Applying the contingent behavior method at the regional level

References

1. 1. Abildtrup, Jens,
   2. Serge Garcia,
   3. Søren Bøye Olsen, and
   4. Anne Stenger.

   2013. “Spatial Preference Heterogeneity in Forest Recreation.” Ecological Economics 92 (August): 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.001.

   OpenUrl
2. 1. Abildtrup, Jens,
   2. Søren Bøye Olsen, and
   3. Anne Stenger.

   2015. “Combining RP and SP Data While Accounting for Large Choice Sets and Travel Mode – an Application to Forest Recreation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 4 (2): 177–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2014.986210.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
3. 1. Adamowicz, Wiktor,
   2. Joffre Swait,
   3. Peter Boxall,
   4. Jordan Louviere, and
   5. Michael Williams.

   1997. “Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32 (1): 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0957.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
4. 1. Agimass, Fitalew,
   2. Thomas Lundhede,
   3. Toke Emil Panduro, and
   4. Jette Bredahl Jacobsen.

   2018. “The Choice of Forest Site for Recreation: A Revealed Preference Analysis Using Spatial Data.” Ecosystem Services, Assessment and Valuation of Recreational Ecosystem Services, vol. 31 (June): 445–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.016.

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Ahtiainen, Heini,
   2. Eija Pouta, and
   3. Janne Artell.

   2015. “Modelling Asymmetric Preferences for Water Quality in Choice Experiments with Individual-Specific Status Quo Alternatives.” Water Resources and Economics 12 (October): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2015.10.003.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Arnberger, Arne,
   2. Martin Ebenberger,
   3. Ingrid E. Schneider,

   et al. 2018. “Visitor Preferences for Visual Changes in Bark Beetle-Impacted Forest Recreation Settings in the United States and Germany.” Environmental Management 61 (2): 209–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0975-4.

   OpenUrlPubMed
7. 1. Awondo, Sebastain N.,
   2. Kevin J. Egan, and
   3. Daryl F. Dwyer.

   2011. “Increasing Beach Recreation Benefits by Using Wetlands to Reduce Contamination.” Marine Resource Economics 26 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5950/0738-1360-26.1.1.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
8. 1. Baranzini, Andrea,
   2. Caroline Schaerer, and
   3. Philippe Thalmann.

   2010. “Using Measured Instead of Perceived Noise in Hedonic Models.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 15 (8): 473–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.06.002.

   OpenUrl
9. 1. Barry, Luke,
   2. Tom M. Van Rensburg, and
   3. Stephen Hynes.

   2011. “Improving the Recreational Value of Ireland’s Coastal Resources: A Contingent Behavioural Application.” Marine Policy 35 (6): 764–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.009.

   OpenUrl
10. 1. Becker, Oliver,
    2. Tobias Börger, and
    3. Jürgen Meyerhoff.

    2025. “Sampling of Alternatives in Spatial Decision Contexts with Logit and Logit Mixture Models: Simulation and Application to Freshwater Recreation in Germany.” Resource and Energy Economics, no. 84 (August): 101535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2025.101535.
11. 1. Bertram, Christine,
    2. Heini Ahtiainen,
    3. Jürgen Meyerhoff,
    4. Kristine Pakalniete,
    5. Eija Pouta, and
    6. Katrin Rehdanz.

    2020. “Contingent Behavior and Asymmetric Preferences for Baltic Sea Coastal Recreation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 75 (1): 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-019-00388-x.

    OpenUrl
12. 1. Bertram, Christine, and
    2. Neele Larondelle.

    2017. “Going to the Woods Is Going Home: Recreational Benefits of a Larger Urban Forest Site — A Travel Cost Analysis for Berlin, Germany.” Ecological Economics 132 (February): 255–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.10.017.

    OpenUrl
13. 1. Birol, Ekin,
    2. Eric Rayn Villalba, and
    3. Melinda Smale.

