Estimating the Sustainability of Managed Natural Forests in Costa Rica—A Hybrid Delphi & Choice Experiment Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. The Sample
2.3. Discrete Choice Experiments
2.4. Model and Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Attitude towards Critical Elements
3.2. Tendency of Each Attribute
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Van Gossum, P.; Arts, B.; De Wulf, R.; Verheyen, K. An institutional evaluation of sustainable forest management in Flanders. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hickey, G. Evaluating sustainable forest management. Ecol. Indic. 2008, 8, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armitaje, L. Directrices Para La Ordenación de Los Bosques Tropicales: 1. Producción de Madera; FAO: Roma, Italia, 1999; pp. 135–330. [Google Scholar]
- Maesa, W.; Fontaine, M.; Rongé, K.; Hermy, M.; Muys, B. A quantitative indicator framework for stand level evaluation and monitoring of environmentally sustainable forest management. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11, 468–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sotto, J.G.; Ennals, A. El Manejo Local de Bosques, un Instrumento Para El Desarrollo Rural; Documento de Trabajo; FTTP/FAO: San José, Costa Rica, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Pires, S.M.; Fidélis, T. Local sustainability indicators in Portugal: Assessing implementation and use in governance contexts. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 86, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cubbage, F.; Diaz, D.; Yapura, P.; Dube, F. Impacts of forest management certification in Argentina and Chile. For. Policy Econ. 2010, 12, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGinley, K.; Cubbage, F. Governmental regulation and nongovernmental certification of forests in the tropics: Policy, execution, uptake, and overlap in Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. For. Policy Econ. 2011, 13, 206–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, B.C.; Wang, D.; Keeton, W.S.; Ashton, M.S. Implementing sustainable forest management using six concepts in an adaptive management framework. J. Sustain. For. 2010, 29, 79–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Cauwenbergh, N.; Biala, K.; Bielders, C.; Brouckaert, V.; Franchois, L.; Garcia-Cidad, V.; Hermy, M.; Mathijs, E.; Muys, B.; Reijnders, J.; et al. SAFE—A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 120, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holvoet, B.; Muys, B. Sustainable forest management worldwide: A comparative assessment of standards. Inter. For. Rev. 2004, 6, 99–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baycheva-Merger, T.; Wolfslehner, B. Evaluating the implementation of the Pan-European Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management—A {SWOT} analysis. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 1192–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santopuoli, G.; Ferranti, F.; Marchetti, M. Implementing Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in a Decentralized Setting: Italy as a Case Study. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2016, 18, 177–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Günter, S.; Louman, B.; Oyarzún, V. Criterios e Indicadores Para Mejorar la Capacidad de Monitoreo de Los Bosques y Promover El Manejo Forestal Sostenible: Intercambio De Ideas Para Los Procesos De Montreal y América Latina; Boletín Técnico; CATIE: Turrialba, Costa Rica, 2012; Volume 54, p. 64. [Google Scholar]
- Sage, L.F. Propuesta de Financiamiento al Sector Forestal. Proyecto de Fortalecimiento de la Capacidad Nacional para la Ejecución del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Forestal; FAO/TCP/COS/2001; MINAE-FAO: San José, Costa Rica, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Barrantes, A.; Paniagua, R.; Salazar, G. Usos y Aportes de La madera en Costa Rica: Estadísticas 2010; Oficina Nacional Forestal: San José, Costa Rica, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- MINAE (Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Forestal: 2001–2010; Comunicaciones Milenio: San José, Costa Rica, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- MINAE (Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Forestal: 2011–2020, 1st ed.; Comunicaciones Milenio: San José, Costa Rica, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Barrantes, A.; Ugalde, S. Usos y Aportes de La Madera en Costa Rica: Estadísticas 2016; Oficina Nacional Forestal: San José, Costa Rica, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sage, L.F.; Miranda, M.; Ulate, R. Estrategia Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal Viable Para Costa Rica. In Estrategias y Mecanismos Financieros Para el Uso Sostenible y La Conservación De Bosques Fase 1: América Latina; Proyecto FAO/UICN /HOLANDA (LNV-DK)/CCAD GCP/INT/953/NET: San José, Costa Rica, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Camacho, A. Diagnóstico Corto Sobre Las Barreras Que Desalientan el Manejo de Bosques Naturales en Costa Rica y Propuestas de Solución. Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal; Forest Monitoring System for REDD+. Costa Rica. 2015. Available online: https://onfcr.org.cyclope.ws/media/uploads/documents/diagnostico-corto-mfs-bosques-en-cr.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2018).
