Valuing the non-market benefits of estuarine ecosystem services in a river basin context: Testing sensitivity to scope and scale

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

Volumn 169, Issue , 2016, Pages 95-105

  Pinto, R ^a   Brouwer, R ^b   Patricio J ^c   Abreu, P ^d   Marta Pedroso, C ^e   Baeta, A ^a   Franco, J N ^f   Domingos, T ^e   Marques, J C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA   (Portugal)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA   (Portugal)

^e INSTITUTO SUPERIOR TÉCNICO   (Portugal)

^f UNIVERSITY OF PORTO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Ecosystem services; Spatial heterogeneity; Water Framework Directive; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ESTUARINE ECOSYSTEM; HETEROGENEITY; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; RIVER BASIN; WATER PLANNING; WATER QUALITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

PORTUGAL;

EID: 84957922001     PISSN: 02727714     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2015.11.028     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Atkins J.P., Burdon D. An initial economic evaluation of water quality improvements in the Randers Fjord, Denmark. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2006, 53:195-204. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.09.024.
2. Bagstad K.J., Semmens D.J., Winthrop R. Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: a case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5:e40-e50. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.007.
3. Bateman I.J., Cole M., Cooper P., Georgiou S., Hadley D., Poe G.L. On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2004, 47:71-93. 10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00057-3.
4. Bateman I.J., Brouwer R. Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions. A novel scope sensitivity test. Resour. Energy Econ. 2006, 28:199-214. 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2006.06.001.
5. Bateman I.J., Cole M.A., Georgiou S., Hadley D.J. Comparing contingent valuation and contingent ranking: a case study considering the benefits of urban river water quality improvements. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 79:221-231. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.06.010.
6. Bateman I.J., Brouwer R., Ferrini S., Schaafsma M., Barton D.N., Dubgaard A., Hasler B., Hime S., Liekens I., Navrud S., et al. Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 50(3):365-387. 10.1007/s10640-011-9476-8.
7. Beaumont N.J., Jones L., Garbutt A., Hansom J.D., Toberman M. The value of carbon sequestration and storage in coastal habitats. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2014, 137:32-40. 10.1016/j.ecss.2013.11.022.
8. Birol E., Karousakis K., Koundouri P. Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and application. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 365(1-3):105-122. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.02.032.
9. Börger T., Beaumont N.J., Pendleton L., Boyle K.J., Cooper P., Fletcher S., Haab T., Hanemann M., Hooper T.L., Hussain S.S., Portela R., Stithou M., Stockill J., Taylor T., Austen M.C. Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: the role of valuation. Mar. Policy 2014, 46:161-170. 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.019.
10. Boyle K.J., Johnson R., McCollum D.W., Desvousges W.H., Dunford R., Hudson S. An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent valuation studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1994, 27:64-83. 10.1006/jeem.1994.1026.
11. Brauman K.A., Daily G.C., Duarte T.K., Mooney H.R. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007, 32:67-98. 10.1146/annurev.energy.32.031306.102758.
12. Brouwer R. The role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2008, 51(5):597-614. 10.1080/09640560802207860.
13. Brouwer R., Martín-Ortega J., Berbel J. Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Econ. 2010, 86(3):552-568.
14. Brouwer R., Martín-Ortega J. Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability. Resour. Energy Econ. 2012, 34(1):151-166. 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.05.001.
15. Brouwer R., Martin-Ortega J., Dekker T., Raggi M., Sardonini L., Viaggi D., Andreu J., Pulido-Velazquez M., Kontogianni A., Skourtos M., Rolfe J., Windle J. Improving value transfer through socio-economic adjustments in a multi-country choice experiment of water conservation alternatives. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2015, 59:1-21. 10.1111/1467-8489.12099.
16. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. The issue of scope in contingent valuation surveys. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1993, 75:1263-1267.
17. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29(7):2445-2454. 10.1029/93WR00495.
18. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1995, 28:155-173.
19. Del Saz-Salazar S., Hernández-Sanch F., Sala-Garrido R. The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive: a comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407:4574-4583. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.05.010.
20. Dziegielewska D.A., Mendelsohn R. Does "No" mean "No"? A protest methodology. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 38:71-87. 10.1007/s10640-006-9057-4.
21. Ethier R.G., Poe G.L., Schulze W.D., Clark J. A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Econ. 2000, 76(1):54-67. 10.2307/3147257.
22. Eurostat, 2014, . http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.
23. Farley J., Costanza R. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:2060-2068. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.010.
24. Fisher B., Turner R.K. Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141(5):1167-1169. 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.02.019.
25. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis 2011, Prentice Hall. seventh ed.
26. Halstead J.M., Lindsay B.E., Brown C.M. Use of the Tobit model in contingent valuation: experimental evidence from the Pemigewasset Wilderness Area. J. Environ. Manag. 1991, 33:79-89. 10.1016/S0301-4797(05)80049-0.
27. Hanley N., Schläpfer F., Spurgeon J. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 68:297-304. 10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00084-7.
28. 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. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 78:183-193. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.05.001.
29. Hökby S., Söderquist T. Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 26(3):361-383. 10.1023/B:EARE.0000003581.97411.75.
30. Hunter P.D., Hanley N., Czajkowski M., Mearns K., Tyler A.N., Carvalho L., Codd G.A. The effect of risk perception on public preferences and willingness to pay for reductions in the health risks posed by toxic cyanobacterial blooms. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 426:32-44. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.017.
