needed for benefit transfer and meta-analysis; whether they are placed into right modules, etc). The main conclusion of the session were that more “free text” fields should be added, in order to gather more detailed information about the valuation studies , and that the module for the choice experiments should be further developed. Finally, the experts observed that the database name – EnValBase – might cause confusion, due to the similarity with an Australian Database on environmental valuation studies. 5) After the special session the data base group met in order to revise the comments made by the experts and to decide how to proceed. Based on the discussion, the following tasks were adopted:

133

• •

• •

JBJ will prepare a list with the comments made by the experts during the special session and will disseminate this list to the other group members. RM will provide the group with screen shots and a complete descriptor list, which should be revised as follows: o JBJ => Valuation object details o JBJ => Sample description o AB => Contingent Valuation Module o JM => Choice Experiment Module o TE => Hedonic Pricing o AB => Travel Cost Method RM will provide to the group members a software package for the installation of the current version of the software on local PCs. JM will consult Pere Riera (Chair of the E45 COST action) whether funding is available for an additional meeting of the database group, before the regular meeting in Olso, May 2009.

Protocol: JM, Berlin 27/10/2008

134

Liste des études françaises d’évaluation des biens et services non bois liés à la forêt référencées dans EVRI par le LEF Garcia Serge, Patrice Harou, Claire Montagné and Anne Stenger Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity Garcia S., P. Harou, C. Montagné, A. Stenger. 2007. Valuing Forest Biodiversity from a National Survey in France: A Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Cahier du LEF 2007-08 http://lef.nancyengref.inra.fr/Docs/doc_LEF_n2007-08.pdf Garcia Serge, Julien Jacob La valeur récréative de la forêt en France : Une approche par les coûts de déplacement En cours de révision pour la Revue d’Etude en Agriculture et Environnement Despres A. 1998. Non-market benefits of forestry in managed forests and valuation methods: the case of forests in Lorraine (France). In: Institutional aspects of managerial economics and accounting in forestry. IUFRO division 4. Human capital and mobility programme. Project: the economics of managerial and mountainous areas and forests – timber – environmental systems 15-18 April 1998. Roma. Italia. Mollard, A., Rambonilaza, M., Vollet D. 2006, Aménités Environnementales et Rente Territoriale sur un Marché de Services Différenciés: Le Cas du Marché des Gîtes Ruraux Labellisés en France. Revue d’Economie Politique, 116 (2), pp. 251-275. Chassany JP, Noublanche C. 1998 Le rôle des acteurs locaux dans la valorisation économique du paysage: le cas de la vallée française des Cévennes, Revue d'économie Méridionale vol 46 n°183. Lecat G. 2004 En quoi le cadre de vie rural contribue t il à expliquer les prix du foncier dans les espaces périurbains? Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine 1 Bonnieux, F. Carpentier, A. Paoli, J-C. 2006. Priorité des Résidents et des Visiteurs pour la Protection et l’Aménagement de la Forêt en Corse: Exemple de la Forêt de Bonifatu. Revue Forestière Française, 2-2006, pp. 167-181. Bonnieux, F., A. Carpentier, J. Ledun, J.C. Paoli 2004 "Contribution à une "Bonne Gouvernance" de la Forêt Corse" Atelier politiques de développement durable : Aménagement du territoire. Workshop développement durable. Congrès environnement et identité méditerranéenne, université de Corse. Corte. 19-25/07/04 Bonnieux, F., A. Carpentier and J.C. Paoli 2006 Aménagement et Protection de la Forêt Méditerranéenne: Application de la Méthode des Programmes en Corse INRA Sciences Sociales 6/05 Bonnieux, F. and A. Carpentier 2007 Préférence pour le Statu Quo dans la Méthode des Programmes: Illustration à Partir de d'un Problème de Gestion Forestière Revue d’Economie Politique 5. Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. 1996. Aménités rurales des zones humides et des forêts. In: OCDE: Les aménités pour le développement rural: exemples de politiques 130p. OCDE Paris, pp.87--97. INRA 1979. La Foret et la ville. Essai sur la forêt dans l'environnement urbain et industriel. 1-120. Chapitre 5. Estimation de la valeur des services récréatifs rendus par les forêts péri-urbaines. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Recherches sur la forêt et l'environnement. Bonnieux F, Rainelli P. 2003 La technique des transferts dans l'évaluation des biens non marchands: une application. Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine 2. Durand D, Point P. 2000. Chapitre 3: Approche théorique et empirique de la valeur d'existence: applications aux espèces animales protégées. Contrat A 848: Méthode d'évaluation contingente et décision publique. Montagné C, Peyron JL, Niedzwiedz A. 2005 La valeur économique totale de la forêt méditerranéenne française, Forêt Méditerranéenne, vol 26, n°4, pp. 287-298,. Montagné C, Peyron JL, Niedzwiedz A, Colnard O. in Merlo M and Croitoru L eds. Valuing mediterranean forest: towards total economic value, Chapter France, pp.299-317, 2005. Normandin D. 1998 Opinions et attitudes des lorrains par rapport à l'environnement et à la forêt Les courriers de l'environnement de l'INRA 34. Peyron JL. Harou P, Niedzwiedz A, Stenger A, 2002 National survey on demand for recreation in French forests. Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière INRA-ENGREF Nancy

135

Partie IV

Mise en Œuvre d’Evaluations et de Transferts de Bénéfices

Claire Montagné* †, Anne Stenger* † S. Garcia* †, P. Harou, Pinchot Institute For Conservation 1616 P Street NW Suite 100 Washington DC 20036. USA [email protected]

A. Bartczak, Warsaw Ecological Ecomics CenterWarsaw University Dluga 44/50 00-241 Warsaw Poland [email protected]

H. Lindhjem Department of Economics and Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5033, 1432 Ås, Norway; [email protected]

* †

INRA, UMR 356 Économie Forestière, F-54000 Nancy, France Agroparistech, Engref, Laboratoire d’économie forestière, F-54000 Nancy, France

