IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v199y2022ics0921800922001550.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The politics of green infrastructure: A discrete choice experiment with Flemish local decision-makers

Author

Listed:
  • Van Oijstaeijen, Wito
  • Van Passel, Steven
  • Back, Phil
  • Cools, Jan

Abstract

Being confronted with increasing and expanding urbanisation and the loss of natural green spaces, our living environment is threatened more and more by the effects of global climate change. Green infrastructure is often thought of as the solution to increase climate resilience and reinforce the quality of the lived environment simultaneously. While the benefits, or ecosystem services, that are generated through green infrastructure have been studied intensively, forces that influence green infrastructure decision-making have been far less subjected to thorough research. In this study a discrete choice experiment was conducted with local decision makers in Flemish municipalities to reveal crucial factors in the decision process applied to green infrastructure projects. Flanders is one of the most densely built regions in Europe, stressing the urgency to understand local spatial decision factors to guarantee green space. 568 decision makers active in the local administration of 235 Flemish municipalities participated in the experiment, set in a hypothetical neighbourhood park. Every choice alternative exists of five attributes: investment cost, maintenance cost, deferred investment, recreational value, and climate impact. We find that barriers hampering Flemish munipalities' GI implementation, differ over size of the municipality: smallers municipalities are more affected by knowledge gaps, while larger municipalities are experiencing prioritization issues. Results from hierarchical Bayes choice models indicate that municipal decisions on green infrastructure are highly – almost solely - cost-driven, rarely consider the full range of benefits, and centre around short-term and immediate arguments. Moreover, interaction models reveal that a municipalities' financial result is a key determinant of its willingness to invest in public greening and consider long term benefits, suggesting that GI is a luxury good. The results expose some of the heuristics in GI decision making and can be used to inform higher authorities on ways to overcome barriers towards informed decision-making and to facilitate GI investment.

Suggested Citation

  • Van Oijstaeijen, Wito & Van Passel, Steven & Back, Phil & Cools, Jan, 2022. "The politics of green infrastructure: A discrete choice experiment with Flemish local decision-makers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:199:y:2022:i:c:s0921800922001550
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107493
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800922001550
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107493?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. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    2. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    3. Primmer, Eeva & Saarikoski, Heli & Vatn, Arild, 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of Institutional Demand for Valuation Knowledge," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 152-160.
    4. Marre, Jean-Baptiste & Billé, Raphaël, 2019. "A demand-driven approach to ecosystem services economic valuation: Lessons from Pacific island countries and territories," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    6. Byun, Hyunsuk & Lee, Chul-Yong, 2017. "Analyzing Korean consumers’ latent preferences for electricity generation sources with a hierarchical Bayesian logit model in a discrete choice experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 294-302.
    7. Antonios Kolimenakis & Alexandra D. Solomou & Nikolaos Proutsos & Evangelia V. Avramidou & Evangelia Korakaki & Georgios Karetsos & Georgios Maroulis & Eleftherios Papagiannis & Konstantinia Tsagkari, 2021. "The Socioeconomic Welfare of Urban Green Areas and Parks; A Literature Review of Available Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-26, July.
    8. Edwin Buitelaar & Hans Leinfelder, 2020. "Public Design of Urban Sprawl: Governments and the Extension of the Urban Fabric in Flanders and the Netherlands," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(1), pages 46-57.
    9. Turkelboom, Francis & Leone, Michael & Jacobs, Sander & Kelemen, Eszter & García-Llorente, Marina & Baró, Francesc & Termansen, Mette & Barton, David N. & Berry, Pam & Stange, Erik & Thoonen, Marijk, 2018. "When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 566-578.
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    11. Matteo Mattmann & Ivana Logar & Roy Brouwer, 2019. "Choice certainty, consistency, and monotonicity in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 109-127, April.
    12. Liu, Zhaoyang & Hanley, Nick & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Linking urban air pollution with residents’ willingness to pay for greenspace: A choice experiment study in Beijing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    13. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Ready, Richard & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2019. "How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 375-386.
    14. Levrel, Harold & Cabral, Pedro & Feger, Clément & Chambolle, Mélodie & Basque, Damien, 2017. "How to overcome the implementation gap in ecosystem services? A user-friendly and inclusive tool for improved urban management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 574-584.
    15. Srivastava, Aman & Van Passel, Steven & Kessels, Roselinde & Valkering, Pieter & Laes, Erik, 2020. "Reducing winter peaks in electricity consumption: A choice experiment to structure demand response programs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    16. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    17. Sofie Marien & Ruth Dassonneville & Marc Hooghe, 2015. "How Second Order Are Local Elections? Voting Motives and Party Preferences in Belgian Municipal Elections," Local Government Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(6), pages 898-916, November.
    18. Stephenson, Kurt & Shabman, Leonard, 2019. "Does ecosystem valuation contribute to ecosystem decision making?: Evidence from hydropower licensing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 1-8.
    19. Ian C. Mell, 2017. "Green infrastructure: reflections on past, present and future praxis," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 135-145, February.
    20. Jeremy Dodeigne & Caroline Close & Ferdinand Teuber, 2021. "Nationalisation of local party systems in Belgium (1976-2018): the combined effects of municipality size and parliamentary parties’ dominance," Local Government Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(1), pages 100-125, January.
    21. Ludo Peeters & Eloi Schreurs & Steven Passel, 2017. "Heterogeneous Impact of Soil Contamination on Farmland Prices in the Belgian Campine Region: Evidence from Unconditional Quantile Regressions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 66(1), pages 135-168, January.
    22. Stefanie Vanneste & Stijn Goeminne, 2020. "The role of the past in public policy: empirical evidence of the long-term effect of past policy and politics on the local budget balance," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 75-99, March.
    23. Klauer, Bernd & Manstetten, Reiner & Petersen, Thomas & Schiller, Johannes, 2013. "The art of long-term thinking: A bridge between sustainability science and politics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 79-84.
    24. Mekala, Gayathri Devi & Hatton MacDonald, Darla, 2018. "Lost in Transactions: Analysing the Institutional Arrangements Underpinning Urban Green Infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 399-409.
    25. Elin Slätmo & Kjell Nilsson & Eeva Turunen, 2019. "Implementing Green Infrastructure in Spatial Planning in Europe," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-21, April.
    26. Julia Bronnmann & Veronika Liebelt & Fabian Marder & Jasper Meya & Martin Quaas, 2023. "The Value of Naturalness of Urban Green Spaces: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 99(4), pages 528-542.
    27. Łaszkiewicz, Edyta & Czembrowski, Piotr & Kronenberg, Jakub, 2019. "Can proximity to urban green spaces be considered a luxury? Classifying a non-tradable good with the use of hedonic pricing method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 237-247.
    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. Elli Papastergiou & Dionysis Latinopoulos & Myrto Evdou & Athanasios Kalogeresis, 2023. "Exploring Associations between Subjective Well-Being and Non-Market Values When Used in the Evaluation of Urban Green Spaces: A Scoping Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-31, March.
    2. Christina Francis & Paul Hansen & Bjarnhéðinn Guðlaugsson & David M. Ingram & R. Camilla Thomson, 2022. "Weighting Key Performance Indicators of Smart Local Energy Systems: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-17, December.

