Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 23, Issue , 2017, Pages 228-237

  Chaikaew, Pasicha ^a,b   Hodges, Alan W ^b   Grunwald, Sabine ^b  

^a CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Ecosystem services; Preferences; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008343598     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.015     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. 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. 80 (1998), 64–75, 10.2307/3180269.
2. Álvarez-Farizo, B., Gil, J.M., Howard, B.J., Impacts from restoration strategies: assessment through valuation workshops. Ecol. Econ. 68 (2009), 787–797, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.012.
3. Andersen, M.D., Kerr, G.N., Lambert, S.J., 2012. Cultural differences in environmental valuation. New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
4. Araña, J.E., León, C.J., Scale-perception bias in the valuation of environmental risks. Appl. Econ. 44 (2012), 2607–2617, 10.1080/00036846.2011.566188.
5. Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., et al. Guidelines for the Use of Stated Preference Techniques for the Valuation of Preferences for Non-Market Goods. 2003, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
6. Bebbington, A., Farrington, J., Lewis, D.J., Wellard, K., Reluctant Partners? Non-Governmental Organizations, the State and Sustainable Agricultural. Development, 2005, Routledge.
7. Bech, M., Gyrd-Hansen, D., Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 14 (2005), 1079–1083, 10.1002/hec.984.
8. Birol, E., Smale, M., Gyovai, Á., Using a choice experiment to estimate farmers' valuation of agrobiodiversity on Hungarian small farms. Environ. Resour. Econ. 34 (2006), 439–469.
9. Boissiere, M., Locatelli, B., Sheil, D., et al. Local perceptions of climate variability and change in tropical forests of Papua, Indonesia. Ecol. Soc. Art., 2013, 13, 10.5751/ES-05822-180413.
10. Boxall, P.C., Adamowicz, W.L., Swait, J., et al. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 18 (1996), 243–253, 10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0.
11. Broadbent, C.D., Evaluating mitigation and calibration techniques for hypothetical bias in choice experiments. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 0 (2013), 1–19, 10.1080/09640568.2013.839447.
12. Brouwer, R., Martin-Ortega, J., Berbel, J., Spatial preference heterogeneity: a choice experiment. Land Econ. 86 (2010), 552–568.
13. Bruland, G.L., Bliss, C.M., Grunwald, S., et al. Soil nitrate-nitrogen in forested versus non-forested ecosystems in a mixed-use watershed. Geoderma 148 (2008), 220–231, 10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.10.005.
14. Bullock, C.H., Elston, D.A., Chalmers, N.A., An application of economic choice experiments to a traditional land use—deer hunting and landscape change in the Scottish Highlands. J. Environ. Manag. 52 (1998), 335–351, 10.1006/jema.1997.0179.
15. Chaikaew, P., Assessment of Climate Regulation, Carbon Sequestration, and Nutrient Cycling Impacted by Multiple Stressors. (Ph. D. Dissertation), 2014, University of Florida.
16. Chee, Y.E., An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biol. Conserv. 120 (2004), 549–565.
17. Cochran, W.G., Sampling Techniques, 2nd edn, 1963, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.
18. Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S.A., et al. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 2013, 24024, 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
19. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., Groot, R., et al 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital., Published online: 15 May 1997; 387:253–260. 〈 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/387253a0〉.
20. Costanza, R., Liu, S., 2014. Ecosystem services and environmental governance: comparing China and the U.S. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies 160–170. 〈 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/app5.16〉.
21. Daily, G.C., Söderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., et al. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289 (2000), 395–396, 10.1126/science.289.5478.395.
22. de Groot, R., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (2012), 50–61, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005.
23. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., Christian, L.M., Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 3rd edn, 2009, John Wiley & Sons, NY.
24. Farber, S., Costanza, R., Childers, D.L., et al. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. BioScience 56 (2006), 121–133 (doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)(056[0121:LEAEFE)(2.0.CO;2).
25. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 2014. Governor Scott's Budget Recommends $1.4 Billion to Protect and Preserve Florida's Environment. DEP Press Office.
26. Garvey, J., The Ethics of Climate Change: Right and Wrong in a Warming World. 2008, Continuum, London.
27. Ginsburgh, V., Throsby, C., 2013. Handbook of the economics of art and culture. Vol. 2 Vol. 2.
28. GlobeScan, 2009. Global Climate Change Survey: Climate Confidence Monitor 2009.
29. Gloulder, L.H., Kennedy, D., Valuing ecosystem services: philosophical bases and empirical methods. Daily, G., (eds.) Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems., 1997, Island Press, Washington, DC.
30. Goett, A.A., Hudson, K., Customers' choice among retail energy suppliers: thethe willingness-to-pay for service attributes. Energy J., 21, 2000, 1.
31. Greene, W.H., Econometric Analysis. 3rd edn, 1997, Prentice Hall, NJ.
32. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D.J., Yamamoto, T., Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Polit. Anal. 22 (2014), 1–30, 10.1093/pan/mpt024.
33. Haipeng, Z., Xuxuan, X., Combining stated preference and revealed preference methods for the valuation of non-market goods. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 10 (2012), 121–126, 10.1080/10042857.2012.10685119.
34. Hanemann, W.M., Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66 (1984), 332–341, 10.2307/1240800.
35. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., Wright, R.E., Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuatioin?. J. Econ. Surv. 15 (2001), 435–462, 10.1111/1467-6419.00145.
36. Hanley, N., Shogren, J.F., Awkward choices: economics and nature conservation. Bromley, D.W., Paavola, J., (eds.) Economics, Ethics and Environmental Policy: Contested Choices, 2002, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
37. Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., Adamowicz, V., Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 11 (1998), 413–428, 10.1023/A:1008287310583.
38. Hicks, R.L., 2002. A comparison of stated and revealed preference methods for fisheries management. American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
39. Hillman, M., How We Can Save the Planet. 2004, Penguin Books, London, UK.
40. Hoehn, J., Lupi, F., Kaplowitz, M., 2010. Stated choice experiments with complex ecosystem changes: The effect of information formats on estimated variances and choice parameters.
41. Hole, A.R., Small-Sample Properties of Tests for Heteroscedasticity in the Conditional Logit Model. 2006, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
42. Hoos, A., Terziotti, S., McMahon, G., et al 2008. Data to support statistical modeling of instream nutrient load based on watershed attributes, southeastern United States, 2002. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
43. Howe, P.D., Markowitz, E.M., Lee, T.M., et al. Global perceptions of local temperature change. Nat. Clim. Change 3 (2013), 352–356, 10.1038/nclimate1768.
44. Hulme, M., Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Glob. Environ. Change 20 (2010), 558–564, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.005.
45. Jaccard, J., Interaction Effects in Logistic Regression. 2001, SAGE.
46. Kahan, D., Why we are poles apart on climate change. Nature, 488, 2012, 10.1038/488255a.
47. Katz, B.G., Catches, J.S., Bullen, T.D., Michel, R.L., Changes in the isotopic and chemical composition of ground water resulting from a recharge pulse from a sinking stream. J. Hydrol. 211 (1998), 178–207, 10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00236-4.
48. Kreye, M.M., Adams, D.C., Borisova, T., Escobedo, F.J., The value of water quality protection programs: a meta-analysis. J. For., 109, 2011, 580.
49. Krinsky, I., Robb, A.L., On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 68 (1986), 715–719, 10.2307/1924536.
50. Louviere, J., Hensher, D., 1982. Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling.
51. Louviere, J.J., Woodworth, G., Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J. Mark. Res. 20 (1983), 350–367, 10.2307/3151440.
52. Lubell, M., Collaborative watershed management: a view from the grassroots. Policy Stud. J. 32 (2004), 341–361, 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2004.00069.x.
53. Manski, C.F., The structure of random utility models. Theor. Decis. 8 (1977), 229–254, 10.1007/BF00133443.
54. McFadden, D., Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Azrembka, P., (eds.) Frontiers in Econometrics., 1974, Academic Press, NY.
