IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v118y2022ics0264837722001545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expert guidance for environmental compensation is consistent with public preferences – Evidence from a choice experiment in Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Cole, Scott
  • Hasselström, Linus
  • Jönsson, K. Ingemar
  • Lindblom, Erik
  • Söderqvist, Tore

Abstract

Public acceptance of environmental compensation (offsetting) as a mechanism to address negative human impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services is critical. Given that “in-kind/on-site” compensation is rarely possible, proposals must address trade-offs with respect to design. We measure Swedish citizens’ support for compensation and analyze preferences for design attributes based on a choice experiment in which respondents choose between various compensation alternatives to address the hypothetical loss of green space due to urban development. We find citizens’ support for compensation is high, but the activity causing the damage affects acceptance. Our model suggests that several design attributes affect choice but size of the compensation area was valued highest, both in relative and absolute terms. Further, our results suggest that compensation should be primarily focused on creating or improving biodiversity and nature values in order to be in line with public preferences. Additionally, choice depends on interactions between attributes: a larger compensation site matters more when it is relatively further away; and the importance of size and distance from damage depends on whether compensation type focuses on nature or recreational values. Observable characteristics such as a respondent’s age, income and education affect compensation design preferences, but perceptions and previous experiences have the largest effect on choice. Our findings suggest that public preferences are consistent with many of the general recommendations found in guidance documents, but local context may argue for alternative priorities with respect to certain species, habitats, and/or the wellbeing of certain groups. To engender broad support, compensatory offsets will need to balance scientific rigor with transparent involvement of the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Cole, Scott & Hasselström, Linus & Jönsson, K. Ingemar & Lindblom, Erik & Söderqvist, Tore, 2022. "Expert guidance for environmental compensation is consistent with public preferences – Evidence from a choice experiment in Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:118:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722001545
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106127
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722001545
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106127?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. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Léa Tardieu & Fabien Quétier & Sébastien Roussel, 2018. "Corrigendum: Preferences for biodiversity offset contracts on arable land: a choice experiment study with farmers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(4), pages 675-675.
    2. McFadden, Daniel, 1980. "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 13-29, July.
    3. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Lagerkvist, 2007. "Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 155-164, October.
    4. William S. Breffle & Robert D. Rowe, 2002. "Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 298-314.
    5. McPhearson, Timon & Andersson, Erik & Elmqvist, Thomas & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 152-156.
    6. Unsworth, Robert E. & Bishop, Richard C., 1994. "Assessing natural resource damages using environmental annuities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 35-41, September.
    7. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    8. Cole, Scott & Moksnes, Per-Olav & Söderqvist, Tore & Wikström, Sofia A. & Sundblad, Göran & Hasselström, Linus & Bergström, Ulf & Kraufvelin, Patrik & Bergström, Lena, 2021. "Environmental compensation for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A flexible framework that addresses human wellbeing," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    9. Burton, Michael & Rogers, Abbie & Richert, Claire, 2017. "Community acceptance of biodiversity offsets: evidence from a choice experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(1), January.
    10. Riera, Pere & Giergiczny, Marek & Peñuelas, Josep & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2012. "A choice modelling case study on climate change involving two-way interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 345-354.
    11. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Léa Tardieu & Fabien Quétier & Sébastien Roussel, 2018. "Preferences for biodiversity offset contracts on arable land: a choice experiment study with farmers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(4), pages 553-582.
    12. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    13. Kermagoret, Charlène & Levrel, Harold & Carlier, Antoine & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2016. "Individual preferences regarding environmental offset and welfare compensation: a choice experiment application to an offshore wind farm project," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 230-240.
    14. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    15. Brambor, Thomas & Clark, William Roberts & Golder, Matt, 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63-82, January.
    16. Jorien Veldwijk & Mattijs S Lambooij & Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Henriëtte A Smit & G Ardine de Wit, 2014. "The Effect of Including an Opt-Out Option in Discrete Choice Experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    17. Opaluch, James J., 2020. "Liability for Natural Resource Damages from Oil Spills: A Survey," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 14(1), pages 37-111, April.
    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.

    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. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Jane L. Harrison & Alexandra Naumenko & John C. Whitehead, 2021. "Attribute Nonattendance And Citizen Preferences For Ecosystem‐Based Fisheries Management: The Case Of Atlantic Menhaden," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 310-324, April.
    4. Gastineau, Pascal & Mossay, Pascal & Taugourdeau, Emmanuelle, 2021. "Ecological compensation: How much and where?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    5. Desbordes, Rodolphe & Vicard, Vincent, 2009. "Foreign direct investment and bilateral investment treaties: An international political perspective," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 372-386, September.
    6. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    7. Humphery-Jenner, M., 2011. "Anti-takeover Provisions as a Source of Innovation and Value Creation," Discussion Paper 2011-045, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    8. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    9. Oliver Pamp, 2008. "Partisan Preferences and Political Institutions: Explaining Fiscal Retrenchment in the European Union," European Political Economy Review, European Political Economy Infrastructure Consortium, vol. 8(Spring), pages 4-39.
    10. Lapierre, Margaux & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Bougherara, Douadia & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2023. "Designing agri-environmental schemes to cope with uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    11. Andersson, Krister, 2013. "Local Governance of Forests and the Role of External Organizations: Some Ties Matter More Than Others," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 226-237.
    12. Ouvrard, Benjamin & Abildtrup, Jens & Bostedt, Göran & Stenger, Anne, 2019. "Determinants of forest owners attitudes towards wood ash recycling in Sweden - Can the nutrient cycle be closed?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Meressa, Abrha Megos & Navrud, Stale, 2020. "Not my cup of coffee: Farmers’ preferences for coffee variety traits – Lessons for crop breeding in the age of climate change," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(3), December.
    14. Bai, Xiaoou & Tsang, Eric W.K. & Xia, Wei, 2020. "Domestic versus foreign listing: Does a CEO's educational experience matter?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1).
    15. Orkhan Sariyev & Tim K. Loos & Ling Yee Khor, 2021. "Intra-household decision-making, production diversity, and dietary quality: a panel data analysis of Ethiopian rural households," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(1), pages 181-197, February.
    16. Joalland, Olivier & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2023. "Developing large-scale offshore wind power programs: A choice experiment analysis in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    17. Nthambi, Mary & Wätzold, Frank & Markova-Nenova, Nonka, 2018. "Quantifying benefit losses from poor governance of climate change adaptation projects: A discrete choice experiment with farmers in Kenya," MPRA Paper 94678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Ching‐Hua Yeh & Stefan Hirsch, 2023. "A meta‐regression analysis on the willingness‐to‐pay for country‐of‐origin labelling," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 719-743, September.
    19. Drichoutis, Andreas, 2011. "Interpreting interaction terms in linear and non-linear models: A cautionary tale," MPRA Paper 33251, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Philippe Le Coent & Coralie Calvet, 2016. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offsetting through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study," Working Papers 16-10, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.

    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:lauspo:v:118:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722001545. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.