Estimating the Benefits of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in Atlantic Member States: A Spatial Value Transfer Approach

Ecological Economics

Volumn 151, Issue , 2018, Pages 82-94

  Norton, Daniel ^a   Hynes, Stephen ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Contingent Valuation Method (CVM); Distance Decay; Interval Regression; Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD); Modifiable Area Unit Problem (MAUP); Population Density; Value Transfer

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; GIS; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; POPULATION DENSITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ATLANTIC OCEAN;

EID: 85047056059     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.024     Document Type: Article

References (127)

1. Abdullah, S., Jeanty, P.W., Willingness to pay for renewable energy: evidence from a contingent valuation survey in Kenya. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15:6 (2011), 2974–2983.
2. Alberini, A., Rosato, P., Longo, A., Zanatta, V., Information and willingness to pay in a contingent valuation study: the value of S. Erasmo in the lagoon of Venice. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 48:2 (2005), 155–175.
3. Arbia, G., Petrarca, F., Effects of MAUP on spatial econometric models. Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci. 4:3 (2011), 173–185.
4. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58:10 (1993), 4601–4614.
5. Bateman, I.J., Brainard, J.S., Lovett, A.A., Modelling woodland recreation demand using geographical information systems: a benefits transfer study. Global Environmental Change Working Paper 95-06, 1995, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), University College London and University of East Anglia, Norwich.
6. Bateman, I., Jones, A., Nishikawa, N., Brouwer, R., Benefits Transfer in Theory and Practice: a Review and Some New Studies. 2000, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the global environment (CSERGE) and School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich.
7. Bateman, I.J., Jones, A.P., Lovett, A.A., Lake, I.R., Day, B.H., Applying geographical information systems (GIS) to environmental and resource economics. Environ. Resour. Econ. 22:1–2 (2002), 219–269.
8. Bateman, I.J., Cooper, P., Georgiou, S., Navrud, S., Poe, G.L., Ready, R.C., Reira, P., Ryan, M., Vossler, C.A., Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquat. Sci. 67:3 (2005), 274–291.
9. Bateman, I.J., Day, B.H., Georgiou, S., Lake, I., The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol. Econ. 60:2 (2006), 450–460.
10. Bateman, I.J., Brouwer, R., Ferrini, S., Schaafsma, M., Barton, D., Binner, A., De Nocker, L., Ščeponavičiūtė R., Semėnienė D., Guidelines for designing and implementing transferable non-market valuation studies: A multi-country study of open-access water quality improvements. 17th Annual conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009, 24–27 June.
11. Bateman, I.J., Brouwer, R., Ferrini, S., Schaafsma, M., Barton, D.N., Dubgaard, A., Semėnienė D., 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. 50:3 (2011), 365–387.
12. Bauer, N., Attitudes towards wilderness and public demands on wilderness areas. Wild Urban Woodlands, 2005, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 47–66.
13. Beaumont, N., Austen, M., Atkins, J., Burdon, D., Degraer, S., Dentinho, T., Derous, S., Holm, P., Horton, T., van Ierland, E., Marboe, A., Starkey, D., Townsend, M., Zarzycki, T., Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: implications for the ecosystem approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54 (2007), 253–265.
14. Beaumont, N.J., Austen, M.C., Mangi, S.C., Townsend, M., Economic valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56:3 (2008), 386–396.
15. Berenguer, J., Corraliza, J.A., Martín, R., Rural-urban differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess., 21(2), 2005, 128.
16. Bergmann, A., Colombo, S., Hanley, N., Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecol. Econ. 65:3 (2008), 616–625.
17. Bertram, C., Rehdanz, K., On the environmental effectiveness of the EU marine strategy framework directive. Mar. Policy 38 (2012), 25–40.
18. Bertram, C., Dworak, T., Görlitz, S., Interwies, E., Rehdanz, K., Cost-benefit analysis in the context of the EU marine strategy framework directive: the case of Germany. Mar. Policy 43 (2014), 307–312.
19. Borja, Á., Elliott, M., Carstensen, J., Heiskanen, A.S., van de Bund, W., Marine management–towards an integrated implementation of the European marine strategy framework and the water framework directives. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60:12 (2010), 2175–2186.
20. Boutwell, J.L., Westra, J.V., Benefit transfer: a review of methodologies and challenges. Resources 2:4 (2013), 517–527.
21. Boyle, K.J., Kuminoff, N.V., Parmeter, C.F., Pope, J.C., The benefit-transfer challenges. Ann. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2:1 (2010), 161–182.