136

Partie IV : Mise en Œuvre d’Evaluations et Analyse des Transferts de Bénéfices dans le Contexte Forestier Introduction Face au coût et au temps nécessaires à la mise en œuvre de ces techniques d’évaluation, il n’est pas toujours possible voire désirable de conduire une étude primaire. Une alternative est alors d’avoir recours au transfert de bénéfices qui permet d’estimer une valeur pour un bénéfice non marchand sur un site particulier à partir d’études conduites précédemment dans des contextes similaires. Dans le cadre de ce projet, une étude primaire a été exploitée (Garcia et al. 2007 ; Garcia et Jacob, 2008, Garcia et al. 2009) et une réflexion poussée sur la méthode du transfert de bénéfice a été menée (Bartczak et al. 2008). Suivant les différentes recommandations présentées précédemment, une analyse de la valeur de la diversité biologique des forêts française a été menée. Dans un premier article, à partir d’une enquête réalisée par téléphone en 2002 auprès de quelques 4500 ménages français, le consentement à payer pour la préservation de la diversité biologique en forêt a été estimé grâce à la méthode d’évaluation contingente (choix dichotomique). Dans cette enquête le problème de la biodiversité en forêt a été expliqué en prenant comme « proxy » les espèces menacées. De plus il était demandé aux enquêtés s’ils pratiquaient ou non les activités récréatives en forêt. La sensibilité des ménages aux problèmes environnementaux n’étant pas indépendante de la pratique d’activités de nature, les décisions d’avoir un consentement à payer positif et de sortir en forêt sont liées. Une technique de probit bivarié a été utilisée pour prendre en compte la corrélation entre les termes d’erreurs des deux équations. Bien que le modèle bivarié soit plus approprié, il n’apparaît pas de différences significatives dans les consentements à payer. Cependant, des différences significatives apparaissent selon la région de résidence des ménages interrogés. Dans un second article, sur la base de la même enquête, un modèle probit est estimé (sur la question dichotomique) avec correction du biais d’échantillonnage lié à la décision de pratiquer ou non des activités récréatives en forêt. Dans la question ouverte qui fait suite à la question dichotomique, une seconde source de biais de sélection peut apparaître, lié à la présence non aléatoire de ménages refusant de payer pour préserver la biodiversité. Une extension de l’approche d’ Heckman est utilisée pour parer ce problème de double selection. Les résultats empiriques montrent qu’ignorer ces problèmes conduit à des estimations biaisées des consentements à payer. Dans un troisième article (en cours de révision), Garcia et Jacob tentent de quantifier la valeur monétaire liée à l’usage récréatif des forêts effectué par des ménages, fonction récréative qui occupe une place croissante dans nos sociétés urbaines. C’est l’approche individuelle de la méthode des coûts de déplacement (MCD) qui est privilégiée à partir de cette même enquête sur la biodiversité et la récréation en forêt, réalisée auprès de 4500 ménages répartis sur l’ensemble du territoire français et interrogés par téléphone en 2001. Différents modèles linéaires et modèles de comptage sont estimés afin de trouver la meilleure spécification possible. Le modèle binomial négatif (NegBin) avec troncature qui prend en compte la surdispersion des observations et le biais relatifs à la sélection des ménages visitant les forêts, s'ajuste le mieux aux données. Le surplus estimé s’élève en moyenne à 6,22€ par individu et par visite. Enfin une réflexion poussée sur le transfert de bénéfices des valeurs liées à la forêt a été menée en partenariat avec Anna Bartczak, (Professeur à l’université de Varsovie – Pologne, venue réaliser un séjour post doctoral au LEF) et Henrik Lindhjem (Norvegian University of

137

Life Sciences). La littérature existante sur le transfert de bénéfices dans le cadre de valeurs liées à la forêt a été analysée dans une double perspective : -

Comment les techniques de transfert de bénéfices sont utilisées dans le contexte de la forêt ?

-

Quelles sont les principales leçons à tirer de ces transferts de bénéfices ?

Parmi les 12 études analysées présentant des transferts de bénéfices entre sites forestiers, ou entre sites forestiers et d’autres ressources naturelles, la majorité s’intéresse au transfert de valeurs liées aux activités récréatives par le biais de transfert de fonction de bénéfice à partir d’évaluations contingentes ou d’évaluations par la méthode des coûts de transport. Ces études s’intéressent particulièrement à quatre attributs : attributs physiques de la forêt, aspects temporels, améliorations méthodologiques pour améliorer la validité statistique des valeurs obtenues et pour réduire les coûts d’enquête.

138

I.

Valuing forest biodiversity from a national survey in France: a dichotomous choice contingent valuation

S. Garcia, P. Harou, C. Montagné, A. Stenger. 2007, Cahiers du LEF The study raises the issues of valuing biodiversity through a national survey to improve the national accounts. Biodiversity cum species protection was explained in a telephone survey. The willingness to pay (WTP) for forest biodiversity is estimated by a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation (DC-CV) method. In the same survey, the households were asked whether they have recreational activities in forests or not. The recreation answer is not independent from the DC biodiversity question and can affect the estimated biodiversity WTP of households. The bivariate Probit technique is used to consider the correlation between the error terms in the two equations. Whereas the bivariate model is found to be better than the univariate one, there is no significant difference in the overall mean WTP estimates according to this model. However, regional mean WTPs highlight significant regional differences. II.

Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity

S. Garcia, P. Harou, C. Montagné, A. Stenger. Journal of Forest Economics, 15 (1-2), 2009 In this article, we use two formats of contingent valuation (CV) questions to elicit willingness to pay (WTP) for maintaining biodiversity in forests: the dichotomous choice (DC) or referendum format and the open-ended (OE) question. A large population of French households were surveyed nationwide by phone. The sample of respondents was later divided into two subsamples: people who have recreational activities in forests and those who do not. This dichotomy potentially biases WTP as the decision to have recreational activities in forests is endogenous. We estimate a Probit model with sample selection to correct this bias in the DC question. With the OE question, a second source of selection bias related to nonrandom censoring is present: some respondents are unwilling to pay. We use an extension of Heckman's approach to the double selection problem. The empirical application shows that ignoring these sample selection problems leads to biased estimates of mean WTP for biodiversity in a national survey for France. III.

La valeur récréative de la forêt en France : Une approche par les coûts de déplacement

Serge Garcia, Julien Jacob En cours de révision pour la revue d’études en agriculture et environnement 2008 Cette étude a pour objet de donner une valeur monétaire à l’une de ces fonctions qui occupe une place croissante dans nos sociétés urbaines : l’usage récréatif des ménages Nous utilisons l’approche individuelle de la méthode des coûts de déplacement (MCD) à partir d’une enquête sur la biodiversité et la récréation en forêt, réalisée auprès de 4500 ménages répartis sur l’ensemble du territoire français et interrogés par téléphone en 2001Différents modèles linéaires et modèles de comptage sont estimés afin de trouver la meilleure spécification possible. Le modèle binomial négatif (NegBin) avec troncature qui prend en compte la surdispersion des observations et le biais relatifs à la sélection des ménages visitant les forêts, s'ajuste le mieux à nos données. Le surplus estimé s’élève en moyenne à 6,22€ par individu et par visite. IV.

Review of benefit transfer studies in the forest context

A. Bartczak, H Lindhjem, A. Stenger, 2008

139

Non-timber benefits (NTBs) are increasingly being compared with timber values in the crafting of multifunctional forest policies. Since most NTBs are non-marketable goods, special valuation methods are developed for their evaluation. Due to cost and time requirements, it is neither feasible nor desirable to conduct primary valuation studies in each policy relevant case. As an alternative, the benefit transfer (BT) approach is used to transfer benefits estimated by previous studies in a similar context to the policy context of interest. We take stock of the growing literature applying BT techniques for NTBs, to answer two main questions: How have BT methods been used to date in the forest context? What are the main lessons from NTBs transfers? We found 12 studies dealing with BT between forest sites and a few others in which forest sites were among other analyzed environmental resources. The majority of them transferred recreation benefits using the BT function based either on contingent valuation or travel costs estimations. They mainly focused on four areas: physical attributes of forests, time aspects, methodological improvements to increase the estimated accuracy and reduce surveys costs. Our results get closer to answering the question of “how and under what circumstances can NTBs be reliably transferred?”