- Morán, M.; Campos, J.J.; Louman, B. Uso de Principios, Criterios e Indicadores Para Monitorear y Evaluar las Acciones y Efectos de Políticas en el Manejo de Los Recursos Naturales; Serie Técnica; Informe Técnico; CATIE: Turrialba, Costa Rica, 2006; No. 347. [Google Scholar]
- Hoyos, D. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1595–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vega, D.C.; Alpízar, F. Choice experiments in environmental impact assessment: The case of the Toro 3 hydroelectric project and the Recreo Verde tourist center in Costa Rica. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2011, 29, 252–262. [Google Scholar]
- Mac Dicken, K.G.; Sola, P.; Hall, J.E.; Sabogal, C.; Tadoum, M.; De Wasseige, C. Global progress toward sustainable forest management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 352, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hicks, R.L. A Comparison of Stated and Revealed Preference Methods for Fisheries Management; Agricultural and Applied Economics Association: Long Beach, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Chaikaew, P.; Hodges, A.W.; Grunwald, S. Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hearne, R.R.; Salinas, Z.M. The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Costa Rica. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 65, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alpizar, F.; Carlsson, F. Policy implications and analysis of the determinants of travel mode choice: An application of choice experiments to metropolitan Costa Rica. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2003, 8, 603–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hearne, R.; Volcan, M. The use of Choice Experiments to Analyze Consumer Preferences for Organic Produce in Costa Rica. In Proceedings of the American Agriculture Economics Association (AAEA) Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA, USA, 28–31 July 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Richardson, R.B.; Kellon, D.; Leon, R.G.; Arvai, J. Using choice experiments to understand household tradeoffs regarding pineapple production and environmental management in Costa Rica. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 127, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alpízar, F.; Martinsson, P.; Nordén, A. Do entrance fees crowd out donations for public goods? Evidence from a protected area in Costa Rica. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2015, 20, 311–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalkey, N.; Helmer, O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag. Sci. 1963, 9, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sackman, H. Delphi Critique: Expert Opinion Forecasting and Group Process; D.C. Heath: Lexington, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Navrud, S.; Strand, J. Valuing Global Ecosystem Services: What Do European Experts Say? Applying the Delphi Method to Contingent Valuation of the Amazon Rainforest. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2016, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Ridaura, S.; Van Keulen, H.; Van Ittersum, M.; Leffelaar, P.A. Multiscale methodological framework to derive criteria and indicators for sustainability evaluation of peasant natural resource management systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2005, 7, 51–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, J.M.; Bliemer, M.C. Sample Optimality in the Design of Stated Choice Experiments. In Travel Behavior Research in the Evolving World; IATBR: Jaipur, India, 2012; pp. 119–145. [Google Scholar]
- Beggs, S.; Cardell, S.; Hausman, J. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J. Econom. 1981, 17, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caparrós, A.; Oviedo, J.L.; Campos, P. Would you choose your preferred option? Comparing choice and recoded ranking experiments. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 90, 843–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scarpa, R.; Notaro, S.; Louviere, J.; Raffaelli, R. Exploring Scale Effects of Best/Worst Rank Ordered Choice Data to Estimate Benefits of Tourism in Alpine Grazing Commons. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 93, 813–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akaichi, F.; Nayga, R.M.; Gil, J.M. Are Results from Non-hypothetical Choice-based Conjoint Analyses and Non-hypothetical Recoded-ranking Conjoint Analyses Similar? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2013, 95, 949–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varela, E.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Soliño, M. Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management in Southern Spain. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 106, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hensher, D.A.; Rose, J.M.; Greene, W.H. Applied Choice Analysis, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Christie, M.; Hanley, N.; Hynes, S. Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behavior methods. J. For. Econ. 2007, 13, 75–102. [Google Scholar]
- Navarro, G.; Bermúdez, G. Análisis Económico Del Impacto de Las Restricciones Técnicas y Legales Sobre La Rentabilidad Del Manejo Bosques Naturales y su Competitividad Respecto a Otros Usos de La Tierra en Costa Rica; SINAC-FAO-TCP/COS/3003; MINAE-FAO: San José, Costa Rica, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Barrantes, A. PSA Manejo de Bosque Natural; Oficina Nacional Forestal: San José, Costa Rica, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Dias, V.; Belcher, K. Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: A choice experiment approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 15, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Critical Points | Level (I round) | Level (II round) |