    2009. “Farmer Preferences for Milpa Diversity and Genetically Modified Maize in Mexico: A Latent Class Approach.” Environment and Development Economics 14 (4): 521–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08004944.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
14. 1. Börger, Tobias,
    2. Danny Campbell,
    3. Mathew P. White,

    et al. 2021. “The Value of Blue-Space Recreation and Perceived Water Quality across Europe: A Contingent Behaviour Study.” The Science of the Total Environment 771 (June): 145597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145597.

    OpenUrlPubMed
15. 1. Börger, Tobias,
    2. Kolobe Mmonwa, and
    3. Danny Campbell.

    2023. “Hazardous Human–Wildlife Encounters, Risk Attitudes, and the Value of Shark Nets for Coastal Recreation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May 28, ajae.12413. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12413.
16. 1. Borzykowski, Nicolas,
    2. Andrea Baranzini, and
    3. David Maradan.

    2017. “A Travel Cost Assessment of the Demand for Recreation in Swiss Forests.” Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies 98 (3): 149–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-017-0047-4.

    OpenUrl
17. 1. Brühbach, D.

    2009. “Ökonomische Vorteile Des Fahrradfahrens Für Unternehmen.” https://www.fahrrad-fit.de/default.asp?Menue=225.
18. 1. Christie, Michael,
    2. Nick Hanley, and
    3. Stephen Hynes.

    2007. “Valuing Enhancements to Forest Recreation Using Choice Experiment and Contingent Behaviour Methods.” Journal of Forest Economics 13 (2–3): 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2007.02.005.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
19. Commission of the European Union. 2021. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — New EU Forest Strategy for 2030. (Brüssel).
20. 1. Creel, Michael D., and
    2. John B. Loomis.

    1990. “Theoretical and Empirical Advantages of Truncated Count Data Estimators for Analysis of Deer Hunting in California.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72 (2): 434–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242345.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
21. 1. Czajkowski, Mikołaj,
    2. Heini Ahtiainen,
    3. Janne Artell,

    et al. 2015. “Valuing the Commons: An International Study on the Recreational Benefits of the Baltic Sea.” Journal of Environmental Management 156 (June): 209–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.03.038.

    OpenUrlPubMed
22. 1. Czajkowski, Mikołaj,
    2. Marek Giergiczny,
    3. Jakub Kronenberg, and
    4. Jeffrey Englin.

    2019. “The Individual Travel Cost Method with Consumer-Specific Values of Travel Time Savings.” Environmental and Resource Economics 74 (3): 961–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-019-00355-6.

    OpenUrl
23. 1. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos, and
    2. Mario Soliño.

    2011. “Provided and Perceived Status Quo in Choice Experiments: Implications for Valuing the Outputs of Multifunctional Rural Areas.” Ecological Economics 70 (12): 2523–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.021.

    OpenUrl
24. 1. Edwards, David,
    2. Marion Jay,
    3. Frank S. Jensen,

    et al. 2012. “Public Preferences for Structural Attributes of Forests: Towards a Pan-European Perspective.” Forest Policy and Economics 19 (June): 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.006.

    OpenUrl
25. 1. Egan, Alexandra L.,
    2. John Rolfe,
    3. Sue Cassells, and
    4. B. Louise Chilvers.

    2023. “Recreational Impacts of an Oil Spill in a World Heritage Area: A Combined Travel Cost and Contingent Behaviour Method Approach.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, August 24, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2023.2248951.
26. 1. Egan, Kevin, and
    2. Joseph Herriges.

    2006. “Multivariate Count Data Regression Models with Individual Panel Data from an On-Site Sample.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52 (2): 567–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2006.03.002.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
27. 1. Englin, Jeffrey, and
    2. Trudy Ann Cameron.

    1996. “Augmenting Travel Cost Models with Contingent Behavior Data: Poisson Regression Analyses with Individual Panel Data.” Environmental & Resource Economics 7 (2): 133–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00699288.

