Impact of Perceived Importance of Ecosystem Services and Stated Financial Constraints on Willingness to Pay for Riparian Meadow Restoration in Flanders (Belgium)
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Wendy Y. Chen (1)
Joris Aertsens (2)
Inge Liekens (2)
Steven Broekx (2)
Leo De Nocker (2) - 关键词：Perceived importance of ecosystem services ; Stated financial constraints ; Riparian meadow restoration ; Contingent valuation method ; Temporal embedding ; Flanders
- 刊名：Environmental Management
- 出版年：2014
- 出版时间：August 2014
- 年：2014
- 卷：54
- 期：2
- 页码：346-359
- 全文大小：1,393 KB
- 参考文献：1. Akter S, Brouwerb R, Branderb L, van Beukeringb P (2009) Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets. Ecol Econ 68:1858-863
2. Alam K (2011) Public attitudes toward restoration of impaired river ecosystems: does residents-attachment to place matter? Urban Ecosyst 14:635-53
3. Baranzini A, Faust A-K, Huberman D (2010) Tropical forest conservation: attitudes and preferences. For Policy Econ 12:370-76
4. Barbier E (2007) Valuing ecosystem services. Econ Policy 22:177-29
5. Bateman IJ, Turner RK (1992) Evaluation of the environment: the contingent valuation method. Centre for Social and Economic research on the Global Environment, GEC Working Paper 92-18
6. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, ?zdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
7. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60:450-60
8. Birol E, Karousakis K, Koundouri P (2006) Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Sci Total Environ 365:105-22
9. Blaine TW, Lichtkoppler FR (2004) Willingness to pay for green space preservation: a comparison of soil and water conservation district clientele and the general public using the contingent valuation method. J Soil Water Conserv 59:203-08
10. Blaine TW, Lichtkoppler FR, Jones KR, Zondag RH (2005) An assessment of household willingness to pay for curbside recycling: a comparison of payment card and referendum approaches. J Environ Manag 76:15-2
11. Bliem M, Getzner M (2012) Willingness-to-pay for river restoration: differences across time and scenarios. Environ Econ Policy Stud 14:241-60
12. Bliem M, Getzner M, Rodiga-La?nig P (2012) Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. J Environ Manag 103:65-3
13. Boyle KJ (2003) Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 111-69
14. Broberg T (2010) Income treatment effects in contingent valuation: the case of the Swedish predator policy. Environ Resour Econ 46:1-7
15. Brox JA, Kumar RC, Stollery KR (2003) Estimating willingness to pay for improved water quality in the presence of item nonresponse bias. Am J Agric Econ 85:414-28
16. Bruyere BL, Beh AW, Lelengula G (2009) Differences in perceptions of communication, tourism benefits, and management issues in a protected area of rural Kenya. Environ Manag 43:49-9
17. Bryman A (2008) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford
18. Buijs AE (2009) Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study into local residents-support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains. J Environ Manag 90:2680-689
19. Bullock JM, Aronson J, Newton AC, Pywell RF, Rey-Benayas JM (2011) Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 26:541-49
20. Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J Environ Econ Manag 17:230-46
21. Cameron TA, Shaw WD, Ragland SR (1999) Nonresponse bias in mail survey data: salience vs. endogenous survey complexity. In: Herriges JA, Kling CL (eds) Valuing recreation and the environment: revealed preference methods in theory and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 217-51
22. Carson RT (2011) Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton
23. Carson RT (2012) Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren’t available. J Econ Perspect 26:27-2
24. Carson RT, Wilks L, Imber D (1994) Valuing the preservation of Australia’s Kakadu conservation zone. Oxf Econ Pap 46:727-49
25. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19:173-10
26. Carson RT, Mitchell RC, Hanemann M, Kopp RJ, Presser S, Ruud PA (2003) Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Resour Econ 25:257-86
27. Casado-Arzuaga I, Madariaga I, Onaindia M (2013) Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J Environ Manag 129:33-3
28. Champ PA, Bishop RC (2001) Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ Resour Econ 19:383-02
29. Champ PA, Flores NE, Brown TC, Chivers J (2002) Contingent valuation and incentives. Land Econ 78:591-04
30. Chee YE (2004) An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 120:549-65
31. Clark J, Burgess J, Harrison CM (2000) “I struggled with this money business- respondents-perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 33:45-2
32. Collett D (1991) Modelling binary data. Chapman and Hall, London
33. Colombo S, Calatrava-Requena J, Hanley N (2006) Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods. Ecol Econ 58:850-61
34. Connelly NA, Knuth BA, Kay DL (2002) Public support for ecosystem restoration in the Hudson River Valley, USA. Environ Manag 29:467-76