---|---|---|
Production performance: a Minimum Reference Value (MRV) of basal area is used in managed forests, depending on the site. |
|
|
Cost of obtaining and executing a management plan: costs incurred by the owner to generate the Forest Management Plan and the costs of execution at the time of timber extraction |
|
|
External financing: the owner needs to seek external financing in order to assume the production and execution of the Forest Management Plan. |
|
|
Payment for environmental services (PES): it refers to the real options that exist in the country to receive PES once the forest has been harvested. The options correspond to: PES for forests that besides protection activities also offer hydric resources; PES for forests that offer protection; PES for managed forests and lastly, forests that do not receive PES. |
|
|
Technical, legal and administrative conditions for the management plan: it refers to the formalities or procedures related to the permit granting and the supervision exercised by the State when activities are authorized through a forest management plan | Not included in the experimental design |
|
Membership of groups of organized producers: it refers to producers being members of cooperatives, agricultural centres, non-governmental organizations and producer associations, among others, which may provide the producer with technical and legal services. |
| Not included in the experimental design |
Attribute | Critical Point | Considered as A Risk (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
I Round | II Round | ||
Productivity | High cost of forest management work | 63.30 | 87.00 |
Low production performance | 53.30 | 78.30 | |
Low product quality | 36.70 | 56.50 | |
Absence of payments for environmental services (PES) | 13.30 | 13.00 | |
Stability | Deforestation (change in land use) | 80.00 | 95.70 |
Technical, legal and administrative variations | 70.00 | 87.00 | |
Product price instability | 26.70 | 73.90 | |
Soil and water pollution | 20.00 | 65.20 | |
Soil loss or degradation | 13.30 | 52.20 | |
Pesticide damage | 10.00 | 17.40 | |
Adaptability | Technical, legal and/or administrative inflexibility | 90.00 | 95.70 |
High dependence on external financing | 40.00 | 65.20 | |
High cost of supplies | 16.70 | 30.40 | |
Equity | Loss of forested land value | 73.30 | 95.70 |
Variations in the procedures between State offices | 53.30 | 65.20 | |
Social differences in the community | 26.70 | 17.40 | |
Population migration | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
Management | High indebtedness of producers (dependence on financing) | 73.30 | 69.60 |
Lack of organization among producers | 43.30 | 52.20 | |
Deterioration of the communal organization | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Coefficient | Standard Error | Standard. Deviation of Random Parameters | Standard Error | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Production performance | 4.01514 *** | 0.56021 | 1.68547 *** | 0.49002 |
Cost of obtaining and executing a management plan | 2.42229 *** | 0.35348 | 0.91413 *** | 0.29769 |
Payment for environmental services (PES) | 1.99616 *** | 0.32459 | 1.01636 *** | 0.37212 |
External financing | 2.22839 *** | 0.32961 | 0.89840 *** | 0.32767 |
Membership of organized groups | 0.31797 | 0.24526 | 0.66256 ** | 0.32702 |
Log likelihood function | −213.39756 | |||
Restricted log likelihood | −499.06597 | |||
McFadden Pseudo R-squared | 0.5724061 | |||
AIC | 446.8 | |||
AIC/N | 1.241 | |||
Number of individuals | 30 |
Coefficient | Standard Error | Standard. Deviation of Random Parameters | Standard Error | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Production performance | 0.15057 *** | 0.02571 | 0.08662 *** | 0.02311 |
Cost of obtaining and executing a management plan | −0.05040 *** | 0.01574 | 0.05288 *** | 0.01639 |
Payment for environmental services (PES) | 0.02646 *** | 0.00706 | 0.02284 *** | 0.00633 |
External financing Yes # | −0.68269 *** | 0.23089 | 0.26462 * | 0.14836 |
External financing No ## | 0.34135 *** | 0.11545 | ||
Technical, legal and administrative conditions for the management plan inflexible # | −1.04173 *** | 0.36166 | 0.49103 ** | 0.20222 |
Technical, legal and administrative conditions for the management plan stable # | 0.13248 | 0.28697 | 0.08671 | 0.44536 |
Technical, legal and administrative conditions for the management plan variable ## | 0.30308 | 0.19826 | ||
Log likelihood function | −250.4757 | |||
Restricted log likelihood | −382.6172 | |||
McFadden Pseudo R-squared | 0.3457 | |||
AIC | 525.0 | |||
AIC/N | 1.902 | |||
Number of individuals | 23 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Salas-Garita, C.; Soliño, M. Estimating the Sustainability of Managed Natural Forests in Costa Rica—A Hybrid Delphi & Choice Experiment Approach. Forests 2019, 10, 832. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100832
Salas-Garita C, Soliño M. Estimating the Sustainability of Managed Natural Forests in Costa Rica—A Hybrid Delphi & Choice Experiment Approach. Forests. 2019; 10(10):832. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100832
Chicago/Turabian StyleSalas-Garita, Cynthia, and Mario Soliño. 2019. "Estimating the Sustainability of Managed Natural Forests in Costa Rica—A Hybrid Delphi & Choice Experiment Approach" Forests 10, no. 10: 832. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100832