31. Hynes, S., Tinch, D., Hanley, N., 2012. Valuing improvements to coastal waters using choice experiments: an application to revisions of the EU Bathing Waters Directive. Working Papers. Paper 5. http://cbe.miis.edu/cbe_working_papers/5.
32. INAG, 2009. National Institute for Water. http://www.inag.pt.
33. Jacobsen J.B., Hanley N. Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 43(2):137-160. 10.1007/s10640-008-9226-8.
34. Jorgensen B.S., Stedman R.C. Sense of place as an attitude: lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21(3):233-248. 10.1006/jevp.2001.0226.
35. Jørgensen S.L., Olsen S.B., Ladenburg J., Martinsen L., Svenningsen S.R., Hasler B. Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements-testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92:58-66. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.015.
36. Kataria M., Bateman I.J., Christensen T., Dubgaard Al., Hasler B., Hime S., Ladenburg J., Levin G., Martinsen L., Nissen C. Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments - a non-market valuation study on the European water framework directive. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 94(1):25-33. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.08.010.
37. Kyle G., Graefe A., Manning R., Bacon J. Effects of place attachment on users' perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24(2):213-225. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.006.
38. Lima M.I.P., Lima J.L.M.P. Precipitation and the hydrology of the Mondego catchment: a scale-invariant study. Aquatic Ecology of the Mondego River Basin: Global Importance of Local Experience 2002, 13-28. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra. M.A. Pardal, J.C. Marques, M.A. Graça (Eds.).
39. Liu X., Wirtz K.W. Managing coastal resources by stated choice experiments. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2010, 86:512-517. 10.1016/j.ecss.2009.02.020.
40. Loomis J., Kent P., Strange L., Fausch K., Covich A. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 33:103-117. 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00131-7.
41. Luisetti T., Turner R.K., Jickells T., Andrews J., Elliott M., Schaafsma M., Beaumont N., Malcolm S., Burdon D., Adams C., Watts W. Coastal Zone Ecosystem Services: from science to values and decision-making; a case study. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 493:682-693. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.099.
42. Meyerhoff J., Liebe U. Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57:583-594. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.021.
43. Meyerhoff J., Boeri M., Hartje V. The value of water quality improvements in the region Berlin-Brandenburg as a function of distance and state residency. Water Resour. Econ. 2014, 5:49-66. 10.1016/j.wre.2014.02.001.
44. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method 1989, Resources for the Future, Washington.
45. Mountford H., Keppler J.H. Financing incentives for the protection of biodiversity. Sci. Total Environ. 1999, 240(1-3):133-144. 10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00312-5.
46. Moxey A., Moran D. UK peatland restoration: some economic arithmetic. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 484:114-120. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.033.
47. Nunneri C., Hofmann J. A participatory approach for Integrated River Basin Management in the Elbe catchment. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2005, 62:521-537. 10.1016/j.ecss.2004.09.015.
48. Ojea E., Martin-Ortega J., Chiabai A. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for economic valuation: the case of forest water services. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 19-20:1-15. 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.002.
49. Pascual M., Borja A., Franco J., Burdon D., Atkins J.P., Elliott M. What are the costs and benefits of biodiversity recovery in a highly polluted estuary?. Water Res. 2012, 46:205-217. 10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.053.
50. Pinto R., Patrício J., Neto J.M., Salas F., Marques J.C. Assessing estuarine quality under the ecosystem services scope: ecological and socio-economic aspects. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7:389-402. 10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.05.001.
51. Powe N.A., Bateman I.J. Investigating insensitivity to scope: a split-sample test of perceived scheme realism. Land Econ. 2004, 80:258-271. 10.2307/3654742.
52. Ricketts T.H., Daily G.C., Ehrlich P.R., Michener C. Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2004, 101:12579-12582. 10.1073/pnas.0405147101.
53. Rowe R.D., Schulze W.D., Breffle W. A test for payment card biases. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1996, 31:178-185. 10.1006/jeem.1996.0039.
54. Schaafsma M., Brouwer R., Rose J. Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 79:21-31. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.013.
55. Schaafsma M., Brouwer R. Testing geographical framing and substitution effects in spatial choice experiments. J. Choice Model. 2013, 8:32-48. 10.1016/j.jocm.2013.04.007.
56. Schaafsma M., Brouwer R., Gilbert A., van den Bergh J.C.J.M., Wagtendonk A. Estimation of distance-decay functions to account for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in stated preference research. Land Econ. 2013, 89(3):514-537. 10.3368/le.89.3.514.
57. Sutton-Grier A.E., Moore A.K., Wiley P.C., Edwards P.E.T. Incorporating ecosystem services into the implementation of existing U.S. natural resource management regulations: operationalizing carbon sequestration and storage. Mar. Policy 2014, 43:246-253. 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.06.003.
58. Tallis H., Polasky S. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2009, 1162:265-283. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04152.x.
59. Tognetti S.S., Aylward B., Mendoza G.F. Markets for watershed services. Encycl. Hydrol. Sci. 2006, 16:193. 10.1002/0470848944.hsa202.
60. Turner R.K., Hadley D., Luisetti T., Lam V.W.Y., Cheung W.W.L. An Introduction to Socio-economic Assessment within a Marine Strategy Framework 2010, 121. DEFRA, London.
61. Van Houtven G., Powers J., Pattanayak S.K. Valuing water quality improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis?. Resour. Energy Econ. 2007, 29(3):206-228. 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2007.01.002.
62. Vaughan W.J. The RFF water quality ladder. Appendix B. The Use of Contingent Valuation Data for Benefit/Cost Analysis in Water Pollution Control. Final Report 1986, Resources For the Future, Washington, D.C. R.C. Mitchell, R.T. Carson (Eds.).