35. Costanza R, Kubiszewski I, Ervin D, Bluffstone R, Boyd J, Brown D, Chang H, Dujon V, Granek E, Polasky S, Shandas V, Yeakley A (2011) Valuing ecological systems and services. F1000 Biol Rep 3:14. doi:10.3410/B3-14
36. Crow T, Brown T, De Young R (2006) The riverside and Berwyn experiences: contrasts in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban landscapes, and their effects on people. Landsc Urban Plan 75:282-99
37. Daily GC, Matson PA (2008) Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9455-456
38. de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393-08
39. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260-72
40. de Oca GSM, Bateman IJ (2006) Scope sensitivity in households-willingness to pay for maintained and improved water supplies in a developing world urban area: investigating the influence of baseline supply quality and income distribution upon stated preferences in Mexico City. Water Resour Res 42:W07421. doi:10.1029/2005WR003981
41. De Standaard (9 Jan 2009) Europees geld voor vallei van Groebegracht
42. De Valck J, Vlaeminck P, Broekx S, Liekens I, Aertsens J, Chen WY, Vranken L (2014) Benefits of clearing forest plantations to restore nature? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium. Landsc Urban Plan 125:65-5
43. Del Saz-Salazar S, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2009) 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 407:4574-583
44. Diamond PA (1996) Testing the internal consistency of contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 30:337-47
45. Diamond P, Hausman J (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 8:45-4
46. Dutta M, Banerjee S, Husain Z (2007) Untapped demand for heritage: a contingent valuation study of Prinsep Ghat, Calcutta. Tour Manag 28:83-5
47. Echeverría J, Hanrahan M, Solórzano R (1995) Valuation of non-priced amenities provided by the biological resources within the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 13:43-2
48. EU (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. The European Parliament
49. Farber S, Costanza R, Childers DL, Erickson J, Gross K, Grove JM, Hopkinson C, Kahn J, Pincetl S, Troy A, Warren P, Wilson M (2006) Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. Bioscience 56(2):117-29
50. Farr M, Stoeckl N, Beg RA (2014) The non-consumptive (tourism) ‘value-of marine species in the northern section of the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Policy 43:89-03
51. Fishbein MA, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading
52. Flatley GW, Bennett JW (1996) Using contingent valuation to determine Australian tourists-values for forest conservation in Vanuatu. Econ Anal Policy 26:111-27
53. Fleming CM, Bowden M (2009) Web-based surveys as an alternative to traditional mail methods. J Environ Manag 90:284-92
54. Getzner M (2012) The regional context of infrastructure policy and environmental valuation: the importance of stakeholders-opinion. J Environ Econ Policy 1:255-75
55. Gómez-Baggethun R, Pérez MR (2011) Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog Phys Geogr 35:617-32
56. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
57. Holl KD, Howarth RB (2000) Paying for restoration. Restor Ecol 8:260-67
58. Holmes TP, Bergstrom JC, Huszar E, Kask SB, Orr F III (2004) Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecol Econ 49:19-0
59. Honey-Rosés J, Acu?a V, Bardina M, Brozovi? N, Marcé R, Munné A, Sabater S, Termes M, Valero F, Vega à, Schneider DW (2013) Examining the demand for ecosystem services: the value of stream restoration for drinking water treatment managers in the Llobregat River, Spain. Ecol Econ 90:196-05
60. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE (2002) A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manag 44(3):426-47
61. Hynes S, Hanley N (2009) The “Crex crex-lament: estimating landowners willingness to pay for corncrake conservation on Irish farmland. Biol Conserv 142:180-88
62. Iftekhar MS, Takama T (2008) Perceptions of biodiversity, environmental services, and conservation of planted mangroves: a case study on Nijhum Dwip Island, Bangladesh. Wetl Ecol Manag 16:119-37
63. Ives CD, Kendal D (2013) Values and attitudes of the urban public towards peri-urban agricultural land. Land Use Policy 34:80-0
64. Jacobsen JB, Hanley N (2009) Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? Environ Resour Econ 43:137-60
65. Jacobsen JB, Boiesen JH, Thorsen BJ, Strange N (2008) What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised-species when valuing biodiversity. Environ Resour Econ 39:247-63
66. Jones N, Sophoulis CM, Malesios C (2008) Economics valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: a case study in Mitilini, Greece. J Socio-econ 37:2478-491
67. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (2000) Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecol Econ 33:251-65
68. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14:131-50
69. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manag 22:57-0