140

References Bartczak A., H. Lindhjem, A. Stenger. 2008. Review of benefit transfer studies in the forest context. In: XXX & XXX (Eds.). 2008. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics Lom, Norway, 7th-10th April 2008. Scandinavian Forest Economics 42: 281-310 Garcia S., P. Harou, C. Montagné, A. Stenger. 2007. Valuing Forest Biodiversity from a National Survey in France: A Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Cahier du LEF 2007-08 Garcia S. P. Harou, C. Montagné, A. Stenger. 2009. Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity Journal of Forest Economics vol 15/12. Garcia Serge, Julien Jacob La valeur récréative de la forêt en France : Une approche par les coûts de déplacement En cours de révision pour la Revue d’Etude en Agriculture et Environnement

141

Annexe à la partie 4 I/ CALL FOR A POST DOC JOB at LEF, Nancy (France) POST-DOCTORAL PROFILE – Laboratory of Forest Economics – MUR (Mix Unit of Research) ENGREF (National School of Forest and Water Engineers) & INRA (INRA: National Institute for Agronomic Research) Key Words : Social Sciences/ Economics/ Forest Economics/ Valuation/ Benefit Transfer/ Meta-Analysis The Laboratoire d'Economie Forestière (LEF) is a mix research unit INRA-ENGREF (see web http://lef.nancyengref.inra.fr/) which focuses on forest and wood economics (environmental/natural resources economics & industrial economics). The LEF will participate to this INRA post-doctoral position calling for a researcher having finished the Ph.D thesis. The title of the subject is “Valuation of Environmental goods, services and damages in French Forests - A Data base Construction” The main objective of this research project is to construct some protocol guidelines to construct a data base for forest valuations. This referential should help improving benefit transfer and meta-analysis from a statistical point of view. As in EVRI base, the candidate will have to centralize and organize information and reinforce the network relative to forest externalities. (LEF is one of the partner of a COST action on these aspect, E45). The method includes: -

a survey of existing forest valuations in France

-

a data base construction

-

a protocol elaboration for each method of valuation applied to forests

Expected results -

a data base or a referential for France (indicators for each use and function of the forest)

-

Benefit transfer tests and meta-analyses

This program is included in a proposition starting in 2006 at LEF, supported by the French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development The application should be sent no later than the 30th november 06 to LEF (Anne Stenger and Patrice Harou, see below). Before sending, feel free to call me for further details on the research proposal. The application must include: - an administrative file -

an abstract of past research

-

a CV

-

the list of publications

-

the scientific project

-

and a letter of interest indicating the future career path sought

-

2 recommendation letters

For information and to talk about the research project, please contact Anne Stenger at [email protected], Patrice Harou [email protected] tel: 00 33 3 83 39 68 63 (68 68 for Patrice Harou) fax: 00 33 3 83 37 06 45 http://lef.nancy-engref.inra.fr/

142

ANNEXES GENERALES

143

I.

Réponse à l’appel d’offre Juillet 2004

Référentiel pour l’Evaluation Economique des Biens, Services et Dommages Environnementaux Liés à la Forêt Française (Réponse à l’APRS3E 2004) Réponse à l’Appel à Proposition en Economie de l’Environnement 2004 Programme S3E “ Sciences économiques et environnement ” Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière, Nancy 16 juillet, 2004 A - RECAPITULATIF DE LA PROPOSITION Titre : Référentiel pour l’évaluation économique des biens, services et dommages environnementaux liés à la forêt française “ réponse à l’APR S3E 2004 ” I. Résumé : L’objectif principal de cette proposition est de proposer un référentiel pour les évaluations environnementales liées à la forêt française. Ce référentiel comprendra une organisation de l’information compatible avec EVRI et possédant en outre la base de données correspondante à l’étude répertoriée. Pour ce faire, on se propose dans un premier temps de (i) centraliser l’information pertinente, (ii) de décrire et qualifier le protocole suivi, (iii) de mettre à disposition la base de données utilisées pour l’évaluation dans la mesure du possible, et finalement (iv) de rapporter les résultats obtenus par étude (agrégats par types de bénéfices ou de dommages environnementaux). Cette étape de centralisation doit s’effectuer parallèlement à la mise en place - d’une aide à l’élaboration de protocoles, garantissant la fiabilité des données collectées et utilisées, - d’un réseau joint. L’élaboration de protocoles de référence s’appuiera sur les expériences passées et constituera une étape importante dans la mise en commun des données existantes et dans la réflexion à mener en vue d’évaluations futures. Une des motivations essentielles de ce projet repose sur la possibilité d’aboutir à des transferts de valeurs acceptables d’un point de vue statistique. La centralisation de l’information et la revue de la littérature impliqueront parallèlement la constitution d’un réseau (partiellement établi en France dans le domaine de l’économie forestière à travers le GIS Economie Forestière) sur l’évaluation des biens, services et dommages en forêt (conformément aux travaux effectués dans le domaine de l’eau). A la lumière des expériences précédentes, le projet proposera de mettre en place une aide à la mise au point du protocole de collecte et de traitement de l’information recommandé pour les différentes méthodes d’évaluation appliquées à la forêt. Ce protocole devrait servir à mettre en place un référentiel sur l’évaluation environnementale liée à la forêt française dans le futur. Différents exemples seront donnés pour illustrer comment le référentiel sera utilisé en pratique. Le référentiel ainsi obtenu devrait permettre d’incorporer les informations dans une base Européenne des évaluations environnementales forestières. Cet objectif implique un réseau consolidé tant au niveau national qu’au niveau européen. Le calcul d’agrégats par type de bénéfices ou de dommages environnementaux suppose un travail économétrique et statistique. La mise en commun de données, l’objectif d’aboutir à des indicateurs fiables et la volonté d’effectuer des transferts de valeurs ouvriront sur des possibilités de collaboration et de réflexions sur les techniques économétriques les plus poussées. La méthode comportera essentiellement une revue de la littérature des évaluations économiques et dommages environnementaux liés à la forêt française, une revue des bases de données existantes en évaluation environnementale, entre autres EVRI. Les étapes dans le protocole à suivre seront identifiées par un travail conjoint du réseau créé par le projet et un comité de pilotage auquel sera convié au moins un spécialiste européen. La structure sera calquée sur la structure d’EVRI, avec en complément la base de données de l’étude elle-même. Un autre but du projet sera de proposer une structure permettant son utilisation facile par les logiciels communs de traitement et d’analyse afin de faciliter le transfert des valeurs et l’application éventuelle de méthodes alternatives. Les résultats attendus seront (1) un référentiel des évaluations environnementales de la forêt en France, (2) un protocole recommandé pour les différentes méthodes d’évaluations appliquées à la forêt française. Ce référentiel et la façon dont les analystes pourront contribuer à son élaboration dans le futur seront illustrés par quelques exemples. En outre, il résultera du projet (3) la dynamisation d’un réseau qui servira dans le futur à gérer et garantir la qualité des informations répertoriées. Ceci devrait donner un plus grand poids à leur utilisation dans la décision publique.

144

Cette meilleure prise de décision devrait elle-même résulter en un aménagement multifonctionnel plus approprié des forêts françaises et un meilleur aménagement du territoire. (4) Des tests de transferts de valeurs pourront être effectués tout au long du projet, mais l’objectif est d’aboutir à des exercices fiables d’un point de vue statistique, suite à l’élaboration de protocoles pour les évaluations futures. Axe : Cette proposition s’inscrit dans l’axe I : Valorisation des aménités et coûts des dommages et plus particulièrement dans le thème I.A. Méthodologie pour le transfert de valeur des biens environnementaux. Responsable Scientifique : Anne Stenger, Directeur du LEF, UMR INRA-ENGREF, n° 356 14 rue Girardet, 54042, Nancy. Demande spécifique auquel répond la proposition : Le secteur forêt se caractérise par de nombreux bénéfices non-marchands et ses écosystèmes peuvent être mis à mal de façon irréversible, tel que la disparition des forêts en zones humides par exemple. La décision publique se doit donc de prendre en compte ses valeurs non-marchandes de la forêt pour établir les politiques forestières. En particulier ces évaluations sont nécessaires pour calibrer les instruments économiques destinés à la mise en place de ces politiques. Articulation avec les programmes régionaux, nationaux et européens : Ce projet est lié au programme lorrain d’Evaluations des Dégâts des Tempêtes de 1999, au programme national de mise en place d’une base de donnée française des évaluations économiques des biens et dommages environnementaux (base EVRI) et au projet européen visant à créer une base de données pour les évaluations liés à la forêt européenne (EFORWOOD). Budget prévisionnel total (TTC) : 188.264 Euros Participation demandée (TTC) : 56.522 Euros (30% du total du budget) Organismes co-financeurs INRA, Engref, l’ensemble des partenaires susceptibles de participer en termes de main d’œuvre. Organisme Gestionnaire des crédits : Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière Durée : 2 ans à compter de l’obtention du budget demandé

