Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 10, Issue , 2014, Pages 111-123

  Ryffel, Andrea Nathalie ^a   Rid, Wolfgang ^b,c   Grêt Regamey, Adrienne ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

3D visualization; Choice experiment; Flood protection; Hydrological ecosystem services; Land use trade offs; Mountain catchment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84910644991     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.008     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. 3D Nature LLC, 2012. 3D Landscape Design & Visualization Software, http://www.3dnature.com/.
2. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 80:64-75.
3. Alberini A., Longo A., Veronesi M. Basic statistical models for stated choice studies. Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies. A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice 2006, 203-227. Springer, Dordrecht. B.J. Kanninen (Ed.).
4. Arnold M., Schwarzwälder B., Beer-Tóth K., Zbinden M., Baumgart K. Mehrwert naturnaher Wasserläufe. Untersuchung zur Zahlungsbereitschaft mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Erschliessung für den Langsamverkehr. Bundesamt für Umwelt. Umwelt-Wissen 2009, 0912:124.
5. Baranzini A., Schaerer C. A sight for sore eyes: assessing the value of view and land use in the housing market. J. Housing Econ. 2011, 20:191-199.
6. Bateman I., Day B., Jones A., Jude S. Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2009, 58:106-118.
7. Ben-Akiva M., Swait J. The Akaike likelihood ratio index. Transp. Sci. 1986, 20:133-136.
8. Bierlaire, M., 2003. BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models.
9. Birol E., Karousakis K., Koundouri P. Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60:145-156.
10. Bishop I.D., Stock C., Williams K.J. Using virtual environments and agent models in multi-criteria decision-making. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:87-94.
11. Bliemer, M., Rose, J.M., 2005. Efficiency and Sample Size Requirements for Stated Choice Studies. Institute of Transport Studies and Logistics Working Paper.
12. Bosch J.M., Hewlett J.D. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. J. Hydrol. 1982, 55:3-23.
13. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 23:421-446.
14. Boyle K.J. Contingent valuation in practice. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation 2003, 111-169. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. P.A. Champ, K.J. Boyle, T.C. Brown (Eds.).
15. Brauman K.A., Daily G.C., Duarte T.K., Mooney H.A. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007, 32:67-98.
16. Bronstert A., Niehoff D., Bürger G. Effects of climate and land-use change on storm runoff generation: present knowledge and modelling capabilities. Hydrol. Processes 2002, 16:509-529.
17. Brouwer R., Schaafsma M. Modelling risk adaptation and mitigation behaviour under different climate change scenarios. Clim. Change 2013, 117:11-29.
18. Calder I.R., Aylward B. Forest and floods: moving to an evidence-based approach to watershed and integrated flood management. Water Int. 2006, 31:87-99.
19. Champ P.A., Boyle K.J., Brown T.C. A primer on nonmarket valuation. The Economics of Non-market Goods and Resources 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. I.J. Bateman (Ed.).
20. Christensen J., Carter T., Rummukainen M., Amanatidis G. Evaluating the performance and utility of regional climate models: the PRUDENCE project. Clim. Change 2007, 81:1-6.
21. de Groot R.S., Alkemade R., Braat L., Hein L., Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complexity 2010, 7:260-272.
22. DeFries R.S., Asner G.P., Houghton R.A. Ecosystems and land use change. Geophys. Monogr. 2004, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.
23. Dijkstra J., van Leeuwen J., Timmermans H. Evaluating design alternatives using conjoint experiments in virtual reality. Environ. Plann. B 2003, 30:357-368.
24. Domencich T.A., McFadden D. Urban travel demand-a behavioral analysis, no. Monograph 1975, 215.
25. Eckhardt K., Breuer L., Frede H.-G. Parameter uncertainty and the significance of simulated land use change effects. J. Hydrol. 2003, 273:164-176.
26. Ellison D., Futter N., Bishop, K.M. On the forest cover-water yield debate: from demand- to supply-side thinking. Global Change Biol. 2012, 18:806-820.
27. Eshleman K.N. Hydrological consequences of land use change: a review of the state-of-science. Ecosystems and land Use Change 2004, 13-29. R. DeFries, G.P. Asner, R.A. Houghton (Eds.).