70. Kim S-I, Habb T (2009) Temporal insensitivity of willingness to pay and implied discount rates. Resour Energy Econ 31:89-02
71. Kontogianni A, Luck GW, Skourtos M (2010) Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: a potential approach to address the ‘endpoint problem-and improve stated preference methods. Ecol Econ 69:1479-487
72. Kovacs KF, Larson DM (2008) Identifying individual discount rates and valuing public open space with stated preference-models. Land Econ 84:209-24
73. Kozak J, Lant C, Shaikh S, Wang G (2011) The geography of ecosystem service value: the case of the Des Plaines and Cache River wetlands, Illinois. Appl Geogr 31:303-11
74. Kumar M, Kumar P (2008) Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 64:808-19
75. Lant CL, Roberts RS (1990) Greenbelts in Cornbelt: riparian wetlands, intrinsic values, and market failure. Environ Plan A 22:1375-388
76. Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé E, Pirard R, Mermet L (2013) Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. J Environ Manag 119:208-19
77. Lee C-K, Han S-Y (2002) Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks-tourism resources using a contingent valuation method. Tour Manag 23:531-40
78. Lindhjem H, Navrud S (2011) Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation? Ecol Econ 70:1628-637
79. Lindsey G (1994) Market models, protest bids, and outliers in contingent valuation. J Water Resour Plan Manag 120:121-29
80. Loomis JB, White DS (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 18:197-06
81. Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A (2000) Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol Econ 33:103-17
82. MacMillan D, Hanley N, Lienhoop N (2006) Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine? Ecol Econ 60:299-07
83. Marta-Pedroso C, Freitas H, Domingos T (2007) Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: a case study of web based versus in-person interviews. Ecol Econ 62:388-98
84. Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I et al (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7:e38970. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
85. McFadden D (1994) Contingent valuation and social choice. Am J Agric Econ 76:689-08
86. Menzel S, Teng J (2010) Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv Biol 24:907-09
87. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2006) Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecol Econ 57:583-94
88. Meyerhoff J, Angeli D, Hartje V (2012) Valuing the benefits of implementing a national strategy on biological diversity—the case of Germany. Environ Sci Policy 23:109-19
89. Miller JR (2005) Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol Evol 20:430-34
90. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using survey to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resource for the Future, Washington, DC
91. Moore CC, Holmes TP, Bell KP (2011) An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs. J For Econ 17:35-2
92. Nielsen JS (2011) Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: a comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Resour Energy Econ 33:119-29
93. Noonan DS (2003) Contingent valuation and cultural resources: a meta-analytic review of the literature. J Cult Econ 27:159-76
94. Ojeda MI, Mayer AS, Solomon BD (2008) Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta. Ecol Econ 65:155-66
95. Palmer MA, Filoso S (2009) Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets. Science 325:575-76
96. Pate J, Loomis J (1997) The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Land Econ 20:199-07
97. Pearce D (1998) Cost–benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 14:84-00
98. Pearce D, Mourato S, Navrud S, Ready RC (2002) Review of existing studies, their policy use and future research needs. In: Navrud S, Ready R (eds) Valuing cultural heritage: applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, temples and artifacts. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 257-70
99. Portney P (1994) The contingent valuation debate: why should economists care? J Econ Perspect 8:3-7
100. Reaves DW, Kramer RA, Holmes TP (1999) Does question format matter? Valuing an endangered species. Environ Resour Econ 14:365-83
101. Redford KH, Adams WM (2009) Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conserv Biol 23:785-87
102. Rey-Benayas JM, Newton AC, Diaz A, Bullock JM (2009) Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325:1121-124
103. Richardson L, Loomis J (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 68(5):1535-548
104. Robertson M, Nichols P, Horwitz P, Bradby K, MacKintosh D (2000) Environmental narratives and the need for multiple perspectives to restore degraded landscapes in Australia. Ecosyst Health 6:119-33
105. Rogge E, Nevens F, Gulinck H (2007) Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plan 82:159-74
106. Rowe RD, Schulze WD, Biffle WS (1996) A test for payment card bias. J Environ Econ Manag 31:178-85
