IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v64y2023ics2212041623000621.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuation and mapping of the recreational diving ecosystem service of the Aegean Sea

Author

Listed:
  • Stamatiadou, Valentini
  • Mazaris, Antonios
  • Mallios, Zisis
  • Katsanevakis, Stelios

Abstract

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) provide a range of aesthetic and recreational benefits. However, they have not been extensively assessed due to methodological challenges, despite their use and non-use values for local and wider communities. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the economic importance and spatial distribution of recreational diving, a major non-extractive use of marine biodiversity, in the Aegean Sea. A comprehensive evaluation of diving value was conducted based on ecological features and divers' preferences and habits. The value of recreational diving as an ecosystem service in the Aegean Sea was estimated at €154.3 million annually, with €4.3 million (95 % CI, €1.4–8.4 million) as the willingness to pay (WTP) for biodiversity conservation, €135 million (95 % CI, €99-174 million) for divers' expenditures, and €15 million (95 % CI, €11-20 million) for diving centers' revenues. These values were determined through questionnaires distributed to divers and clubs to estimate the diving industry’s value. The value distribution across the Aegean was determined by divers' criteria for selecting dive sites, such as habitats, species-attractions, and distance to dive centers. The highest local value was €1.1 million km−2 yr−1 annually, and the lowest was €127 km−2 yr−1. Recreational diving is a crucial blue growth activity for the Aegean coastal communities and should be integrated into conservation strategies and marine spatial planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Stamatiadou, Valentini & Mazaris, Antonios & Mallios, Zisis & Katsanevakis, Stelios, 2023. "Valuation and mapping of the recreational diving ecosystem service of the Aegean Sea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:64:y:2023:i:c:s2212041623000621
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101569
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041623000621
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101569?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. Giovanni Nattino & Michael L. Pennell & Stanley Lemeshow, 2020. "Rejoinder to “Assessing the goodness of fit of logistic regression models in large samples: A modification of the Hosmer‐Lemeshow test”," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 575-577, June.
    2. Townsend, Michael & Thrush, Simon F. & Lohrer, Andrew M. & Hewitt, Judi E. & Lundquist, Carolyn J. & Carbines, Megan & Felsing, Malene, 2014. "Overcoming the challenges of data scarcity in mapping marine ecosystem service potential," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 44-55.
    3. Dimmock, Kay & Musa, Ghazali, 2015. "Scuba Diving Tourism System: A framework for collaborative management and sustainability," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 52-58.
    4. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    5. Klain, Sarah C. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2012. "Navigating coastal values: Participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 104-113.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    7. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    8. Rees, Siân E. & Mangi, Stephen C. & Hattam, Caroline & Gall, Sarah C. & Rodwell, Lynda D. & Peckett, Frankie J. & Attrill, Martin J., 2015. "The socio-economic effects of a Marine Protected Area on the ecosystem service of leisure and recreation," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 144-152.
    9. Richard T. Carson, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 27-42, Fall.
    10. Tammi, Ilpo & Mustajärvi, Kaisa & Rasinmäki, Jussi, 2017. "Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 329-344.
    11. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    12. Georgia Nikoli & Athina Lazakidou, 2019. "The Contribution of Tourism Industry to the Economy: Case of the Greek Tourism Sector," Advances in Management and Applied Economics, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 9(6), pages 1-3.
    13. Luís C. Rodrigues & Jeroen C. J. M. Bergh & Maria L. Loureiro & Paulo A. L. D. Nunes & Sergio Rossi, 2016. "The Cost of Mediterranean Sea Warming and Acidification: A Choice Experiment Among Scuba Divers at Medes Islands, Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(2), pages 289-311, February.
    14. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Hinz, H. & Edwards-Jones, G. & Kaiser, M.J., 2013. "Spatially explicit economic assessment of cultural ecosystem services: Non-extractive recreational uses of the coastal environment related to marine biodiversity," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 90-98.
    15. Jobstvogt, Niels & Watson, Verity & Kenter, Jasper O., 2014. "Looking below the surface: The cultural ecosystem service values of UK marine protected areas (MPAs)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 97-110.
    16. Bullock, Craig & Joyce, Deirdre & Collier, Marcus, 2018. "An exploration of the relationships between cultural ecosystem services, socio-cultural values and well-being," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 142-152.
    17. Giovanni Nattino & Michael L. Pennell & Stanley Lemeshow, 2020. "Assessing the goodness of fit of logistic regression models in large samples: A modification of the Hosmer‐Lemeshow test," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 549-560, June.
    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. John C. Whitehead, 2024. "They doth protest too much, methinks: Reply to “Reply to Whitehead”," Working Papers 24-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    2. 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.
    3. José Miguel Sánchez U., 2013. "Contingent valuation and choice experiments applied to the Sierra Nevada National Park in Venezuela," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 38(35), pages 57-100, January-J.
    4. Vardges Hovhannisyan & Hayk Khachatryan, 2017. "Ornamental Plants in the United States: An Econometric Analysis of a Household‐Level Demand System," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(2), pages 226-241, April.
    5. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    6. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2016. "Energy projects in Iceland – Advancing the case for the use of economic valuation techniques to evaluate environmental impacts," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 104-113.
    7. Caffey, Rex H. & Wang, Hua & Petrolia, Daniel R., 2014. "Trajectory economics: Assessing the flow of ecosystem services from coastal restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 74-84.
    8. 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.
    9. Floress, Kristin & Reimer, Adam & Thompson, Aaron & Burbach, Mark & Knutson, Cody & Prokopy, Linda & Ribaudo, Marc & Ulrich-Schad, Jessica, 2018. "Measuring farmer conservation behaviors: Challenges and best practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 414-418.
    10. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    11. Kristin Jakobsson & Andrew Dragun, 2001. "The Worth of a Possum: Valuing Species with the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(3), pages 211-227, July.
    12. Amoah, Anthony & Ferrini, Silvia & Schaafsma, Marije, 2019. "Electricity outages in Ghana: Are contingent valuation estimates valid?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    13. Neuteleers, Stijn & Engelen, Bart, 2015. "Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 253-260.
    14. Marija Opačak & Erda Wang, 2019. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for a Future Recreational Park Atop the Current Jakuševec Landfill in Zagreb, Croatia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-16, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Moisés Carrasco Garcés & Felipe Vasquez-Lavin & Roberto D. Ponce Oliva & José Luis Bustamante Oporto & Manuel Barrientos & Arcadio A. Cerda, 2021. "Embedding effect and the consequences of advanced disclosure: evidence from the valuation of cultural goods," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 1039-1062, August.
    17. Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2018. "Benefit Transfer and Commodity Measurement Scales: Consequences for Validity and Reliability," Working Papers 2018-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    18. Felix Schläpfer, 2021. "Inadequate Standards in the Valuation of Public Goods and Ecosystem Services: Why Economists, Environmental Scientists and Policymakers Should Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.
    19. Achilleas Vassilopoulos & Niki Avgeraki & Stathis Klonaris, 2020. "Social desirability and the WTP–WTA disparity in common goods," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(7), pages 6425-6444, October.
    20. Ghanem, Samar & Ferrini, Silvia & Di Maria, Corrado, 2023. "Air pollution and willingness to pay for health risk reductions in Egypt: A contingent valuation survey of Greater Cairo and Alexandria households," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 172(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:eee:ecoser:v:64:y:2023:i:c:s2212041623000621. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.