IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v141y2017icp213-221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!

Author

Listed:
  • Rode, Julian
  • Le Menestrel, Marc
  • Cornelissen, Gert

Abstract

The trend in the discourse around environmental protection towards arguments based on ecosystem services and monetary valuation has prompted considerable controversy among academics and practitioners concerned with conservation. This paper informs the debate by exploring which arguments are most effective in garnering support for environmental protection. In a survey-based online experiment, participants stated their level of (dis)approval of a large-scale hydropower dam project after being presented with various kinds of arguments and information about the environmental impacts. The results show that ecosystem service arguments reduced levels of approval of the dam significantly (i.e. they increased support for environmental protection). However, moral-ecological arguments for protecting the environment proved even more effective, while a combination of both types of arguments reduced the dam approval ratings the most. Including a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) with monetary valuation of the costs of losing ecosystem services altered dam approval upwards or downwards, depending on the outcome of the CBA. The approval rates of males, of older participants and of politically right-wing participants were particularly sensitive to the outcomes of monetary valuation. More research is needed to understand the short and long term influence of different environmental discourses on peoples' judgments and levels of environmental concern.

Suggested Citation

  • Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:141:y:2017:i:c:p:213-221
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916308886
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Bernauer & Liam F. McGrath, 2016. "Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(7), pages 680-683, July.
    2. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc, 2011. "The influence of decision power on distributive fairness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 246-255, August.
    3. Armin Falk & James J. Heckman, 2009. "Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 200935, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    4. Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein, 1997. "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 109-126, Winter.
    5. Fisher, Janet A. & Brown, Katrina, 2014. "Ecosystem services concepts and approaches in conservation: Just a rhetorical tool?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 257-265.
    6. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    7. Laurans, Yann & Mermet, Laurent, 2014. "Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 98-105.
    8. Douglas J. McCauley, 2006. "Selling out on nature," Nature, Nature, vol. 443(7107), pages 27-28, September.
    9. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 347-370, May.
    10. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    11. Jax, Kurt & Barton, David N. & Chan, Kai M.A. & de Groot, Rudolf & Doyle, Ulrike & Eser, Uta & Görg, Christoph & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Griewald, Yuliana & Haber, Wolfgang & Haines-Young, Roy & Heink, 2013. "Ecosystem services and ethics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 260-268.
    12. Christie, Mike & Fazey, Ioan & Cooper, Rob & Hyde, Tony & Kenter, Jasper O., 2012. "An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 67-78.
    13. Michelle Marvier & Hazel Wong, 2012. "Resurrecting the conservation movement," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 2(4), pages 291-295, November.
    14. J. W. Bolderdijk & L. Steg & E. S. Geller & P. K. Lehman & T. Postmes, 2013. "Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 413-416, April.
    15. Brian E. Roe & David R. Just, 2009. "Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1266-1271.
    16. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    17. Julian Rode & Marc Le Menestrel & Luk Van Wassenhove & Anthony Simon, 2015. "Ethical Analysis for Evaluating Sustainable Business Decisions: The Case of Environmental Impact Evaluation in the Inambari Hydropower Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-22, August.
    18. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri & Barton, David N. & Geneletti, Davide & Langemeyer, Johannes & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Marttunen, Mika & Antunes, Paula & Keune, Hans & Santos, Rui, 2016. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 238-249.
    19. Neuteleers, Stijn & Engelen, Bart, 2015. "Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 253-260.
    20. Satterfield, Terre & Slovic, Paul & Gregory, Robin, 2000. "Narrative valuation in a policy judgment context," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 315-331, September.
    21. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    22. Krausmann, Fridolin & Gingrich, Simone & Eisenmenger, Nina & Erb, Karl-Heinz & Haberl, Helmut & Fischer-Kowalski, Marina, 2009. "Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2696-2705, August.
    23. repec:reg:rpubli:98 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Johnson & Judith Exl & Sylvie Geisendorf, 2021. "The Potential of Stormwater Management in Addressing the Urban Heat Island Effect: An Economic Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Li-Chun Peng & Wan-Yu Lien & Yu-Pin Lin, 2020. "How Experts’ Opinions and Knowledge Affect Their Willingness to Pay for and Ranking of Hydrological Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Johnson, Daniel & Geisendorf, Sylvie, 2019. "Are Neighborhood-level SUDS Worth it? An Assessment of the Economic Value of Sustainable Urban Drainage System Scenarios Using Cost-Benefit Analyses," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 194-205.
    4. Zhang, Guanshi & Zheng, Duo & Xie, Long & Zhang, Xiu & Wu, Hongjuan & Li, Sen, 2021. "Mapping changes in the value of ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Middle Reaches Megalopolis, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2015. "Can monetary valuation undermine nature conservation? Evidence from a decision experiment," UFZ Discussion Papers 9/2015, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    2. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, , 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.
    4. Hansjürgens, Bernd & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Berghöfer, Augustin & Lienhoop, Nele, 2016. "Reprint:Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 228-237.
    5. Hansjürgens, Bernd & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Berghöfer, Augustin & Lienhoop, Nele, 2017. "Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 9-17.
    6. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    8. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    9. Steger, Cara & Hirsch, Shana & Evers, Cody & Branoff, Benjamin & Petrova, Maria & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Wardropper, Chloe & van Riper, Carena J., 2018. "Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 153-160.
    10. Adam P. Hejnowicz & Murray A. Rudd, 2017. "The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-34, May.
    11. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    12. Rode, Julian & Wittmer, Heidi & Emerton, Lucy & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph, 2015. "Capturing ecosystem service opportunities: A practice-oriented framework for selecting economic instruments in order to enhance biodiversity and human livelihoods," UFZ Discussion Papers 3/2015, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    13. Folkersen, Maja Vinde, 2018. "Ecosystem valuation: Changing discourse in a time of climate change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 1-12.
    14. Bull, J.W. & Jobstvogt, N. & Böhnke-Henrichs, A. & Mascarenhas, A. & Sitas, N. & Baulcomb, C. & Lambini, C.K. & Rawlins, M. & Baral, H. & Zähringer, J. & Carter-Silk, E. & Balzan, M.V. & Kenter, J.O, 2016. "Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 99-111.
    15. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    16. Pistorius, Till & Schaich, Harald & Winkel, Georg & Plieninger, Tobias & Bieling, Claudia & Konold, Werner & Volz, Karl-Reinhard, 2012. "Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 4-12.
    17. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    18. Gould, Rachelle K. & Lincoln, Noa Kekuewa, 2017. "Expanding the suite of Cultural Ecosystem Services to include ingenuity, perspective, and life teaching," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 117-127.
    19. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    20. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:141:y:2017:i:c:p:213-221. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.