IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i23p10055-d454998.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Experts’ Opinions and Knowledge Affect Their Willingness to Pay for and Ranking of Hydrological Ecosystem Services

Author

Listed:
  • Li-Chun Peng

    (Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

  • Wan-Yu Lien

    (Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

  • Yu-Pin Lin

    (Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei 10617, Taiwan)

Abstract

To ensure that ecosystem services are included in decision-making processes, many studies have relied on expert opinions and knowledge to identify, rank, and assess willingness to pay. In this study, expert opinions according to their expertise in hydrology, ecology, and sociology were surveyed and compared in terms of (1) recognition and ranking of hydrological ecosystem services (HESs) and (2) willingness to pay for HESs. The decision-making process was also investigated, specifically the rankings of factors in experts’ plans for climate change adaptation. The experts’ recognition of and opinions concerning HESs were positively correlated at various levels with intention to pay (i.e., whether respondents were willing to pay for HESs). Most experts recognized the importance of HESs and allocated high average scores of 9.15, 8.17, and 8.41 to water yield, sediment export, and nutrient export, respectively, using a scale from 1 ( least important ) to 10 ( most important ). The percentage of sociologists (100%) exhibited greater intention to pay than those of hydrologists (70%) and ecologists (93%), respectively. Experts prioritized environmental impact over economic cost in policy decision-making, and they differed significantly by field in terms of their rankings of the functional, economic, environmental, and social considerations of decision-making. The results revealed significant differences among experts in their decision-making preferences according to their fields of knowledge. The experts of a specific study field may be more willing to pay for that than for another. Greater intellectual exchange and analysis among experts should be implemented and diverse expert opinions should be solicited in policy decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:23:p:10055-:d:454998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/10055/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/10055/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lankia, Tuija & Neuvonen, Marjo & Pouta, Eija & Sievänen, Tuija, 2014. "Willingness to contribute to the management of recreational quality on private lands in Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 141-160.
    2. 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.
    3. Kenter, Jasper O. & Jobstvogt, Niels & Watson, Verity & Irvine, Katherine N. & Christie, Michael & Bryce, Ros, 2016. "The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 270-290.
    4. 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.
    5. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    6. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, , 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    7. Anna Kowalska-Pyzalska, 2019. "Do Consumers Want to Pay for Green Electricity? A Case Study from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Seroa da Motta, Ronaldo & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2018. "Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 333-342.
    9. Lankia, Tuija & Neuvonen, Marjo & Pouta, Eija & Sievänen, Tuija, 2014. "Willingness to contribute to the management of recreational quality on private lands in Finland," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182651, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Pan, Yuan & Marshall, Stuart & Maltby, Lorraine, 2016. "Prioritising ecosystem services in Chinese rural and urban communities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 1-5.
    11. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick, 2002. "Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 107-116, January.
    12. Vardon, Michael & Keith, Heather & Lindenmayer, David, 2019. "Accounting and valuing the ecosystem services related to water supply in the Central Highlands of Victoria, Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    13. Daigee Shaw & Yu-Lan Chien & Yih-Ming Lin, 1999. "Alternative approach to combining revealed and stated preference data: evaluating water quality of a river system in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(2), pages 97-112, June.
    14. Wakita, Kazumi & Kurokura, Hisashi & Oishi, Taro & Shen, Zhonghua & Furuya, Ken, 2019. "Exploring the effect of psychometric variables on willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services: A survey in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 130-138.
    15. Søren B. Olsen & Cathrine U. Jensen & Toke E. Panduro, 2020. "Modelling Strategies for Discontinuous Distance Decay in Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 351-386, February.
    16. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
    17. Qu, Mei & Liu, Guangzhe & Lin, Yin & Driedger, Erika & Peter, Zsuzsanna & Xu, Xiaoqian & Cao, Yang, 2017. "Experts’ perceptions of the sloping land conversion program in the Loess Plateau, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 204-210.
    18. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Needham, Mark D. & Morzillo, Anita T. & Moehrke, Caitlin, 2012. "Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 271-281.