145

B – DESCRIPTIF DE LA PROPOSITION II. Exposé de la proposition Préambule L’évaluation des politiques forestières est maintenant de plus en plus tributaire de valeurs économiques attribuables aux biens environnementaux sans que ces services ne fassent l’objet d’un échange sur le marché. Ces valeurs sont entendues au sens de biens et services biologiques ou récréatifs, rendus par les écosystèmes forestiers à la collectivité. Les méthodes permettant de déterminer ces valeurs sont relativement bien maîtrisées théoriquement mais présentent des problèmes dans leur application : se pose en particulier la question de la transférabilité des données qui sont spécifiques au site et qui n’a pas donné des résultats probants en termes statistiques. Une plus grande transparence dans les données de base utilisées et le détail de l’analyse devraient faciliter des transferts de valeur plus à propos. C’est là une des motivations derrière notre proposition. La valorisation des biens et services de la forêt impose un travail en 3 phases. La première d’entre elles se fonde sur les travaux disponibles à la fois sur des actifs environnementaux différents et sur une réflexion déjà menée sur les fonctions de la forêt. Elle consiste en effet à élaborer, sur la base d’un terrain d’entente sur les fonctions, usages et bénéfices marchands et non marchands d’un espace forestier, un ou plusieurs protocoles d’évaluation qui permettront de classer les évaluations réalisées. L’évaluation de fonctions non marchandes nécessite en effet la mise en oeuvre de méthodes suivant un ensemble d’étapes bien déterminées. La transparence dans les protocoles d’évaluation permet ainsi de rendre plus fiables les estimations obtenues et l’utilisation de l’information. Dans une seconde phase, on s’appliquera à rechercher des indicateurs de valeur pour les usages recensés dans la phase précédente sur la base de protocoles de référence décrivant les meilleures procédures à suivre et ce de manière à ce que l’ensemble des fonctions de la forêt soient représentées. La dernière phase s’envisage à plus long terme et a pour objectif de construire et d’enrichir une base de données qui serait européenne par type de valeur de non usage et d’externalités de manière à ce que les décideurs publics et privés soient aidés dans leurs prises de décision. Les objectifs de la construction d’une telle base de données sont à terme de pouvoir envisager des transferts de données et des méta-analyses dans un cadre européen. Objectifs L’objectif principal de cette proposition est de proposer un référentiel pour les évaluations environnementales liées à la forêt en France. Ce référentiel comprendra une organisation de l’information compatible avec EVRI21 et possédant en outre la base de données correspondante à l’étude répertoriée. Pour ce faire, on se propose dans un premier temps de (i) centraliser l’information pertinente, (ii) de décrire et qualifier le protocole suivi, (iii) de mettre à disposition la base de données utilisées pour l’évaluation dans la mesure du possible, et finalement (iv) de rapporter les résultats obtenus par étude et dans leur agrégat par types de bénéfices ou de dommages environnementaux. A la lumière des expériences précédentes, le projet proposera dans un second temps de mettre en place un protocole de collecte et de traitement de l’information recommandé pour les différentes méthodes d’évaluation appliquées à la forêt. Ce protocole devrait servir à mettre en place le référentiel sur l’évaluation environnementale liée à la forêt française dans le futur. Différents exemples seront donnés pour illustrer comment le référentiel sera utilisé en pratique et comment la contribution au référentiel devrait se faire. La centralisation de l’information et la revue de la littérature impliqueront parallèlement la constitution d’un réseau (partiellement établi en France dans le domaine de l’économie forestière à travers le GIS Economie Forestière) sur l’évaluation des biens, services et dommages en forêt (conformément aux travaux effectués dans le domaine de l’eau). Le référentiel ainsi obtenu devrait permettre d’utiliser ces informations par exemple dans une base Européenne des évaluations environnementales forestières restant encore à construire (EFORWOOD22). Le calcul d’agrégats par type de bénéfices ou de dommages environnementaux suppose un travail économétrique et statistique. La mise en commun de données, l’objectif d’aboutir à des indicateurs fiables et la volonté d’effectuer des transferts de valeurs ouvriront sur des possibilités de collaboration et de réflexions sur les techniques économétriques les plus poussées. Revue de la littérature pertinente La littérature sur les bases de données d’évaluations environnementales n’est pas étendue . La base mondiale la mieux connue et à laquelle la France a souscrit (et à laquelle viennent de souscrire les Etats-Unis) est la base

21

Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory, Final Report, 28/06/2002 EFORWOOD, European Forestry-Wood (1.1.6.3 “Global Change and Ecosystems), Projet Intégré en cours de soumission 22

146

EVRI (http://www.evri.ca) développée au Canada. Cette proposition utilisera cette même structure pour proposer l’information recueillie sur les évaluations environnementales forestières en France. Le but ultime de cette base de données est de permettre des transferts de valeurs qui s’améliorent au fur et à mesure que la base de données s’étoffe et que l’application des méthodes d’évaluations se perfectionnent (Rozan & Stenger, 2000 ; Loomis, John B, 1992 ; Downing, Mark and Teofilo Ozuna, 1996 ; Kirchhoff, Stephanie, Bonnie G. Colby, and Jeffrey T. LaFrance, 1997 ). Ces valeurs permettront d’améliorer la qualité de la décision publique par l’amélioration des prix fictifs que l’analyse coûts/avantages contiendra. Aux Etats-Unis une telle analyse est nécessaire et constitue un prélude à la décision publique dans le domaine de l’environnement et des ressources naturelles (Federal Register, 1987). Ce type d’approche n’est pas nouveau et existe déjà dans d’autres domaines. Les bases de données de l’eau existent déjà dans certains pays dont les Etats Unis (Lew, Daniel K., Douglas M. Larson, Hiro Suenaga, and Rodrigo DeSousa, 2001) et la France23 (Amigues et Arnaud, 2002 ; Rainelli, P, 2001) Une revue des études d’évaluations environnementales contenues dans EVRI a été faite en 2000 par Stale Navrud24 qui sera invité à participer au comité de pilotage du projet (Navrud et Vagnes, 2000). Cette étude rapporte 22 cas pour la France dont certains sont liés directement ou indirectement à la forêt (cf. Bibliographie). Cette proposition inclura un travail de sélection des ouvrages liés aux évaluations environnementales forestières et mettra à jour les références pour les évaluations liées à la forêt. A notre connaissance, il n’existe pas présentement une telle base de données des évaluations environnementales forestières en France. Méthodes La méthode comportera essentiellement dans une première phase une revue de la littérature des évaluations économiques et dommages environnementaux liés à la forêt française et une revue des bases de données existantes en évaluation environnementale, entre autres EVRI. Les étapes dans le protocole à suivre seront identifiées par un travail conjoint d’un réseau qui sera créé par le projet et un comité de pilotage auquel sera convié au moins un spécialiste européen. La structure EVRI sera adoptée avec en complément la base de données de l’étude elle-même pour lequel le projet proposera une structure permettant son utilisation facile par les logiciels communs de “ spreadshee ” et d’analyse afin de faciliter le transfert des valeurs et l’application éventuelle de méthodes alternatives. Il est envisagé que le comité mis en place par le projet continuera après les deux ans afin de mettre à jour le référentiel. Le comité sollicitera des évaluations estimées nécessaires pour l’amélioration de la décision publique regardant les politiques forestières en France. Résultats attendus Les résultats attendus seront : (1) un référentiel des évaluations environnementales de la forêt en France ; (2) un protocole recommandé pour les différentes méthodes d’évaluations appliquées à la forêt française ; (3) ce protocole devrait aussi couvrir la façon dont la base de données de l’étude proprement dite pourra être utilisée pour opérer un transfert ou une réutilisation des données dans un modèle différent ou amélioré par rapport à l’état de l’art du moment ; (4) ce référentiel et la façon dont les analystes pourront contribuer à son élaboration dans le futur seront illustrés par quelques exemples ; le LEF dispose en effet de trois bases de données relatives à trois enquêtes effectuées : la première a eu lieu en 1997 et a porté sur les services environnementaux de la forêt ; une deuxième enquête est intervenue après les tempêtes de 1999 et a eu pour objectif d’évaluer les dégâts forestiers dus aux tempêtes à travers la perte de services récréatifs ; enfin une troisième enquête nationale effectuée en 2002 a eu pour but de recenser les usages récréatifs et les services de biodiversité de la forêt en France. (5) en outre, il résultera du projet la dynamisation d’un réseau qui servira dans le futur à gérer et à garantir la qualité des informations répertoriées. L’impact escompté est que cette meilleure information sur les valeurs non-marchandes de la forêt devrait donner un plus grand poids à l’utilisation des évaluations environnementales dans la décision publique. Cette 23