22. Brander, L.M., Van Beukering, P., Cesar, H.S., The recreational value of coral reefs: a meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 63:1 (2007), 209–218.
23. Brander, L.M., Bräuer, I., Gerdes, H., Ghermandi, A., Kuik, O., Markandya, A., Navrud, S., Nunes, P.A.L.D., Schaafsma, M., Vos, H., Wagtendonk, A., Using meta-analysis and GIS for value transfer and scaling up: valuing climate change induced losses of European wetlands. Environ. Resour. Econ. 52:3 (2012), 395–413.
24. Brenner, J., Jiménez, J., Sardá R., Garola, A., An assessment of the nonmarket value of the ecosystem services provided by the Catalan coastal zone, Spain. Ocean Coast. Manag. 53 (2010), 27–38.
25. Briant, A., Combes, P.P., Lafourcade, M., Dots to boxes: do the size and shape of spatial units jeopardize economic geography estimations?. J. Urban Econ. 67:3 (2010), 287–302.
26. Brouwer, R., Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol. Econ. 32 (2000), 137–152.
27. Brouwer, R., Spaninks, F.A., The validity of environmental benefits transfer: further empirical testing. Environ. Resour. Econ. 14:1 (1999), 95–117.
28. Brouwer, R., Brander, L., Van Beukering, P., “A convenient truth”: air travel passengers’ willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Clim. Chang. 90:3 (2008), 299–313.
29. Brouwer, R., Martin-Ortega, J., Dekker, T., Sardonini, L., Andreu, J., Kontogianni, A. et al., Improving value transfer through socio-economic adjustments in a multicountry choice experiment of water conservation alternatives. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 59 (2015), 1–21, 10.1111/1467-8489.12099.
30. Cameron, T.A., Huppert, D.D., OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 17:3 (1989), 230–246.
31. Campbell, D., Scarpa, R., Hutchinson, W.G., Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci. 1 (2008), 117–126.
32. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W.G., Scarpa, R., Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environ. Plan. A 41:1 (2009), 97–111.
33. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. 1989, Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
34. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., Hanemann, M., Kopp, R.J., Presser, S., Ruud, P.A., Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ. Resour. Econ. 25:3 (2003), 257–286.
35. Chattopadhyay, S., A repeated sampling technique in assessing the validity of benefit transfer in valuing non-market goods. Land Econ. 79:4 (2003), 576–596.
36. Chen, X., Peterson, M.N., Hull, V., Lu, C., Lee, G.D., Hong, D., Liu, J., Effects of attitudinal and sociodemographic factors on pro-environmental behaviour in urban China. Environ. Conserv. 38:1 (2011), 45–52.
37. Colombo, S., Hanley, N., How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Econ. 84 (2008), 128–147.
38. Compton, J., Pollak, R.A., Proximity and co-residence of adult children and their parents in the United States: descriptions and correlates. Ann. Econ. Stat. 117–118 (2015), 91–114.
39. Coulton, C.J., Korbin, J., Chan, T., Su, M., Mapping residents’ perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: a methodological note. Am. J. Community Psychol. 29:2 (2001), 371–383.
40. Coulton, C.J., Jennings, M.Z., Chan, T., How big is my neighborhood? Individual and contextual effects on perceptions of neighborhood scale. Am. J. Community Psychol. 51:1-2 (2013), 140–150.
41. Cronon, W., The Trouble with Wilderness, or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature (1995). The great new wilderness debate, 1998, 471–499.
42. Dark, S.J., Bram, D., The modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) in physical geography. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 31:5 (2007), 471–479.
43. Darling, A.H., Measuring benefits generated by urban water parks. Land Econ., 1973, 22–34.
44. Darmofal, D., Strickler, R., Bringing together spatial demography and political science: reexamining the big sort. In Recapturing Space: New Middle-Range Theory in Spatial Demography, 2016, Springer International Publishing, 139–156.
45. Davis, R.K., The Value of Outdoor Recreation: an Economic Study of the Maine Woods. (Doctoral dissertation), 1963, Harvard University.
46. Directive, M.S.F, Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy. Off. J. Eur. Union 164 (2008), 19–40.
47. Doherty, E., Murphy, G., Hynes, S., Buckley, C., Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: results from a discrete choice experiment. Ecosyst. Serv. 7 (2014), 89–97.