    OpenUrl
28. 1. Englin, Jeffrey, and
    2. J. S. Shonkwiler.

    1995. “Estimating Social Welfare Using Count Data Models: An Application to Long-Run Recreation Demand Under Conditions of Endogenous Stratification and Truncation.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 77 (1): 104–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2109996.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
29. 1. Esseen, Per-Anders,
    2. Bengt Ehnström,
    3. Lars Ericson, and
    4. Kjell Sjöberg.

    1997. “Boreal Forests.” Ecological Bulletins, no. 46: 16–47.
30. 1. Filyushkina, Anna,
    2. Fitalew Agimass,
    3. Thomas Lundhede,
    4. Niels Strange, and
    5. Jette Bredahl Jacobsen.

    2017. “Preferences for Variation in Forest Characteristics: Does Diversity between Stands Matter?” Ecological Economics 140 (October): 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.010.

    OpenUrl
31. 1. Forzieri, Giovanni,
    2. Marco Girardello,
    3. Guido Ceccherini,

    et al. 2021. “Emergent Vulnerability to Climate-Driven Disturbances in European Forests.” Nature Communications 12 (February): 1081. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21399-7.

    OpenUrlPubMed
32. 1. Gamborg, Christian, and
    2. Jørgen Bo Larsen.

    2003. “‘Back to Nature’—a Sustainable Future for Forestry?” Forest Ecology and Management 179 (1): 559–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00553-4.

    OpenUrl
33. German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. 2020. Richtlinie Zum Erhalt Und Zur Nachhaltigen Bewirtschaftung Der Wälder: Nachhaltigkeitsprämie Wald. Berlin.
34. 1. Giergiczny, Marek,
    2. Mikołaj Czajkowski,
    3. Tomasz Żylicz, and
    4. Per Angelstam.

    2015. “Choice Experiment Assessment of Public Preferences for Forest Structural Attributes.” Ecological Economics 119 (November): 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.032.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
35. 1. Glenk, Klaus.

    2011. “Using Local Knowledge to Model Asymmetric Preference Formation in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services.” Journal of Environmental Management 92 (3): 531–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.003.

    OpenUrlPubMed
36. 1. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna, and
    2. Davina Vačkářová.

    2021. “The Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Meta-Analysis at the European Scale and Application to National Ecosystem Accounting.” Ecosystem Services 48 (April): 101262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101262.

    OpenUrl
37. 1. Grilli, Gianluca,
    2. Alessandro Paletto, and
    3. Isabella De Meo.

    2014. “Economic Valuation of Forest Recreation in an Alpine Valley.” BALTIC FORESTRY 20 (1).
38. 1. Grogger, J. T., and
    2. R. T. Carson.

    1991. “Models for Truncated Counts.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 6 (3): 225–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.3950060302.

    OpenUrl
39. 1. Haab, Timothy C., and
    2. Kenneth E. McConnell.

    2002. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. New Horizons in Environmental Economics. E. Elgar Pub.
40. 1. Hanley, Nick,
    2. David Bell, and
    3. Begona Alvarez-Farizo.

    2003. “Valuing the Benefits of Coastal Water Quality Improvements Using Contingent and Real Behaviour.” Environmental and Resource Economics 24 (3): 273–85. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022904706306.

    OpenUrl
41. 1. Hanley, Nick,
    2. Douglas W. Shaw, and
    3. Robert E. Wright.

    2003. The New Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
42. 1. Hauru, Kaisa,
    2. Saara Koskinen,
    3. D. Johan Kotze, and
    4. Susanna Lehvävirta.

    2014. “The Effects of Decaying Logs on the Aesthetic Experience and Acceptability of Urban Forests – Implications for Forest Management.” Landscape and Urban Planning 123 (March): 114–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.014.

    OpenUrl
43. 1. Hess, Stephane,
    2. John M. Rose, and
    3. David A. Hensher.

    2008. “Asymmetric Preference Formation in Willingness to Pay Estimates in Discrete Choice Models.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 44 (5): 847–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2007.06.002.