28. ESRI, 2010. ArcGIS 10, http://www.esri.com/.
29. Fellmann J.G. Die Verbauung der Kleinen Emme im Kanton Luzern 1917, Buchdruckerei Räber und Cie., Luzern.
30. ForA, 2013. Federal Act on Forest.
31. FOWG, 2001. Federal Office for Water and Geology: Flood Control at Rivers and Streams. Guidelines of the FOWG, p.72.
32. Freeman, A.M., 2003. Economic Valuation: What and Why. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, 1-25.
33. Frei, C., 2006. Die Klimazukunft der Schweiz - Eine probabilistische Projektion, http://www.meteoschweiz.ch.
34. Frei C., Schöll R., Fukutome S., Schmidli J., Vidale P.L. Future change of precipitation extremes in Europe: intercomparison of scenarios from regional climate models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2006, 111:D06105.
35. FSO, 2010. Szenarien zur Bevölkerungsentwicklung der Schweiz. 2010-2060. Federal Statistical Office FSO, Neuchâtel.
36. FSO, 2014. Federal Statistical Office FSO.
37. Gellrich M., Baur P., Koch B., Zimmermann N.E. Agricultural land abandonment and natural forest re-growth in the Swiss mountains: a spatially explicit economic analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 118:93-108.
38. Gerten D., Lucht W. Detection and Attribution of Changes in Water Resources, Changes in Flood Risk in Europe 2012, 422-434. CRC Press.
39. Gerten D., Rost S., von Bloh W., Lucht W. Causes of change in 20th century global river discharge. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008, 35:L20405.
40. Goodess C.M. Statistical and regional dynamical downscaling of extremes for European regions: STARDEX. EGGS 2003, 25-29.
41. Grêt-Regamey A., Bishop I.D., Bebi P. Predicting the scenic beauty value of mapped landscape changes in a mountainous region through the use of GIS. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2007, 34:50-67.
42. Hanley N., Mourato S., Wright R.E. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. Journal of economic surveys 2001, 15:435-462.
43. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Alvarez-Farizo B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management 2006, 78:183-193.
44. Hensher D.A., Greene W.H. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30:133-176.
45. Holmes T.P., Adamowicz W.L. Attribute-based methods. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation 2003, 171-219. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. P.A. Champ, K.J. Boyle, T.C. Brown (Eds.).
46. Hoyos D. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1595-1603.
47. Huber J., Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Marketing Res. 1996, 307-317.
48. Hunziker M., Kienast F. Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty-a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecol. 1999, 14:161-176.
49. Johnston R.J., Swallow S.K., Bauer D.M. Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods: considerations for rural land use. Land Econ. 2002, 78:481-500.
50. Jones J.A., Grant G.E. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resour. Res. 1996, 32:959-974.
51. Kanninen B.J. Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Econ. 1993, 138-146.
52. Kim Y., Band L.E., Song C. The influence of forest regrowth on the stream discharge in the North Carolina Piedmont Watersheds. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2014, 50:57-73.
53. Laing R., Davies A., Scott S. Combining visualization with choice experimentation in the built environment. Visualisation for Landscape and Environmental Planning: Technology and Applications 2005, 212-219. Taylor & Francis, London.
54. Laing R.A., Davies A.-M., Miller D., Conniff A., Scott S., Morrice J. The application of visual environmental economics in the study of public preference and urban greenspace. Environ. Plann. B 2009, 36(2).
55. LHG, 1992. Hydrologischer Atlas der Schweiz. Landeshydrologie und -geologie, BWG, 2051 Biel.
56. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications 2000, Cambridge University Press.
57. LUSTAT, 2014.
58. Malczewski J. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis 1999, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
59. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1973, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarempka (Ed.).
60. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econom. 2000, 15:447-470.
61. Meyerhoff J., Liebe U. Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ. 2009, 85:515-528.
62. Molnar, P., Burlando, P., Kirsch, J., Hinz, E., Rowan, J., Duck, R., Werritty, A., 2006. Model Investigations of the Effects of Land-use Changes and Forest Damage on Erosion in Mountainous Environments. Sediment Dynamics and the Hydromorphology of Fluvial Systems, 589-600.