48. Doll, Christopher N.H., Muller, Jan-Peter, Morley, Jeremy G., Mapping regional economic activity from night-time light satellite imagery. Ecol. Econ. 57:1 (2006), 75–92.
49. Eade, J., Moran, D., Spatial economic valuation: benefits transfer using geographical information systems. J. Environ. Manag. 48:2 (1996), 97–110.
50. Ericsson, G., Kindberg, J., Bostedt, G., Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Wolverine Gulo gulo Conservation. 2009.
51. European Commission, Commission Decision (EU) 2010/477/EU of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters. Brussels, 2010 (2.9.2010 C/2010/5956).
52. European Commission, Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament. The First Phase of Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). The European Commission's assessment and guidance. Brussels, 20.2.2014 COM(2014) 97 Final. 2014.
53. European Commission, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 of 17 May 2017 Laying Down Criteria and Methodological Standards on Good Environmental Status of Marine Waters and Specifications and Standardised Methods for Monitoring and Assessment, and Repealing Decision 2010/477/EU. Brussels, 18.5.2017 C/2017/2901. 2017.
54. European Commission (EC), Your key to European statistics. Available online http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, 2016.
55. European Statistical System (ESS), CensusHub2. Availble online https://ec.europa.eu/CensusHub2/query.do?step=selectHyperCube&qhc=false, 2016.
56. Feenstra, Robert C., Inklaar, Robert, Timmer, Marcel P., The Next Generation of the Penn World Table. Am. Econ. Rev. 105:10 (2015), 3150–3182 available for download at www.ggdc.net/pwt.
57. Foley, N.S., Corless, R., Escapa, M., Fahy, F., Fernandez-Macho, J., Gabriel, S., Gonzalez, P., Hynes, S., Kalaydjian, R., Moreira, S., Moylan, K., Developing a comparative marine socio-economic framework for the European Atlantic area. J. Ocean Coast. Econ., 2014(1), 2014, 3.
58. Ghermandi, A., Nunes, P.A., A global map of coastal recreation values: results from a spatially explicit meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 86 (2013), 1–15.
59. Gifford, R., Environmental psychology matters. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 65, 2014.
60. Goodchild, M.F., Anselin, L., Deichmann, U., A framework for the areal interpolation of socioeconomic data. Environ. Plan. A 25:3 (1993), 383–397.
61. Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., Kanninen, B., Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 73:4 (1991), 1255–1263.
62. Haney, W.G., Knowles, E.S., Perception of neighborhoods by city and suburban residents. Hum. Ecol. 6:2 (1978), 201–214.
63. Hanley, N., Schläpfer, F., Spurgeon, J., Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J. Environ. Manag. 68:3 (2003), 297–304.
64. Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Patterson, D., Jobstvogt, N., Economic valuation of marine and coastal ecosystems: Is it currently fit for purpose. J. Ocean Coast. Econ., 2(Article 1), 2015, 10.15351/2373-8456.1014.
65. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., de Dios Ortúzar, J., Rizzi, L.I., Estimating the willingness to pay and value of risk reduction for car occupants in the road environment. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 43:7 (2009), 692–707.
66. Hinds, J., Sparks, P., Engaging with the natural environment: the role of affective connection and identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 28:2 (2008), 109–120.
67. Horton, F.E., Reynolds, D.R., Effects of urban spatial structure on individual behavior. Econ. Geogr. 47:1 (1971), 36–48.
68. Howley, P., Donoghue, C.O., Hynes, S., Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104:1 (2012), 66–74.
69. Hynes, S., Hanley, N., O'Donoghue, C., A combinatorial optimization approach to non-market environmental benefit aggregation via simulated populations. Land Econ. 86:2 (2010), 345–362.
70. Hynes, S., Norton, D., Hanley, N., Adjusting for cultural differences in international benefit transfer. Environ. Resour. Econ. 56:4 (2013), 499–519.
71. Johnston, R.J., Ramachandran, M., Modeling spatial patchiness and hot spots in stated preference willingness to pay. Environ. Resour. Econ., 59(3), 2014, 363.
72. Johnston, R.J., Rosenberger, R.S., Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. J. Econ. Surv. 24:3 (2010), 479–510.
73. Johnston, R.J., Ramachandran, M., Schultz, E.T., Segerson, K., Besedin, E.Y., Willingness to pay hot spots and the distribution of ecosystem service values: implications for benefit transfer. Selected Paper, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Seattle, WA, 2011, July.
74. Johnston, R.J., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R.S., Brouwer, R., Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values. 2015, Springer, Dordrecht.
