Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 26, Issue , 2017, Pages 197-208

  Rewitzer, Susanne ^a   Huber, Robert ^b   Grêt Regamey, Adrienne ^c   Barkmann, Jan ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b SWISS FEDERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE WSL   (Switzerland)

^c ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Cultural ecosystem services; Cultural landscape; Economic valuation; Mountain region

Indexed keywords

EID: 85021761600     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.014     Document Type: Article

References (74)

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. 80:1 (1998), 64–75, 10.2307/3180269.
2. BAFU, 2012. Web-GIS: Trockenwiesen und –weiden von nationaler Bedeutung. < http://www.bafu.admin.ch/schutzgebiete-inventare/07849/index.html?lang=de> (last access: June 2013).
3. Barkmann, J., Marggraf, R., 2010. Zahlungsbereitschaftsbefragungen für Umweltgüter: wirklich, Finger weg!“? GAIA – Ökologische Perspektiven für Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft 19 (4), 250–254.
4. Barkmann, J., Glenk, K., Handi, H., Sundawati, L., Witte, J.-P., Marggraf, R., Assessing economic preferences for biological diversity and ecosystem services at the Central Sulawesi rainforest margin-a choice experiment approach. Tscharntke, T., Leuschner, C., Zeller, M., Guhardja, E., Bidin, A., (eds.) Stability of Tropical Rainforest Margins. Linking Ecological, Economic and Social Constraints of Land use and Conservation, 2007, Springer, Berlin, New York, 179–206.
5. Barkmann, J., Glenk, K., Keil, A., Leemhuis, C., Dietrich, N., Gerold, G., Marggraf, R., Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: the case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods. Ecol. Econ. 65:1 (2008), 48–62 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.002.
6. Barkmann, J., Yan, J., Zschiegner, A.-K., Marggraf, R., The Dao of the Sceptic and the Spiritual: attitudinal and cultural influences on preferences for sustainable tourism services in the domestic Chinese tourism market. Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manage. 13:3/4 (2010), 281–304.
7. Barrena, J., Nahuelhual, L., Báez, A., Schiappacasse, I., Cerda, C., Valuing cultural ecosystem services: agricultural heritage in Chiloéisland, Southern Chile. Ecosyst. Serv. 7 (2014), 66–75, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.005.
8. Baumgart, K., Bewertung landschaftsrelevanter Projekte im Schweizer Alpenraum - die Methode der Discrete-Choice-Experimente. 2005, Geograph. Inst, Bern.
9. BFS, 2011. < https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/infothek/erhebungen__quellen/blank/blank/statpop/01.html%20TARGET=_blank)%20STATPOP> (last access: July 2013).
10. BFS, 2013a. < http://www.pxweb.bfs.admin.ch/Database/German_07%20-%20Land-%20und%20Forstwirtschaft/07.2%20-%20Landwirtschaft/07.2%20-%20Landwirtschaft.asp?lang=1&prod=07&secprod=2&openChild=true> (last access: July 2013).
11. BFS, 2013b. < http://www.media-stat.admin.ch/stat/haushalte/mapordata/index_de.php> (last access: July 2013).
12. BFS, 2013c. < https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/kataloge-datenbanken/tabellen.html> (last access: January 2016).
13. Bieling, C., Cultural ecosystem services as revealed through short stories from residents of the Swabian Alb (Germany). Ecosyst. Serv. 8 (2014), 207–215, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.002.
14. Blamey, R., Rolfe, J., Bennett, J., Morrison, M., 1997. Environmental Choice Modelling: Issues and Qualitative Insights. Research Report No. 4. Canberra, Australia: School of Economics and Management, The University of New South Wales.
15. Boyd, J., Ringold, P., Krupnick, A., Johnston, R.J., Weber, M.A., Hall, K., Ecosystem services indicators: improving the linkage between biophysical and economic analyses. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 8:3–4 (2016), 359–443, 10.1561/101.00000073.
16. Brand, F.S., Seidl, R., Le, Q.B., Brändle, J.M., Scholz, R.W., 2013. Constructing Consistent Multiscale Scenarios by Transdisciplinary Processes: the Case of Mountain Regions Facing Global Change. E&S 18 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04972-180243.
17. Briner, S., Elkin, C., Huber, R., Grêt-Regamey, A., Assessing the impacts of economic and climate changes on land-use in mountain regions: a spatial dynamic modeling approach. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 149 (2012), 50–63, 10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.011.
18. Briner, S., Elkin, E., Huber, R., Evaluating the relative impact of climate and economic changes on forest and agricultural ecosystem services in mountain regions. J. Environ. Manage. 129 (2013), 414–422.
19. Brunner, S.H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Policy strategies to foster the resilience of mountain social-ecological systems under uncertain global change. Environ. Sci. Policy 66 (2016), 129–139.
20. Brunner, S.H., Huber, R., Grêt-Regamey, A., A backcasting approach for matching regional ecosystem services supply and demand. Environ. Modell. Softw. 75 (2016), 439–458.