La construction d’une nouvelle base de donnée de l’Eau est à l’étude pour la France par l’Office International de l’Eau ; http://www.oieau.fr 24 S. Navrud étant absent en juillet, sa participation reste à confirmer.

147

meilleure prise de décision devrait elle-même résulter en un aménagement multifonctionnel plus approprié des forêts françaises et un meilleur aménagement du territoire. Organisation de la proposition (cf. calendrier ; partenaires en annexe) 1.

Séminaire de deux jours avec les partenaires et le comité de pilotage pour développer un protocole pour les différentes méthodes d’évaluation , rassembler les évaluations déjà pré-identifiées, et assurer la bonne communication entre les acteurs du projet.

2.

Elaboration de la structure du référentiel.

3.

Elaborer le système de base de données des évaluations utilisées.

4.

Elaboration des protocoles par méthode d’évaluation.

5.

Séminaire pour présenter la première esquisse du Référentiel.

6.

Référentiel mis à la disposition des partenaires.

7.

Elaboration de plus d’études selon une division des tâches par fonctions des services de la forêt ou méthode d’évaluation ou les deux.

8.

Plusieurs réunions de travail durant la première année par vidéo-conférence.

9.

La seconde année servira à continuer et parfaire le référentiel.

10. Une conférence est organisée pour lancer le référentiel sur le web et en faire un outil utile dans la décision publique.

148

C- DOSSIER DE DEMANDE DE SUBVENTION TITRE VI Cf les annexes, Calendrier détaillé, Partenaires, Année 1 et Année 2 pour le détail du budget) Budget prévisionnel total (TTC) 188. 264 Euros Participation demandée (TTC) 56. 522 Euros Organismes co-financeurs INRA, ENGREF, et l’ensemble des partenaires susceptibles de participer en main d’oeuvre Organisme Gestionnaire des crédits Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière, UMR INRA-ENGREF 14 rue Girardet, 54042 Nancy Durée Ce projet s’installe dans la durée et s’étalera sur une période de deux années à compter de l’obtention du budget demandé. Bibliographie Amigues, Jean-Pierre et Fabienne Arnaud ; “ Eau et Evaluation des dommages ” Rapport d’étape de contrat pour la direction de l’eau. LEERNA-INRA, Université de Toulouse. Décembre 2002. Domergue, M, “Evaluation des fonctions non marchandes de la forêt”, RDV Techniques, n°1, été 2003, ONF Downing, Mark and Teofilo Ozuna, Jr. "Testing the Reliability of the Benefit Function Transfer Approach." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 30, pp. 316-322, 1996. Federal Register, "Natural Resource Damage Assessments", Vol. 51, No.148, 1986. 27674-27753. (43 CFR Part 11) Claeys-Mekdade, C, Geniaux, G et Luchini, S “ Approche critique et mise en œuvre la méthode d’évaluation contingente: un dialogue entre économie et sociologie”, Nature Sciences et Société, 7(3), 1999, pp.35-48. Despres, A & Normandin,D “ Les services d’environnement fournis par la forêt: évaluation et régulation, Cahiers d’Economie et de Sociologie Rurales, 41, 62-91. Kirchhoff, Stephanie, Bonnie G. Colby, and Jeffrey T. LaFrance. "Evaluating the Performance of Benefit Transfer: An Empirical Inquiry" Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 33, pp. 75-93, 1997. Loomis, John B. "The Evolution of a More Rigorous Approach to Benefit Transfer: Benefit Function Transfer" Water Resources Research, vol. 28(3), pp. 701-705, 1992. Lew, Daniel K., Douglas M. Larson, Hiro Suenaga, and Rodrigo DeSousa. " The Beneficial Use Values Database. " Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, April 2001. Ref. http://buvd.ucdavis.edu/buvd.web.pdf Markandya A., Harou P., Bellu G.L., Cistulli V. – Environmental Economics for Sustainable Growth ; a handbook for practitioners. - Cheltenham, UK, Northhampton MA, USA : Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., 567 p. Navrud, Stale and Vagnes Mette, “ EVRI and the Expansion of its coverage to the EU ”, ENCO Environmental Consultant AS. Norway. March 23, 2000. PEYRON J.L., Harou, P., NIEDZWIEDZ, A., Stenger, A., National survey on demand for recreation in french forests, décembre 2002, LEF, 40 p. Rainelli, P, “ La problématique des transferts dans l’évalaution des changements dans les serviecs fournis par les hydrosystèmesé, Séminaire MATE-INRA, L’évaluation des dommages dans le domaine de l’eau, Paris, 2001/12/21- in Bonnieux. F, ed, , L’évaluation des dommages dans le domaine de l’eau, Paris, 198p, 2001, 6176. Rambonilaza M., 2002, “ Mise en oeuvre de l'évaluation économique des aménités rurales en Europe : le cas des biens environnementaux ”, Ingénieries, numéro spécial Aménités rurales, p. 91-104. Rambonilaza M., 2004, “ Evaluation de la demande de paysage : état des lieux et réflexions sur le transfert des valeurs disponibles ”, Cahiers d'économie et sociologie rurales, n° 70, 22 p.