75. 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. 92 (2013), 58–66.
76. Kaul, S., Boyle, K.J., Kuminoff, N.V., Parmeter, C.F., Pope, J.C., What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 66:1 (2013), 90–104.
77. Kniivilä M., Users and non-users of conservation areas: are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys?. Ecol. Econ. 59:4 (2006), 530–539.
78. Ledoux, L., Turner, K., Valuing Ocean and coastal resources: a review of practical examples and issues for further action. Ocean Coast. Manag. 45 (2002), 583–616.
79. Lewicka, M., Ways to make people active: the role of place attachment, cultural capital, and neighborhood ties. J. Environ. Psychol. 25:4 (2005), 381–395.
80. Long, R., The marine strategy framework directive: a new European approach to the regulation of the marine environment, marine natural resources and marine ecological services. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 29:1 (2011), 1–44.
81. Loomis, J.B., The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: benefit function transfer. Water Resour. Res. 28:3 (1992), 701–705.
82. Loomis, J.B., Vertically summing public good demand curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Econ., 2000, 312–321.
83. Lovett, A.A., Brainard, J.S., Bateman, I.J., Improving benefit transfer demand functions: a GIS approach. J. Environ. Manag. 51:4 (1997), 373–389.
84. Luisetti, T., Turner, R.K., Hadley, D., Morse-Jones, S., Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services Valuation for Policy and Management (No. 10-04). CSERGE working paper. 2010, EDM.
85. Luken, R.A., Johnson, F.R., Kibler, V., Benefits and costs of pulp and paper effluent controls under the clean water act. Water Res. 28:3 (1992), 665–674.
86. Lutz, A., Simpson-Housley, P., de Man, A.F., Wilderness: rural and urban attitudes and perceptions. Environ. Behav. 31 (1999), 259–266.
87. Machado, F.S., Mourato, S., Evaluating the multiple benefits of marine water quality improvements: how important are health risk reductions?. J. Environ. Manag. 65:3 (2002), 239–250.
88. Mahieu, P.A., Riera, P., Giergiczny, M., Determinants of willingness-to-pay for water pollution abatement: a point and interval data payment card application. J. Environ. Manag. 108 (2012), 49–53.
89. Martin-Ortega, J., Berbel, J., (2010) “using multi-criteria analysis to explore non-market monetary values of water quality changes in the context of the water framework directive”. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (2010), 3990–3997.
90. McDermott, J.J., Nature nostalgia and the City: an American dilemma. Soundings, 1972, 1–20.
91. McVittie, A., Moran, D., Valuing the non-use benefits of marine conservation zones: an application to the UK marine bill. Ecol. Econ. 70:2 (2010), 413–424.
92. Moore, R., Provencher, B., Bishop, R.C., Valuing a spatially variable environmental resource: reducing non-point-source pollution in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Land Econ. 87:1 (2011), 45–59.
93. Moran, D., Dann, S., The economic value of water use: implications for implementing the water framework directive in Scotland. J. Environ. Manag. 87 (2008), 484–496.
94. Navrud, S., Ready, R.C., (eds.) Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods, 2007, Springer, Dordrecht.
95. Norton, D., Hynes, S., Doherty, E., Buckley, C., Campbell, D., Stithou, M., Benefit Transfer for Irish Water. Report Published by, 2012, The Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland.
96. Nunes, P.A., van den Bergh, J.C., Can people value protection against invasive marine species? Evidence from a joint TC–CV survey in the Netherlands. Environ. Resour. Econ. 28:4 (2004), 517–532.
97. OECD, Regional typology: updated statistics. www.oecd.org/gov/regional/statisticsindicators, 2009.
98. O'Garra, T., Mourato, S., Public preferences for hydrogen buses: comparing interval data, OLS and quantile regression approaches. Environ. Resour. Econ. 36:4 (2007), 389–411.
99. Oinonen, S., Börger, T., Hynes, S., Buchs, A.K., Heiskanen, A.S., Hyytiäinen, K., Luisetti, T., van der Veeren, R., The role of economics in ecosystem based management: the case of the EU marine strategy framework directive; first lessons learnt and way forward. J. Ocean Coast. Econ., 2(Article 3), 2016, 10.15351/2373-8456.1038.
100. Openshaw, S., Ecological fallacies and the analysis of areal census data. Environ. Plan. A 16:1 (1984), 17–31.
101. Openshaw, S., Taylor, P.J., A million or so correlation coefficients: three experiments on the modifiable areal unit problem. Wrigley, N., (eds.) Statistical Applications in Spatial Sciences, 1979, Pion, London, 127–144.