    OpenUrl
44. 1. Jonsson, Bengt Gunnar,
    2. Nicholas Kruys, and
    3. Thomas Ranius.

    2005. “Ecology of Species Living on Dead Wood – Lessons for Dead Wood Management.” Silva Fennica 39 (2). https://www.silvafennica.fi/article/390.
45. 1. Kaya, Güven.

    2022. “Estimating Regional Aggregate Economic Value of Forest Recreation Services with Linked Travel Cost Model.” Forests 13 (10): 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101561.

    OpenUrl
46. 1. Kipperberg, Gorm,
    2. Yuko Onozaka,
    3. Linh Thi Bui,
    4. Marthe Lohaugen,
    5. Greta Refsdal, and
    6. Sandra Sæland.

    2019. “The Impact of Wind Turbines on Local Recreation: Evidence from Two Travel Cost Method – Contingent Behavior Studies.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 25 (March): 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2018.11.004.

    OpenUrl
47. 1. Krinsky, Itzhak, and
    2. A. Leslie Robb.

    1986. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (4): 715. https://doi.org/10.2307/1924536.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
48. 1. Lankia, Tuija,
    2. Marjo Neuvonen, and
    3. Eija Pouta.

    2019. “Effects of Water Quality Changes on the Recreation Benefits of Swimming in Finland: Combined Travel Cost and Contingent Behavior Model.” Water Resources and Economics, Inland and Marine Water Valuation, vol. 25 (January): 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2017.10.002.

    OpenUrl
49. 1. Larsen, J.B., and
    2. A.B. Nielsen.

    2007. “Nature-Based Forest Management—Where Are We Going?” Forest Ecology and Management 238 (1–3): 107–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.087.

    OpenUrl
50. 1. Luxen, Dennis, and
    2. Christian Vetter.

    2011. “Real-Time Routing with OpenStreetMap Data.” Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems (New York, NY, USA), GIS ’11, 513–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2093973.2094062.
51. 1. Mäntymaa, Erkki,
    2. Mikko Jokinen,
    3. Artti Juutinen,
    4. Tuija Lankia, and
    5. Pauliina Louhi.

    2021. “Providing Ecological, Cultural and Commercial Services in an Urban Park: A Travel Cost–Contingent Behavior Application in Finland.” Landscape and Urban Planning 209 (May): 104042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104042.

    OpenUrl
52. 1. Marsh, Dan,
    2. Lena Mkwara, and
    3. Riccardo Scarpa.

    2011. “Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams.” Sustainability 3 (9): 1593–615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3091593.

    OpenUrl
53. 1. Masiero, Lorenzo, and
    2. David A. Hensher.

    2010. “Analyzing Loss Aversion and Diminishing Sensitivity in a Freight Transport Stated Choice Experiment.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44 (5): 349–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2010.03.006.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
54. 1. Melichar, Jan.

    2022. “The Economice Valuation of the Change in Forest Quality in the Jizerske Hory Montains: A Contingent Behavior Model.” Public Recreation and Landscape Protection - with Environment Hand in Hand? https://doi.org/10.11118/978-80-7509-831-3.
55. Ministry for Climate Protection, Agriculture, Rural Areas and the Environment Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. 2012. “Dritte Bundeswaldinventur Für Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.”
56. 1. Nielsen, Anders Busse,
    2. Søren Bøye Olsen, and
    3. Thomas Lundhede.

    2007. “An Economic Valuation of the Recreational Benefits Associated with Nature-Based Forest Management Practices.” Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (1–2): 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.003.

    OpenUrl
57. 1. Pelyukh, Oksana,
    2. Alessandro Paletto, and
    3. Lyudmyla Zahvoyska.

    2019. “People’s Attitudes towards Deadwood in Forest: Evidence from the Ukrainian Carpathians.” Journal of Forest Science 65 (5): 171–82. https://doi.org/10.17221/144/2018-JFS.

