IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v65y2008i1p48-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: The case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods

Author

Listed:
  • Barkmann, J.
  • Glenk, K.
  • Keil, A.
  • Leemhuis, C.
  • Dietrich, N.
  • Gerold, G.
  • Marggraf, R.

Abstract

Ecosystem functions are a central topic of environmental valuation research. Lay respondents are usually unfamiliar with the implications of scientific descriptions of ecosystem functioning. Thus, the applicability of stated preference methods for the valuation of ecosystem functions is a matter of debate. In the general discourse on the economic valuation of ecosystem functions, it was suggested to valuate ecosystem functions via the ecosystem services they provide. In this contribution, we argue that the recognition of this principle is the key also for the applicability of stated preference methods to the valuation of ecosystem functions. Successful application requires a precise differentiation between the descriptive realm of ecosystem functions and the evaluative realm of ecosystem services. On this basis, an ecosystem service approach for the economic valuation of ecosystem functions is introduced. We illustrate the ecosystem service approach by the valuation of a hydrological ecosystem function in rural Indonesia. Identification and representation of the ecosystem services were based on extensive investigations of respondent perception of hydrological phenomena. The availability of irrigation water during the dry season turned out to be a locally decisive ecosystem service. Within the case study, willingness-to-pay (WTP) values were estimated for changes in the availability of irrigation water, rattan, shading in cacao plantations, and in the population of an endemic mammal by Nested Logit (NL) analysis of choice experiment data. Only few respondents lacked sufficient familiarity of the environmental goods to be valued. WTP for a reduction in water scarcity by one month was ~Â 39-40,000 Indonesian Rupiah/household/year. A rating of respondent comprehension correlates with preferences for water availability. For respondents with above average comprehension (rated 4 versus mean of 3.12 at a 5-point scale), NL analysis predicts a 14.1% increase in WTP. Interactions of attitudinal constructs support the notion that the WTP estimate is an expression of underlying values and risk perceptions. The ecosystem service approach comes at a cost. Because ecosystem services relevant to local respondents are valued rather than scientifically described ecosystem functions, typical 'basic science' models that represent ecosystem functioning cannot be used for the analysis of valuation scenarios with direct policy relevance. Engineering-type models that embody technical and, in our case study, agronomic knowledge are necessary to bridge the gap between ecosystem functioning and their practical implications. A lack of this kind of information also hinders a meaningful application of alternative valuation approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Barkmann, J. & Glenk, K. & Keil, A. & Leemhuis, C. & Dietrich, N. & Gerold, G. & Marggraf, R., 2008. "Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: The case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 48-62, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:65:y:2008:i:1:p:48-62
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(07)00600-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Glenk, Klaus & Barkmann, Jan & Schwarze, Stefan & Zeller, Manfred & Marggraf, Rainer, 2006. "Differential Influence of Relative Poverty on Preferences for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from Rural Indonesia," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25681, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. 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.
    3. Robert Sugden, 2005. "Anomalies and Stated Preference Techniques: A Framework for a Discussion of Coping Strategies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 1-12, September.
    4. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    5. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    6. Costanza, Robert & Farber, Steve, 2002. "Introduction to the special issue on the dynamics and value of ecosystem services: integrating economic and ecological perspectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 367-373, June.
    7. van Beukering, Pieter J. H. & Cesar, Herman S. J. & Janssen, Marco A., 2003. "Economic valuation of the Leuser National Park on Sumatra, Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 43-62, February.
    8. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2001. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 203-222, November.
    9. A. M. Freeman III, 1998. "The Economic Approach to Environmental Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1391.
    10. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    11. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    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. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    3. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    4. Admiraal, Jeroen F. & Wossink, Ada & de Groot, Wouter T. & de Snoo, Geert R., 2013. "More than total economic value: How to combine economic valuation of biodiversity with ecological resilience," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 115-122.
    5. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    6. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    7. Useche, Pilar & Blare, Trent, 2014. "The Sustainable Choice: How Gendered Difference in the Importance of Ecological Benefits Affect Production Decisions of Smallholder Cacao Producing Households in Ecuador," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 174285, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    9. Wang, Xuan & Chen, Weiqi & Zhang, Luoping & Jin, Di & Lu, Changyi, 2010. "Estimating the ecosystem service losses from proposed land reclamation projects: A case study in Xiamen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2549-2556, October.
    10. Divinsky, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2017. "Ecosystem service tradeoff between grazing intensity and other services - A case study in Karei-Deshe experimental cattle range in northern Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 16-27.
    11. Stoeckl, Natalie & Farr, Marina & Larson, Silva & Adams, Vanessa M. & Kubiszewski, Ida & Esparon, Michelle & Costanza, Robert, 2014. "A new approach to the problem of overlapping values: A case study in Australia׳s Great Barrier Reef," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 61-78.
    12. Westerberg, Vanja Holmquist & Lifran, Robert & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2010. "To restore or not? A valuation of social and ecological functions of the Marais des Baux wetland in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2383-2393, October.
    13. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Kountouris, Yiannis & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2012. "Is the value of an environmental public good sensitive to the providing institution?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 381-395.
    14. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    15. Henrik Andersson & Mikael Svensson, 2008. "Cognitive ability and scale bias in the contingent valuation method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 481-495, April.
    16. Saelensminde, Kjartan, 2006. "Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 331-340, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Giles Atkinson & Susana Mourato & Stefan Szymanski & Ece Ozdemiroglu, 2008. "Are We Willing to Pay Enough to `Back the Bid'?: Valuing the Intangible Impacts of London's Bid to Host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(2), pages 419-444, February.
    19. Gaaff, Aris & Reinhard, Stijn, 2012. "Incorporating the value of ecological networks into cost–benefit analysis to improve spatially explicit land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-74.
    20. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:65:y:2008:i:1:p:48-62. 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.