149

Rambonilaza M., Mollard A., Vollet D., 2004, “ Aménités environnementales et rente territoriale sur un marché de services différenciés : le cas du marché des gîtes ruraux labellisés en France”, Revue d'économie politique, 21 p. Rozan, Anne et Stenger, Anne “Intérêts et limites de la méthode du transfert de bénéfices“, Economie et Statistique, 336, 2000, 6, 69-78,) Scherrer, S, “ Les pertes d’usage récréatif du patrimoine forestier après les tempêtes de 1999 : la cas de la forêt de Fontainebleau, Economie et Statistique, n°357-358, 2002, pp153-172. Etudes identifiées en France en 2000 dans la base EVRI : (22 studies) Armand, C. and F. Bonnieux 1999. Valeur du poisson sauvage et rentabilité sociale (Valuation of wild fish and social profitability). In French.. INRA Report. 1999/03, 96pp Bonnieux, F., P. Rainelli and D. Vermersch 1999. Estimating the supply of environmental benefits by agriculture: a French case study. Environmental and Resource Economics: 135-153 Bonnieux, F. and P. Le Goffe 1998. Cost-benefit analysis of landscape restoration : a case study in Western France, pp 85-96 ; in Dabbert s, Dubgaard A, Slangen l & Whitby M (ed) The economics of landscape and wildlife conservation CAB International. Bonnieux, F. and P. Le Goffe 1997. Valuing the benefits of landscape restoration. A casestudy of the Cotentin in Lower-Normandy, France, Journal of EnvironmentalManagement ; 321-333 ; (details in Bonnieux, F., P. Le Goffe and F. Allard (collab.); Chitrit, J.J. (collab.): Valeur sociale des paysages : le cas du bocage. INRA Report. 1996/09 ; 42 p.). Bonnieux, F., P. Le Goffe and D. Vermersch 1995: La méthode d'évaluation contingente: application a la qualité des eaux littorales (CVM applied to the quality of coastal waters). In French. Economie et Prévision, pp 89-106. Bonnieux, F. ;Vermersch, D. 1993: Bénefices et coûts de la protection de l'eau : application de l'approche contingente a la pêche sportive (Benefits and costs of water protection: an application of CV to sport angling). In French. Revue d'Economie Politique; 131-152. Bonnieux, F. ;Guerrier, C. 1992: Rapport sur la frequentation de la forêt de Rennes (Report on the frequentation of the forest of Rennes (periurban forest - CV study). INRA report 1992/07 ; 30 p Bonnieux, F. ;Boude, J.P. ;Guerrier, C. ;Richard, A. 1991: La pêche sportive du saumon et de la truite de mer en Basse-Normandie: analyse economique. (Sport fishing in Lower Normandy: an economic analysis for salmon and sea trout angling). INRA report 1991/04 ; 78 p. Desaigues, B. and J.-P. Amigues 1999: A cost-benefit analysis of preserving biodiversity University of Paris. Paper Presented at the 9th annual conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Oslo, June 25-27. Furlan, S. 1996: Evaluation du coût externe du bruit généré par le traffic automobile pour la ville de Paris (External cost of road traffic noise in Paris). In French. University of Bourgogne - Institut Francais du Pétrole. Ph.D.: thesis. Latouche K., P. Rainelli and D. Vermersch 1998: Food safety in beef consumption: bidding games and French people's willingness to pay for safer meal. Paper presented at the 56th EAAE seminar, Paris. Latouche K., P. Rainelli and D. Vermersch 1998: Food safety issues and the BSE scare: some lessons from the French case Food Policy, 23, 5; 347-356 (see also general report in French presenting the survey and the first results: "Attitudes et consentement à payer des consommateurs pour obtenir des biens alimentaires à faible risque pour la santé. Application à la maladie de la vache folle" ENSAI (Ecole Nationale de la Statistique et de l'Analyse de l'Information), Rennes 1997). Le Goffe, P. ;Gerber, P. 1994 Coûts environnementaux et bénefices de l'implantation d'une sabliere en zone périurbaine : le cas de Pace (Ille-et-Vilaine). (Environmental costs and benefits of the implementation of a sand quarry: a case study in an urban fringe at Pacé (Ille et Vilaine). In French. INRA Report 36 p. Le Goffe, P. 1995. The benefits of improvements in coastal water quality : a contingent approach. Journal of Environmental Management 45: pp 305-317. Le Goffe, P. 1996. Hedonic pricing of agriculture and forestry externalities. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Lisbon, June 1996.

150

Rozan A., 1999, Evaluation des bénéfices de santé d’une amélioration de la qualité de l’air : l’exemple de la Région strasbourgeoise., (Valuation of health benefits of an improvement in air quality : a study in Strasbourg), PhD Thesis, University Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg. In French. (CV surveys both in France and Germany with benefit transfer between the two countries) Rozan A., 1999: Une évaluation économique des bénéfices de morbidité induits par une amélioration de la qualité de l’air, (Economic valuation of morbidity benefits induced by an improvement in air quality), Economie et Prévision, submitted.. In French. Rozan A., Stenger A., Willinger M., 1997: Consentement à payer pour la préservation de la qualité de l’eau souterraine : une comparaison entre usagers et non usagers”, (WTP for preservation of groundwater quality : a comparison of users and non users), Cahiers d’Economie et Sociologie Rurales, n°45, pp.61-92, 4ème trimestre. In French. Rozan A., Stenger A., Willinger M. 1999: Valeur de préservation de la qualité de la Nappe Phréatique d’Alsace”, (Preservation value of the quality of the Alsatian Aquifer), in La mesure économique des bénéfices attachés aux hydrosystèmes. Synthèse du Programme de Recherche 96-98, CEMAGREF eds, in press. In French. Rozan A., Stenger A., Willinger M. 1999: Valeur de préservation et transférabilité intra-site et inter-site : Application à la Nappe Phréatique d’Alsace”, (Preservation value and transferability intra and inter site : an application to the Alsatian Aquifer), in Patrick Point (eds), La valeur économiques des hydrosystèmes. Méthodes et modèles d’évaluations des services délivrés, Economica, Janvier 1999. In French. Stenger A., 1994: Evaluation contingente des actifs environnementaux - Application à la valeur de préservation de la qualité des eaux souterraines”, (Contingent Valuation of environmental assets - Application to the preservation value of the groundwater quality), PhD Thesis, University Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg. In French Stenger A., Willinger M., 1998, “Preservation value for groundwater quality in a large aquifer : a contingent valuation study of the Alsatian Aquifer”, Journal of Environmental Management, 53, pp. 177-193.

151

Annexes Année 1 Nom

Prénom

Grade

Couture Harou Montagné Stenger Desaigues Point Gosselin Rambonilaza Dehez Chassany Bonnieux Amigues Geniaux Breman Scherrer

Stéphane Patrice Claire Anne Brigitte Patrick Marion Mbolatiana Jeoffrey Jean-Paul François Jean-Pierre Ghislain Peter Sylvie

CR2 Professeur invité IE CR1 DR1 DR1

Domergue Magali Rousselle Jean-Marc Partenaires à déterminer Partenaires à déterminer Partenaires à déterminer Partenaires à déterminer Partenaires à déterminer Consultant divers dépenses d'équipement

Temps de travail

CR2 CR2 CR1 DR0 DR2 CR2

5% 5% 40% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

5% Ing Serv technique Commune Paris IE1

M.O.

Séminaire de démarrage Séminaire présentation Réunion de travail Trajet hébergement Trajet hébergement Trajet hébergement 2182.95 2532 17711.6 5617.3 9027.9 4513.95 2808.65 2182.95 2182.95 2808.65 4937.5 3590.85 2182.95 3590.85

15000 2 ordinateurs portables

110 110 110 110

167.72 167.72 167.72 167.72

110 110 110 110

83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86

182

167.72

182

83.86

182 182 240 170 230 216

167.72 167.72 167.72 167.72 167.72 167.72

182 182 240 170 230 216

83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86

110 292 110 292 292 350 280 340 326 110 110

83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86

110 110

83.86 83.86

Année 2 Nom

Prénom

Grade

Temps de travail

M.O. Trajet

Couture

Stéphane

Harou Montagné Stenger Desaigues Point Gosselin Rambonilaza Dehez Chassany Bonnieux Amigues Geniaux Breman Scherrer

Patrice Claire Anne Brigitte Patrick Marion Mbolatiana Jeoffrey Jean-Paul François Jean-Pierre Ghislain Peter Sylvie

Domergue Magali Rousselle Jean-Marc Partenaires à déterminer Partenaires à déterminer Partenaires à déterminer Partenaires à déterminer Partenaires à déterminer Consultant divers

CR2 Professeur invité IE CR1 DR1 DR1 CR2 CR2 CR1 DR0 DR2 CR2

Réunion 1 hébergement

Réunion 2 hébergement

Trajet

Conférence de clôture Trajet hébergement

5%

2182.95

110

83.86

5% 40% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

2532 17711.6 5617.3 9027.9 4513.95 2808.65 2182.95 2182.95 2808.65 4937.5 3590.85 2182.95