    OpenUrl
58. R Core Team. 2023. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Manual. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
59. 1. Randall, Alan.

    1994. “A Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method.” Land Economics 70 (1): 88. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146443.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
60. 1. Rathmann, Joachim,
    2. Philipp Sacher,
    3. Norman Volkmann, and
    4. Marius Mayer.

    2020. “Using the Visitor-Employed Photography Method to Analyse Deadwood Perceptions of Forest Visitors: A Case Study from Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany.” European Journal of Forest Research 139 (3): 431–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-020-01260-0.

    OpenUrl
61. 1. Ribe, Robert G.

    2009. “In-Stand Scenic Beauty of Variable Retention Harvests and Mature Forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: The Effects of Basal Area, Density, Retention Pattern and down Wood.” Journal of Environmental Management 91 (1): 245–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.08.014.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
62. 1. Sacher, Philipp,
    2. Jürgen Meyerhoff, and
    3. Marius Mayer.

    2022. “Evidence of the Association between Deadwood and Forest Recreational Site Choices.” Forest Policy and Economics 135 (February): 102638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102638.

    OpenUrl
63. 1. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke,
    2. Kristine Grimsrud, and
    3. Henrik Lindhjem.

    2022. “Ponderous, Proficient or Professional? Survey Experience and Smartphone Effects in Stated Preference Research.” Environmental and Resource Economics 81 (4): 807–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-022-00654-5.

    OpenUrl
64. 1. Scarpa, Riccardo,
    2. W. George Hutchinson,
    3. Susan M. Chilton, and
    4. Joseph Buongiorno.

    2000. “Importance of Forest Attributes in the Willingness to Pay for Recreation: A Contingent Valuation Study of Irish Forests.” Forest Policy and Economics 1 (3): 315–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(00)00026-5.

    OpenUrl
65. 1. Shaw, Daigee.

    1988. “On-Site Samples’ Regression: Problems of Non-Negative Integers, Truncation, and Endogenous Stratification.” Journal of Econometrics 37 (2): 211–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(88)90003-6.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
66. 1. Termansen, Mette,
    2. Colin J. McClean, and
    3. Frank Søndergaard Jensen.

    2013. “Modelling and Mapping Spatial Heterogeneity in Forest Recreation Services.” Ecological Economics, Land Use, vol. 92 (August): 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.001.

    OpenUrl
67. 1. Tienhaara, Annika,
    2. Tuija Lankia,
    3. Olli Lehtonen, and
    4. Eija Pouta.

    2021. “Heterogeneous Preferences towards Quality Changes in Water Recreation: Latent Class Model for Contingent Behavior Data.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 35 (September): 100386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2021.100386.

    OpenUrl
68. 1. Tyrväinen, Liisa,
    2. Harri Silvennoinen, and
    3. Osmo Kolehmainen.

    2003. “Ecological and Aesthetic Values in Urban Forest Management.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1 (3): 135–49. https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00014.

    OpenUrl
69. 1. Vacek, Zdeněk,
    2. Stanislav Vacek, and
    3. Jan Cukor.

    2023. “European Forests under Global Climate Change: Review of Tree Growth Processes, Crises and Management Strategies.” Journal of Environmental Management 332 (April): 117353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117353.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
70. 1. Voltaire, Louinord, and
    2. Obafèmi Philippe Koutchade.

    2020. “Public Acceptance of and Heterogeneity in Behavioral Beach Trip Responses to Offshore Wind Farm Development in Catalonia (Spain).” Resource and Energy Economics 60 (May): 101152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2020.101152.

    OpenUrl
71. 1. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M.

    2001. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 1st ed. MIT Press.
72. 1. Zandersen, Marianne, and
    2. Richard S.J. Tol.

    2009. “A Meta-Analysis of Forest Recreation Values in Europe.” Journal of Forest Economics 15 (1–2): 109–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2008.03.006.

    OpenUrl