    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. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    2. Juutinen, Artti & Tolvanen, Anne & Saarimaa, Miia & Ojanen, Paavo & Sarkkola, Sakari & Ahtikoski, Anssi & Haikarainen, Soili & Karhu, Jouni & Haara, Arto & Nieminen, Mika & Penttilä, Timo & Nousiainen, 2020. "Cost-effective land-use options of drained peatlands– integrated biophysical-economic modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Kemper, Nathan & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Popp, Jennie & Bazzani, Claudia, 2016. "The Effects of Honesty Oath and Consequentiality in Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235381, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia, 2020. "Loss aversion, reference dependence and diminishing sensitivity in choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    5. Shi, Wei & Halstead, John M. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2017. "Market Experience Matters: Status Quo Effect in the Economic Valuation of Consumer Preferences for Local Produce," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258290, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. De Marchi, Elisa & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Banterle, Alessandro, 2016. "Time preferences and food choices: Evidence from a choice experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 99-109.
    7. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    8. Boeri, Marco & Scarpa, Riccardo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2014. "Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes: Utility maximization, regret minimization, or both?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 121-135.
    9. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    10. Kota Mameno & Takahiro Kubo & Hiroyuki Oguma & Yukihiro Amagai & Yasushi Shoji, 2022. "Decline in the alpine landscape aesthetic value in a national park under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-18, February.
    11. Piaggio, Matías, 2021. "The value of public urban green spaces: Measuring the effects of proximity to and size of urban green spaces on housing market values in San José, Costa Rica," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    13. Julia Bronnmann & Veronika Liebelt & Fabian Marder & Jasper Meya & Martin Quaas, 2023. "The Value of Naturalness of Urban Green Spaces: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 99(4), pages 528-542.
    14. Takashi Hayashi & Daisuke Kunii & Masayuki Sato, 2021. "A Practice in Valuation of Ecosystem Services for Local Policymakers: Inclusion of Local-Specific and Demand-Side Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Barnaud, Cécile & De Longueville, Florence & Gonella, Gabriel & Antona, Martine & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Waylen, Kerry A, 2023. "Participatory research on ecosystem services in the face of disputed values and other uncertainties: A review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    16. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    17. Yuta Kuroda & Takeru Sugasawa, 2023. "The Value of Scattered Greenery in Urban Areas: A Hedonic Analysis in Japan," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(2), pages 523-586, June.
    18. Sang Hyeon Lee & Doo Bong Han & Vincenzina Caputo & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr., 2015. "Consumers’ Valuation for a Reduced Salt Product: A Nonhypothetical Choice Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 563-582, December.
    19. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.

    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:199:y:2022:i:c:s0921800922001550. 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.