110 110 110

83.86 83.86 83.86

182 182 240 170 230 216

83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86

110

83.86

5% Ing Serv technique Commune Paris IE1

3590.85

110 292 110 292 292 350 280 340 326 110 110

83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86

110 292 110 292 292 350 280 340 326 110 110

83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86 83.86

110

83.86

110

83.86

15000

Total MO Total participation MEDD Total % Participation MEDD

131742.1 56522.66 188264.76 30

153

Calendrier détaillé Année 1 Mois 1

Mois 2

Mois 3

Mois 4

Séminaire de démarrage

Mois 5

Mois 6

Mois 7

Mois 8

Mois 9

Mois 10

Mois 11

Mois 12

Elaboration des protocoles par méthode d'évaluation

Elaboration de la structure du référentiel

Elaboration du système de base de données des évaluations utilisées Référentiel mis à disposition des partenaires Réunions de travail durant la première année par vidéo-conférence

Année 2 Mois 1

Mois 2

Mois 3

Mois 4

Mois 5

Mois 6

Mois 7

Mois 8

Mois 9

Mois 10

Mois 11

Mois 12

La seconde année servira à continuer et parfaire le référentiel Conférence clôture

de

154

Partenaires

Organismes

CEMAGREF Bordeaux

CEMAGREF Bordeaux

Prénom

Coordonnées

E-mail

Mode de collaboration

Dehez

Jeoffrey

CEMAGREF Bordeaux 50,avenue de Verdun-Gazinet 33612 Cestas cedex

[email protected]

Partenaire

Rambonilaza

CEMAGREF Bordeaux 50,avenue de Verdun-Gazinet Mbolatiana 33612 Cestas cedex

[email protected]

Partenaire

[email protected]

Partenaire

Nom

CEMAGREF Nogent

* Gosselin

Marion

CEMAGREF Nogent-sur-Vernisson Domaine des Barres 45290 Nogent-sur-Vernisson

EVRI

* André

V.

www.evri.ca

www.evri.ca

Nom à confirmer

Ghislain

Unité éco-développement Domaine Saint-Paul- Site Agroparc 84914 Avignon cedex 9

[email protected]

Partenaire

Jean-Paul

UMR LAMETA Faculté des Sciences Economiques Espace Richter Avenue de la Mer BP 9606 34054 Montpellier Cedex 01

[email protected]

Partenaire

stéphane

LEF, UMR INRA-ENGREF 14 Rue Girardet 54042 Nancy cedex

[email protected]

Partenaire

Patrice

LEF, UMR INRA-ENGREF 14 Rue Girardet 54042 Nancy cedex

[email protected]

Partenaire

INRA, Avignon

INRA, Montpellier

INRA, Nancy

INRA, Nancy

* Geniaux

* Chassany

Couture

Harou

155

INRA, Nancy

Montagné

INRA, Nancy

Rousselle

INRA, Nancy

INRA, Rennes

INRA, Toulouse

Stenger

* Bonnieux

* Amigues

Mairie de Paris Observatoire de l'énergie

Domergue * Scherrer

ONF

Breman

Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV

Université Paris I, LASI University of Norway

Point

Desaigues * Navrud

Claire

LEF, UMR INRA-ENGREF 14 Rue Girardet 54042 Nancy cedex

[email protected]

Partenaire

Jean-Marc

LEF, UMR INRA-ENGREF 14 Rue Girardet 54042 Nancy cedex

[email protected]

Partenaire

Anne

LEF, UMR INRA-ENGREF 14 Rue Girardet 54042 Nancy cedex

[email protected]

Partenaire

François

INRA unité ESR Rue Adolphe Bobierre - CS 61103 35011 Rennes cedex

[email protected]

Partenaire & comité de pilotage

[email protected]

Partenaire & comité de pilotage

[email protected]

Partenaire

[email protected]

[email protected]

Partenaire Partenaire & comité de pilotage

[email protected]

Partenaire & comité de pilotage

[email protected] [email protected]

Partenaire & comité de pilotage Partenaire

LEERNA Pole Manufacture - bâtiment F 21 allée de Briennes Jean-Pierre 31000 Toulouse Direction de la protection de Magali l'environnement 61 boulevard Vincent Auriol Sylvie 75703 Paris cedex 13

Peter

Direction Technique Paris

Patrick

GRAPE-Centre Environnement Economique Publique (CEEP) UMR 5113 Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV Avenue Léon Duguit 33608 PESSAC

Brigitte Stale

Sorbonne 1 rue Victor Cousin 75231 Paris cedex 05 Agricultural University of Norway

*

156

II.

Etat d’avancement du projet Février 2008

Référentiel pour l’Evaluation Economique des Biens, Services et Dommages Environnementaux Liés à la Forêt Française A - RECAPITULATIF DU PROJET L’objectif principal de cette proposition est de proposer un référentiel pour les évaluations environnementales liées à la forêt française. Ce référentiel comprendra une organisation de l’information compatible avec EVRI et possédant en outre la base de données correspondante à l’étude répertoriée. Pour ce faire, on se propose dans un premier temps de (i) centraliser l’information pertinente, (ii) de décrire et qualifier le protocole suivi, (iii) de mettre à disposition la base de données utilisées pour l’évaluation dans la mesure du possible, et finalement (iv) de rapporter les résultats obtenus par étude (agrégats par types de bénéfices ou de dommages environnementaux). Cette étape de centralisation doit s’effectuer parallèlement à la mise en place - d’une aide à l’élaboration de protocoles, garantissant la fiabilité des données collectées et utilisées, - d’un réseau joint. L’élaboration de protocoles de référence s’appuiera sur les expériences passées et constituera une étape importante dans la mise en commun des données existantes et dans la réflexion à mener en vue d’évaluations futures. Une des motivations essentielles de ce projet repose sur la possibilité d’aboutir à des transferts de valeurs acceptables d’un point de vue statistique. La centralisation de l’information et la revue de la littérature impliqueront parallèlement la constitution d’un réseau (partiellement établi en France dans le domaine de l’économie forestière à travers le GIS Economie Forestière) sur l’évaluation des biens, services et dommages en forêt (conformément aux travaux effectués dans le domaine de l’eau). A la lumière des expériences précédentes, le projet proposera de mettre en place une aide à la mise au point du protocole de collecte et de traitement de l’information recommandé pour les différentes méthodes d’évaluation appliquées à la forêt. Ce protocole devrait servir à mettre en place un référentiel sur l’évaluation environnementale liée à la forêt française dans le futur. Différents exemples seront donnés pour illustrer comment le référentiel sera utilisé en pratique. Le référentiel ainsi obtenu devrait permettre d’incorporer les informations dans une base Européenne des évaluations environnementales forestières. Cet objectif implique un réseau consolidé tant au niveau national qu’au niveau européen. Le calcul d’agrégats par type de bénéfices ou de dommages environnementaux suppose un travail économétrique et statistique. La mise en commun de données, l’objectif d’aboutir à des indicateurs fiables et la volonté d’effectuer des transferts de valeurs ouvriront sur des possibilités de collaboration et de réflexions sur les techniques économétriques les plus poussées. La méthode comportera essentiellement une revue de la littérature des évaluations économiques et dommages environnementaux liés à la forêt française, une revue des bases de données existantes en évaluation environnementale, entre autres EVRI. Les étapes dans le protocole à suivre seront identifiées par un travail conjoint du réseau créé par le projet et un comité de pilotage auquel sera convié au moins un spécialiste européen. La structure sera calquée sur la structure d’EVRI, avec en complément la base de données de l’étude elle-même. Un autre but du projet sera de proposer une structure permettant son utilisation facile par les logiciels communs de traitement et d’analyse afin de faciliter le transfert des valeurs et l’application éventuelle de méthodes alternatives. Les résultats attendus seront (1) un référentiel des évaluations environnementales de la forêt en France, (2) un protocole recommandé pour les différentes méthodes d’évaluations appliquées à la forêt française. Ce référentiel et la façon dont les analystes pourront contribuer à son élaboration dans le futur seront illustrés par quelques exemples. En outre, il résultera du projet (3) la dynamisation d’un réseau qui servira dans le futur à gérer et garantir la qualité des informations répertoriées. Ceci devrait donner un plus grand poids à leur utilisation dans la décision publique. Cette meilleure prise de décision devrait elle-même résulter en un aménagement multifonctionnel plus approprié des forêts françaises et un meilleur aménagement du territoire. (4) Des tests de transferts de valeurs pourront être effectués tout au long du projet, mais l’objectif est d’aboutir à des exercices fiables d’un point de vue statistique, suite à l’élaboration de protocoles pour les évaluations futures. Axe : :Cette proposition s’inscrit dans l’axe I : Valorisation des aménités et coûts des dommages et plus particulièrement dans le thème I.A. Méthodologie pour le transfert de valeur des biens environnementaux. Responsable Scientifique : Anne Stenger, Directeur du LEF, UMR INRA-ENGREF, n° 356 14 rue Girardet, 54042, Nancy. Demande spécifique auquel répond la proposition :