55. Milon, J.W., Hodges, A.W., Rimal, A., Multiattribute choice analysis in ecosystem restoration planning. Environ. Pract. 2 (2000), 176–187, 10.1017/S1466046600001393.
56. Milon, J.W., Hodges, A.W., Rimal, A., et al. Public Preferences and Economic Values for Restoration of the Everglades/South Florida Ecosystem. 1999, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
57. Nalle, D.J., Montgomery, C.A., Arthur, J.L., et al. Modeling joint production of wildlife and timber. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 48 (2004), 997–1017, 10.1016/j.jeem.2004.01.001.
58. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2006. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database.
59. Neef, A., Thomas, D., Rewarding the upland poor for saving the commons? Evidence from Southeast Asia. Int. J. Commons 3 (2009), 1–15.
60. Parsons, G.R., Kealy, M.J., Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a Random Utility model of lake recreation. Land Econ. 68 (1992), 93–106, 10.2307/3146746.
61. Peixer, J., Giacomini, H.C., Petrere, Jr.M., Economic Valuation of the Emas Waterfall, 83, 2011, An Acad Bras Cienc, Mogi-Guaçu River, SP, Brazil, 1287–1302.
62. Randall, A., Benefit–cost considerations should be decisive when there is nothing more important at stake. Bromley, D.W., Paavola, J., (eds.) Economics Ethics, and Environmental Policy, 2008, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 53–68.
63. Rodríguez, J.P., Beard, T.D., Bennett, E.M., et al. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc., 11, 2006, 28.
64. Shah A., 2005. Non-Governmental Organizations of Development Issues. Global Issues.
65. Shrestha, R.K., Alavalapati, J.R.R., Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida. Ecol. Econ. 49 (2004), 349–359, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.01.015.
66. Stevens, T.H., Belkner, R., Dennis, D., et al. Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management. Ecol. Econ. 32 (2000), 63–74, 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00071-3.
67. Street, D.J., Burgess, L., Louviere, J.J., Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int. J. Res. Mark. 22 (2005), 459–470, 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.09.003.
68. Taylor, T., Longo, A., Valuation of Marine Ecosystem Threshold Effects: Application of Choice Experiments to Value Algal Bloom in the Black Sea Coast of Bulgaria. 2009, Department of Economics, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
69. Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., et al. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418 (2002), 671–677, 10.1038/nature01014.
70. Turner, R.K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., et al. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecol. Econ. 46 (2003), 493–510, 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00189-7.
71. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Median Household Income by County: 2006–2010 5-year Estimates.
72. U.S. Census Bureau, 2014. State and County QuickFacts.
73. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2014. Explanations for the National Water Conditions.
74. Van Jaarsveld, A.S., Biggs, R., Scholes, R.J., et al. Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SAfMA) experience. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 360 (2005), 425–441.
75. Vidal-Legaz, B., Martínez-Fernández, J., Picón, A.S., Pugnaire, F.I., Trade-offs between maintenance of ecosystem services and socio-economic development in rural mountainous communities in southern Spain: a dynamic simulation approach. J. Environ. Manag. 131 (2013), 280–297, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.036.
76. Vollmer, D., Ryffel, A.N., Djaja, K., Grêt-Regamey, A., Determining Demand for Riparian Ecosystem Services: A Spatially Explicit Discrete Choice Experiment in Jakarta, Indonesia. 2013, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.
77. Weber, E.U., Psychology: seeing is believing. Nat. Clim. Change 3 (2013), 312–313, 10.1038/nclimate1859.
78. Wen, C.-H., Koppelman, F.S., The generalized nested logit model. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 35 (2001), 627–641.
79. Williams, H.C.W.L., On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefit. Environ. Plan. A 9 (1977), 285–344.
80. Yamane, T., Statistics, An Introductory Analysis, 2nd edn, 1967, Harper and Row, New York.