107. Ryan M, Scott DA, Donaldson C (2004) Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. J Health Econ 23:237-58
108. Schaich H (2009) Local residents-perception of floodplain restoration measures in Luxembourg’s Syr Valley. Landsc Urban Plan 93:20-0
109. Schl?pfer F (2006) Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 57:415-29
110. Schneiders A, Wils C, Verheyen R (1999) The use of ecological information in the selection of quality objectives for river conservation and restoration in Flanders (Belgium). Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 2:137-54
111. Smith JW, Moore RL (2011) Perceptions of community benefits from two wild and scenic rivers. Environ Manag 47:814-27
112. Spash CL, Urama K, Burton R, Kenyon W, Shannon P, Hill G (2009) Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecol Econ 68:955-64
113. Stevens TH, DeCoteau NE, Willis CE (1997) Sensitivity of contingent valuation to alternative payment schedules. Land Econ 73:140-48
114. Stone K, Bhat M, Bhatta R, Mathews A (2008) Factors influencing community participation in mangroves restoration: a contingent valuation analysis. Ocean Coast Manag 51:476-84
115. Stumborg BE, Baerenklau KA, Bishop RC (2001) Nonpoint source pollution and present values: a contingent valuation study of Lake Mendota. Rev Agric Econ 23:120-32
116. Tallis H, Goldman R, Uhl M, Brosi B (2009) Integrating conservation and development in the field: implementing ecosystem service projects. Front Ecol Environ 7:12-0
117. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: ecological and economic foundation. Earthscan, London
118. Turnbull BW (1976) The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored and truncated data. J R Stat Soc B 38:290-95
119. Turner RK, Daily GC (2008) The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. Environ Resour Econ 39:25-5
120. Urama KC, Hodge I (2006) Participatory environmental education and willingness to pay for river basin management: empirical evidence from Nigeria. Land Econ 82:542-61
121. van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF, van den Berg B, Koopmanschap MA (2006) With a little help from an anchor: discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation. J Socioecon 35:836-53
122. Veisten K, Hoen HF, Navrud S, Strand J (2004) Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J Environ Manag 73:317-31
123. Venkatachalam L (2004) The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ Impact Assess 24:89-24
124. Wainger LA, King DM, Mack RN, Price EW, Maslin T (2010) Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decision? Ecol Econ 69:978-87
125. Weber MA, Steward S (2009) Public values for river restoration options on the Middle Rio Grande. Restor Ecol 17:762-71
126. Xu Z, Cheng G, Zhang Z, Su Z, Loomis J (2003) Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecol Econ 44:345-58
127. Zhao J, Liu Q, Lin L, Lv H, Wang Y (2013) Assessing the comprehensive restoration of an urban river: an integrated application of contingent valuation in Shanghai, China. Sci Total Environ 458-60:517-26 - 作者单位：Wendy Y. Chen (1)
Joris Aertsens (2)
Inge Liekens (2)
Steven Broekx (2)
Leo De Nocker (2)
1. Department of Geography, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
2. Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium - ISSN：1432-1009
文摘
The strategic importance of ecosystem service valuation as an operational basis for policy decisions on natural restoration has been increasingly recognized in order to align the provision of ecosystem services with the expectation of human society. The contingent valuation method (CVM) is widely used to quantify various ecosystem services. However, two areas of concern arise: (1) whether people value specific functional ecosystem services and overlook some intrinsic aspects of natural restoration, and (2) whether people understand the temporal dimension of ecosystem services and payment schedules given in the contingent scenarios. Using a peri-urban riparian meadow restoration project in Flanders, Belgium as a case, we explored the impacts of residents-perceived importance of various ecosystem services and stated financial constraints on their willingness-to-pay for the proposed restoration project employing the CVM. The results indicated that people tended to value all the benefits of riparian ecosystem restoration concurrently, although they accorded different importances to each individual category of ecosystem services. A longer payment scheme can help the respondents to think more about the flow of ecosystem services into future generations. A weak temporal embedding effect can be detected, which might be attributed to respondents-concern about current financial constraints, rather than financial bindings associated with their income and perceived future financial constraints. This demonstrates the multidimensionality of respondents-financial concerns in CV. This study sheds light on refining future CV studies, especially with regard to public expectation of ecosystem services and the temporal dimension of ecosystem services and payment schedules.