Le secteur forêt se caractérise par de nombreux bénéfices non-marchands et ses écosystèmes peuvent être mis à mal de façon irréversible, tel que la disparition des forêts en zones humides par exemple. La décision publique se doit donc de prendre en compte ses valeurs non-marchandes de la forêt pour établir les politiques forestières. En particulier ces évaluations sont nécessaires pour calibrer les instruments économiques destinés à la mise en place de ces politiques. Articulation avec les programmes régionaux, nationaux et européens : Ce projet est lié au programme lorrain d’Evaluations des Dégâts des Tempêtes de 1999, au programme national de mise en place d’une base de donnée française des évaluations économiques des biens et dommages environnementaux (base EVRI) et au projet européen visant à créer une base de données pour les évaluations liés à la forêt européenne (EFORWOOD). B - AVANCEMENT DU PROJET EN FEVRIER 2008 : 

Constitution d’une base contenant les évaluations environnementales de la forêt en France (32 études), en Allemagne (33), en Autriche (9) et en Suisse (12), hébergée sur le site du LEF. Projet d’élargissement de la base à l'ensemble de l'Europe (réunion en mai 2008 dans le cadre du projet européen Cost E 45)



Rédaction d’un numéro du Journal of Forest Economics, à paraître dans les semaines qui viennent : « Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests », résumant les travaux réalisés dans le cadre du projet. Résumé de ce numéro : The purpose of this special issue of the Journal of Forest Economics is to illustrate the increasing use and limitations of environmental valuation in the decision making related to the management of forest resources in Europe. The contributions to this special issue are organized following the conclusions of a workshop on forest valuations in Europe (Nancy, 2006) to: (1) establish guiding protocols for forest valuations; (2) organize the estimated values in a database and (3) use the data base for transfer and meta-analysis. As these recommendations are followed and the frequency and quality of these studies increase, their use in the decision making process should help the forestry sector in finding its just place in the sustainable development strategy of Europe.



Travail complémentaire en cours sur la problématique du transfert de bénéfices liés aux services fournis par la forêt : zoom sur les services récréatifs, pourquoi peu d'utilisation malgré de nombreuses valeurs existantes (comparaison avec domaine eau) ?

158

III.

Liste des publications effectuées dans le cadre de ce programme

- Proceedings of the workshop “A Protocol and Database for the Environmental Valuation of French/European Forests” septembre 29-27. 2006. Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière Nancy (voir http://lef.nancyengref.inra.fr/Docs/workshop200609/Nancy200609.pdf) - Numéro Spécial Journal of Forest Economics http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/11046899

2009

Vol

15/1-2

Stenger Anne, Patrice Harou, Ståle Navrud Editorial: Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests Matthews D.I., W.G. Hutchinson and R. Scarpa Testing the stability of the benefit transfer function for discrete choice contingent valuation data Boman Mattias To pay or not to pay for biodiversity in forests – What scale determines responses to willingness to pay questions with uncertain response options? Zandersen Marianne and Richard S.J. Tol A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe Elsasser Peter, Jürgen Meyerhoff, Claire Montagné and Anne Stenger A bibliography and database on forest benefit valuation studies from Austria, France, Germany, and Switzerland – A possible base for a concerted European approach Meyerhoff Jürgen, Ulf Liebeb and Volkmar Hartjea Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: Evidence from two choice experiments in Germany Söderqvist Tore and Åsa Soutukorva On how to assess the quality of environmental valuation studies Garcia Serge, Patrice Harou, Claire Montagné and Anne Stenger Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity - Cahier du LEF: 2007-08 - Valuing Forest Biodiversity from a National Survey in France: A Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation - Serge GARCIA, Patrice HAROU, Claire MONTAGNE, Anne STENGER (http://lef.nancyengref.inra.fr/Docs/doc_LEF_n2007-08.pdf) - Bartczak A., H. Lindhjem, A. Stenger. 2008. Review of benefit transfer studies in the forest context. In: XXX & XXX (Eds.). 2008. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics Lom, Norway, 7th-10th April 2008. Scandinavian Forest Economics 42: 281-310 http://www.lindhjem.info/ForestBT.pdf - Navrud S. 2006. Database and Benefit Transfer Protocol for Forest Environmental Valuation. - Garcia Serge, Julien Jacob 2008 La valeur récréative de la forêt en France : Une approche par les coûts de déplacement En cours de révision pour la Revue d’Etude en Agriculture et Environnement - Conclusion of the workshop “third E45 Task Group meeting for the development of a database of environmental forest valuation studies in Europe” Nancy, 16. -18. October 2008

159

IV.

Index des sigles

AFGS

Austria France Germany Switzerland valuations database

ASC

Alternative Specific Constant

BT

Benefit Transfer

CBA

Cost Benefit Analysis

CBM

Cost Based Methods

CE

Choice Experiment

COST

European COoperation in the field of Scientific and Technical research

CPI

Consumer Price Index

CR

Contingent Ranking

CS

Consumer Surplus

CV

Contingent Valuation

CVM

Contingent Valuation Method

DC

Dichotomous Choice

ENGREF

Ecole Nationale du Génie Rural des Eaux et Forêts

ENVALUE

Environmental valuation database

ESD

Ecosystem Services Database

EUROFOREX

EUROpean FORest EXternalities

EUROSTAT

Office Statistique des Communautés Européennes

EVRI

Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

HP

Hedonic Price

HPM

Hedonic Price Method

ICP

Internal Comparison Program

IFN

Inventaire Forestier National

INRA

Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique

160

LEF

Laboratoire d’Economie forestière

MBDC

Multiple Bounded Dichotomous Choice

NOAA

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

OE

Open Ended

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PF

Production Function

PPP

Purchasing Power Parity

PV

Present Value

QAI

Quality Assesment Instrument

RED

Review of Externality Data

RP

Revealed Preferences

SP

Stated Preferences

TC

Travel Cost

TCM

Travel Cost Method

TEV

Total Economic Value

UMR

Unité Mixte de Recherche

UK

United Kingdom

US

United States

USDA

United States Department of Agriculture

WTA

Willingness To Accept

WTP

Willingness To Pay

161