Journal of Forest Economics > Vol 18 > Issue 4

Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs

Maria L. Loureiro, , maria.loureiro@usc.es Fernando Dominguez Arcos, ,
 
Suggested Citation
Maria L. Loureiro and Fernando Dominguez Arcos (2012), "Applying Best–Worst Scaling in a stated preference analysis of forest management programs", Journal of Forest Economics: Vol. 18: No. 4, pp 381-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2012.06.006

Published: 0/12/2012
© 0 2012 Maria L. Loureiro, Fernando Dominguez Arcos
 
Subjects
 
Keywords
JEL Codes:Q23O21D7
Best–Worst ScalingForest landownersStated preferencesLatent Class Model
 

Article Help

Share

Download article
In this article:
Introduction
Literature review
Method
Data
Results
Conclusions

Abstract

The selection of an appropriate forest management program is an arduous task in which opinions and information are shared. In this research, we have tried to facilitate this process by applying the Best–Worst Scaling (BWS) method in order to discriminate among the various management alternatives and to identify the management preferences stated by a group of key actors in decision making process: common property forest owners. Descriptive results from the BWS method show the ranking for preventive wildfire policies from the best (most preferred) to the worst (least preferred) policy among those evaluated by forest owners. However, and after employing a Latent Class Model, we find that common forest owners can be classified into two different classes, especially distant in terms of preferences toward forest management priorities. On one hand, one of the classes (containing older individuals) is more likely to prefer policies based on direct economic incentives and quicker returns, whereas a second class (younger) prefers other policies that also contain environmental and social spillovers or benefits. Thus, we find that BWS may be a very suitable method of elicitation of preferences in the context of decision making under multiple conflicting criteria.

DOI:10.1016/j.jfe.2012.06.006