21. Brunner, S.H., Huber, R., Grêt-Regamey, A., Mapping uncertainties in the future provision of ecosystem services in a mountain region in Switzerland. Reg. Environ. Change 5 (2017), 1–13.
22. Cerda, C., Diafas, I., Barkmann, J., Mburu, J., Marggraf, R., WTP or WTA, or both? Experiences from two choice experiments for early planning stages. Meyerhoff, J., Lienhoff, N., Elsasser, P., (eds.) Stated Preference Methods for Environmental Valuation: Applications from Austria and Germany, 2007, Metropolis Verlag, Marburg, 139–173.
23. Cerda, C., Barkmann, J., Marggraf, R., Non-market economic valuation of the benefits provided by temperate ecosystems at the extreme south of the Americas. Reg. Environ. Change, 2014, 10.1007/s10113-014-0591-2.
24. Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74 (2012), 8–18, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011.
25. Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., et al. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62:8 (2012), 744–756, 10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7.
26. Chrzan, K., Orme, B., 2000. An Overview and Comparison of Design Strategies for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis. In: Sawtooth Software – Research Paper Series.
27. Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.A., et al. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109:23 (2012), 8812–8819, 10.1073/pnas.1114773109.
28. Drobnik, T., Huber, R., Grêt-Regamey, A., Coupling a settlement growth model with an agro-economic land allocation model for securing ecosystem services provision. J. Environ. Plann. Manage., 2016, 1–26.
29. Flury, C., Huber, R., Tasser, E., Future of mountain agriculture in the Alps. Mann, S., (eds.) The Future of Mountain Agriculture, 2013, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 105–126.
30. García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Nunes, P., Castro, A.J., Montes, C., A choice experiment study for land-use scenarios in semi-arid watershed environments. J. Arid Environ. 87 (2012), 219–230, 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.07.015.
31. Glenk, K., Barkmann, J., Marggraf, R., The value of ecosystem services and agrobiodiversity in Central Sulawesi. Kontoleon, A., Pascual, U., Smale, M., (eds.) Agrobiodiversity Conservation and Economic Development, 2008, Routledge, London, New York.
32. 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. Environ. Plann. B 34:1 (2007), 50–67, 10.1068/b32051.
33. Grêt-Regamey, A., Celio, E., Klein, T.M., Wissen Hayek, U., Understanding ecosystem services trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban planning. Landscape Urban Plann. 109 (2013), 107–111, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.011.
34. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem ser-vices and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D.G., Frid, C.L.J. (Hrsg.), Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis, Cambridge, p. 110–139.
35. Hanley, N., Wright, R., Adamowicz, V., Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ. Resource Econ. 11 (1998), 413–428.
36. 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. Manage. 78:2 (2006), 183–193, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.05.001.
37. Hasund, K. Per, Kataria, M., Lagerkvist, C.J., Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 54:1 (2011), 31–53, 10.1080/09640568.2010.502753.
38. Hausman, J., Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. J. Econ. Perspect. 26 (2012), 43–56.
39. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H., Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer. 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
40. Hill, M., Engle, N.L., Adaptive Capacity: Tensions across Scales. Environ. Pol. Governance 23 (2013), 177–192.
41. Huber, R., Hunziker, M., Lehmann, B., Valuation of agricultural land-use scenarios with choice experiments: a political market share approach. Environ. Plann. Manage. 54:11 (2011), 93–113, 10.1080/09640568.2010.502761.
42. Huber, R., Bebi, P., Briner, S., Bugmann, H., Buttler, A., Grêt-Regamey, A., et al. Waldausdehnung in zwei Regionen des Schweizer Berggebiets: eine integrative Analyse. Schweiz. Z. Forstwesen 163:12 (2012), 502–511, 10.3188/szf.2012.0502.
43. Huber, R., Rigling, A., Bebi, P., Brand, F.S., Briner, S., et al., 2013. Sustainable land use in mountain regions under global change: synthesis across scales and disciplines. E&S 18 (3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05499-180336.
44. Hunziker, M., Felber, P., Gehring, K., Buchecker, M., Bauer, N., Kienast, F., Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups. Mountain Res. Develop. 28:2 (2008), 140–147, 10.1659/mrd.0952.
45. Jorgensen, B.S., Wilson, M.A., Heberlein, T.A., Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope. Ecol. Econ. 36:1 (2001), 133–148, 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00210-X.