63. Morse-Jones S., Bateman I.J., Kontoleon A., Ferrini S., Burgess N.D., Turner R.K. Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects. Ecol. Econ. 2012.
64. Newell L.W., Swallow S.K. Real-payment choice experiments: valuing forested wetlands and spatial attributes within a landscape context. Ecol. Econ. 2012.
65. Nguyen T.C., Robinson J., Kaneko S., Komatsu S. Estimating the value of economic benefits associated with adaptation to climate change in a developing country: a case study of improvements in tropical cyclone warning services. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86:117-128.
66. O'Connell P., Ewen J., O'Donnell G., Quinn P. Is there a link between agricultural land-use management and flooding?. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2007, 11:96-107.
67. Olschewski R., Bebi P., Teich M., Wissen Hayek U., Grêt-Regamey A. Avalanche protection by forests-a choice experiment in the Swiss Alps. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 17:19-24.
68. Rehr A.P., Williams G.D., Levin P.S. A test of the use of computer generated visualizations in support of ecosystem-based management. Mar. Policy 2014, 46:14-18.
69. Rid W., Profeta A. Stated preferences for sustainable housing development in Germany-a latent class analysis. J. Plann. Edu. Res. 2011, 31:26-46.
70. Rose J.M., Masiero L. A comparison of the impacts of aspects of prospect theory on WTP/WTA estimated in preference and WTP/WTA space. EJTIR 2010, 330-346.
71. Samuelson W., Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertainty 1988, 1:7-59.
72. Schädler B., Frei C., Grebner D., Willi H.P. Grundlagen zum Klima. Wasser Energ. Luft 2007, 1/2007:58-59.
73. Schläpfer F. Contingent valuation: a new perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64:729-740.
74. Schläpfer F. Access to party positions and preference formation: a field experiment. Swiss Polit. Sci. Rev. 2011, 17:75-91.
75. Schläpfer F., Schmitt M., A., R. Competitive politics, simplified heuristics, and preferences for public goods. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:574-589.
76. Schmidli J., Goodess C.M., Frei C., Haylock M.R., Hundecha Y., Ribalaygua J., Schmith T. Statistical and dynamical downscaling of precipitation: an evaluation and comparison of scenarios for the European Alps. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2007, 112:D4.
77. Schnorbus M., Alila Y. Forest harvesting impacts on the peak flow regime in the Columbia Mountains of southeastern British Columbia: an investigation using long-term numerical modeling. Water Resour. Res. 2004, 40:W05205.
78. Schoonover J.E., Lockaby B.G., Helms B.S. Impacts of land cover on stream hydrology in the West Georgia Piedmont, USA. J. Environ. Qual. 2006, 35:2123-2131.
79. Stadelmann, P., Lovas, R., 2000. Flussgebietsplanung für einen voralpinen Fluss in der Schweiz. Kleine Emme im Kanton Luzern. In: Schweizerischer Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches SVGW (Ed.), Zürich, p. 24.
80. Tong S.T.Y. The hydrologic effects of urban land use: a case study of the little Miami River Basin. Landscape Urban Plann. 1990, 19:99-105.
81. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
82. Vecchiato D., Tempesta T. Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments. For. Policy Econ.' 2013, 26:111-120.
83. Vischer D.L. Die Geschichte des Hochwasserschutzes in der Schweiz. Von den Anfängen bis ins 19. Jahrhundert 2003, 209. Berichte des BWG. Serie Wasser BWGW, Bern. B. BAFU (Ed.).
84. Water Agenda (WA21), 2011. Watershed Management. Guiding Principles for Integrated Management of Water in Switzerland, Bern, p. 20.
85. WBG, 1991. Federal Law on Flood Control (Wasserbaugesetz).
86. Wheater H., Evans E. Land use, water management and future flood risk. Land Use Policy 2009, 26(Suppl. 1):S251-S264.
87. Zhang Y.K., Schilling K.E. Increasing streamflow and baseflow in Mississippi River since the 1940s: effect of land use change. J. Hydrol. 2006, 324:412-422.