102. Papageorgiou, G.J., Spatial externalities I: theory. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 68:4 (1978), 465–476.
103. Pate, J., Loomis, J., The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol. Econ. 20:3 (1997), 199–207.
104. Plummer, M.L., Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7:1 (2009), 38–45.
105. Potts, T., O'Higgins, T., Mee, L., Pita, C., Public perceptions of Europe's seas – a policy brief. EU FP7 KNOWSEAS Project. Available at: http://www.knowseas.com/links-and-data/project-publications/Knowseas%20Marine%20Social%20Survey%20Final.pdf/view, 2011 (accessed 11/12/2012).
106. Remoundou, K., Koundouri, P., Kontogianni, A., Nunes, P.A., Skourtos, M., Valuation of natural marine ecosystems: an economic perspective. Environ. Sci. Pol. 12:7 (2009), 1040–1051.
107. Ressurreição, A., Gibbons, J., Kaiser, M., Dentinho, T.P., Zarzycki, T., Bentley, C., Austen, M., Burdon, D., Atkins, J., Santos, R.S., Edwards-Jones, G., Different cultures, different values: the role of cultural variation in public's WTP for marine species conservation. Biol. Conserv. 145:1 (2012), 148–159.
108. Reynolds, H.D., The Modifiable Area Unit Problem, Empirical Analysis by Statistical Simulation (Doctoral Dissertation, National Library of Canada= Bibliothèque Nationale du Canada). 1999.
109. Rodden, J., The geographic distribution of political preferences. Ann. Rev. Polit. Sci. 13 (2010), 321–340.
110. Rosenberger, R., Loomis, J., Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: in sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resour. Res. 36:4 (2000), 1097–1107.
111. Rosenberger, R.S., Loomis, J.B., Benefit transfer. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, 2003, Springer, Netherlands, 445–482.
112. Russell, J.C., A comparison of attitudes towards introduced wildlife in New Zealand in 1994 and 2012. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 44:4 (2014), 136–151.
113. Salka, W.M., Urban-rural conflict over environmental policy in the western United States. Am. Rev. Public Admin. 31:1 (2001), 33–48.
114. Schaafsma, M., Spatial Effects in Stated Preference Studies for Environmental Valuation. (PhD. Thesis), 2010, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
115. Schaafsma, Directional Heterogeneity in WTP-Sapce Models for Environmental Valuation EAERE 2011, Rome, Italy. 2011.
116. 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. 89 (2013), 514–537.
117. Sheppard, E., McMaster, R.B., (eds.) Scale and Geographic Inquiry: Nature, Society, and Method, 2004, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Malden, MA, USA.
118. Solomon, B.D., Corey-Luse, C.M., Halvorsen, K.E., The Florida manatee and eco-tourism: toward a safe minimum standard. Ecol. Econ. 50:1 (2004), 101–115.
119. Sutherland, R.J., Walsh, R.G., Effects of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Econ. 61:3 (1985), 281–291.
120. Tobler, W.R., A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ. Geogr., 1970, 234–240.
121. Tompkins, P.L., Southward, L.H., Geographic information systems (GIS) implications for promoting social and economic justice. Comput. Hum. Serv. 15:2–3 (1999), 209–226.
122. Torres, C., Hanley, N., Economic Valuation of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services in the 21st Century: an Overview From a Management Perspective. 2016, University of St. Andrews, Scotland (Unpublished report).
123. Troy, A., Wilson, M., Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecol. Econ. 60 (2006), 435–449.
124. Van Leeuwen, J., van Hoof, L., van Tatenhove, J., Institutional ambiguity in implementing the European Union marine strategy framework directive. Mar. Policy 36:3 (2012), 636–643.
125. Vemuri, A.W., Morgan Grove, J., Wilson, M.A., Burch, W.R. Jr, A tale of two scales: Evaluating the relationship among life satisfaction, social capital, income, and the natural environment at individual and neighborhood levels in metropolitan Baltimore. Environ. Behav. 43:1 (2011), 3–25.
126. Wong, D., The modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP). The SAGE Handbook of Spatial Analysis, 2009, 105–123.
127. Wright, W.C., Eppink, F.V., Drivers of heritage value: a meta-analysis of monetary valuation studies of cultural heritage. Ecol. Econ. 130 (2016), 277–284.