    19. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaincharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2007. "Using Citizen Expert Groups in Environmental Valuation - Lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 283/2007, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    20. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    21. Chien, Yu-Lan & Huang, Cliff J. & Shaw, Daigee, 2005. "A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 362-377, September.
    22. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F. & Levy, Alan & Russell, Matthew, 2001. "US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 917-925, September.
    23. Armatas, Christopher A. & Campbell, Robert M. & Watson, Alan E. & Borrie, William T. & Christensen, Neal & Venn, Tyron J., 2018. "An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 1-18.
    24. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
    25. Yuan Pan & Yue Che & Stuart Marshall & Lorraine Maltby, 2020. "Heterogeneity in Ecosystem Service Values: Linking Public Perceptions and Environmental Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-14, February.
    26. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    27. Vassilis Markantonis & Kostas Bithas, 2010. "The application of the contingent valuation method in estimating the climate change mitigation and adaptation policies in Greece. An expert-based approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 807-824, October.
    28. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    29. Waylen, Kerry A. & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2018. "Surveying views on Payments for Ecosystem Services: Implications for environmental management and research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 23-30.
    30. Dou, Yuehan & Zhen, Lin & De Groot, Rudolf & Du, Bingzhen & Yu, Xiubo, 2017. "Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 79-90.
    31. Grizzetti, B. & Lanzanova, D. & Liquete, C. & Reynaud, A. & Cardoso, A.C., 2016. "Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 194-203.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Komarek, Timothy M. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2011. "Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5105-5115, September.
    2. Balezentis, Tomas & Streimikiene, Dalia & Mikalauskas, Ignas & Shen, Zhiyang, 2021. "Towards carbon free economy and electricity: The puzzle of energy costs, sustainability and security based on willingness to pay," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    3. 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).
    4. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    5. Raviv, Orna & Tchetchik, Anat & Lotan, Alon & Izhaki, Ido & Zemah Shamir, Shiri, 2021. "Direct and indirect valuation of air-quality regulation service as reflected in the preferences towards distinct types of landscape in a biosphere reserve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    6. Dick, Jan & Turkelboom, Francis & Woods, Helen & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Bezák, Peter & Mederly, Peter & Leone, Michael & Verheyden, Wim & Kelemen, Eszter & H, 2018. "Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 552-565.
    7. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    8. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    9. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Zorić, Jelena & Hrovatin, Nevenka, 2012. "Household willingness to pay for green electricity in Slovenia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 180-187.
    11. Nadia Palmieri & Alessandro Suardi & Luigi Pari, 2020. "Italian Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Eucalyptus Firewood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, March.
    12. Motz, Alessandra, 2021. "Consumer acceptance of the energy transition in Switzerland: The role of attitudes explained through a hybrid discrete choice model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    13. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Pappa, Valentina, 2016. "Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: A study of climate neutral foods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 141-155.
    14. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    15. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    16. Graça, Manjate, 2018. "Scope effects in contingent valuation: an application to the valuation of irrigation water quality improvements in Infulene Valley, Mozambique," Research Theses 334752, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    17. Amandine Gnonlonfin & Ali Douai, 2019. "Rapport d’enquête : Quel avenir pour la Brague face au risque d’inondation ?," Working Papers hal-03030376, HAL.
    18. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2016. "Constructing markets: environmental economics and the contingent valuation controversy," MPRA Paper 78814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Hagedoorn, Liselotte C. & Koetse, Mark J. & van Beukering, Pieter J.H. & Brander, Luke M., 2021. "Reducing the finance gap for nature-based solutions with time contributions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    20. Amoah, Anthony & Ferrini, Silvia & Schaafsma, Marije, 2019. "Electricity outages in Ghana: Are contingent valuation estimates valid?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:23:p:10055-:d:454998. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.