46. Jorgensen, B.S., Syme, G.J., Nancarrow, B.E., The role of uncertainty in the relationship between fairness evaluations and willingness to pay. Ecol. Econ. 56:1 (2006), 104–124, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.024.
47. Junge, X., Lindemann-Matthies, P., Hunziker, M., Schüpbach, B., Aesthetic preferences of non-farmers and farmers for different land-use types and proportions of ecological compensation areas in the Swiss lowlands. Biol. Conserv. 144:5 (2011), 1430–1440, 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.01.012.
48. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (1979), 263–291.
49. Kirchhoff, T., Pivotal cultural values of nature cannot be integrated into the ecosystem services framework. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 109(46), 2012, 10.1073/pnas.1212409109.
50. Klain, S.C., Chan, K.M.A., Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecol. Econ. 82 (2012), 104–113, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.008.
51. Kromrey, H., Empirische Sozialforschung. Modelle und Methoden der standardisierten Datenerhebung und Datenauswertung. 11th ed., 2006, Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart.
52. Lancaster, K.J., New approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74:2 (1966), 132–157.
53. Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegel, R., Schüpbach, B., Junge, X., Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: the impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape Urban Plann. 98:2 (2010), 99–109, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.015.
54. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J. Dan, Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Applications. 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, New York, NY, USA.
55. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis Washington DC. 2005.
56. McFadden, D., 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka, P., (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, New York, pp. 105–142.
57. Meyerhoff, J., Liebe, U., Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Econ. 85:3 (2009), 515–528.
58. Olschewski, R., How to value protection from natural hazards – a step-by-step discrete choice approach. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13:4 (2013), 913–922, 10.5194/nhess-13-913-2013.
59. Pearson, S., Schiess-Bühler, C., Hedinger, C., Martin, M., Volkart, G., Bewirtschaftung von Trockenwiesen und -weiden. 2006, Bern, Lindau.
60. Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., Bieling, C., Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33 (2013), 118–129, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013.
61. Rajmis, S., Barkmann, J., Marggraf, R., User community preferences for climate change mitigation and adaptation measures around Hainich National Park, Germany. Clim. Res. 40 (2009), 61–73, 10.3354/cr00803.
62. Rajmis, S., Barkmann, J., Marggraf, R., Pythias Rache: zum ökonomischen Wert ökologischer Risikovorsorge. Gaia-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 19:2 (2010), 114–121.
63. Randall, A., A consistent valuation and pricing framework for non-commodity outputs: progress and prospects. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 120 (2007), 21–30.
64. Riechers, M., Barkmann, J., Tscharntke, T., Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosyst. Serv. 17 (2016), 33–39.
65. Ryffel, A.N., Rid, W., Grêt-Regamey, A., Land use trade-offs for flood protection: a choice experiment with visualizations. Ecosyst. Serv. 10 (2014), 111–123.
66. Sayman, S., Önçüler, A., Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA–WTP disparity: a meta analytical framework. J. Econ. Psychol. 26 (2005), 289–312.
67. Schaich, H., Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. Gaia-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 19:4 (2010), 269–277.
68. Schläpfer, F., Contingent valuation: a new perspective. Ecol. Econ. 64:4 (2008), 729–740, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.010.
69. Schläpfer, F., 2015. Stated preferences for public services: A classification and survey of approaches. J. Econ. Surv. n/a-n/a.
70. Soliva, R., Bolliger, J., Hunziker, M., Differences in preferences towards potential future landscapes in the Swiss Alps. Landscape Res. 35:6 (2010), 671–696, 10.1080/01426397.2010.519436.
71. Sudgen, R., Anomalies and stated preference techniques: a framework for a discussion of coping strategies. Environ. Resource Econ. 32 (2005), 1–12.
72. Van Berkel, D.B., Verburg, P.H., Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Ind. 37 (2014), 163–174, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025.
73. Yan, J., Zschiegner, A.-K., Xi, J., Barkmann, J., Marggraf, R., Is the Chinese tourist ready for sustainable tourism? Attitudes and preferences for sustainable tourism services. Int. J. Chin. Cult. Manage. 3:1 (2010), 86–106.
74. Zajc, G., Egli, H., Atmanagara, J., Bratschi, S., RegAlp: Annex 5.2 to Work Package 2 Report, Task 2.5 Analysis of Pilot Regions and, Task 2.6 Location of Economic Decision Making. 2003, Regional Report Visp-Saastal, Switzerland.