IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v74y2025ics221204162500049x.html

On the importance of discrete choice experiment framings to derive accounting values for ecosystem and species appreciation services

Author

Listed:
  • Scheufele, Gabriela
  • Burton, Michael
  • Pandit, Ram

Abstract

Developing monetary ecosystem accounts requires the estimation of exchange values. While flows of non-use services (e.g., the value derived from the mere existence of a species) are currently not considered as ecosystem services by the United Nations System of Environmental Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounts (SEEA – EA) framework, they may be recorded as Ecosystem and Species Appreciation (ESA) services. Estimating exchange values for these services relies on non-market valuation methods. Arguably the most suitable method for this purpose is a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). Transforming marginal values obtained from a DCE into exchange values can be complex and presents a range of potential pitfalls. In this paper, we present an approach that allows translating marginal Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) estimates into exchange values for ESA services for representative sets of framings of the DCE valuation question. We show the applicability of this approach using case studies of Australian species and ecosystems, representing both constant and non-constant WTP estimates for choice attributes. It is a relatively flexible approach for estimating exchange values for ESA services.

Suggested Citation

  • Scheufele, Gabriela & Burton, Michael & Pandit, Ram, 2025. "On the importance of discrete choice experiment framings to derive accounting values for ecosystem and species appreciation services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:74:y:2025:i:c:s221204162500049x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221204162500049X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101745?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jordan Louviere & Kenneth Train & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Chandra Bhat & David Brownstone & Trudy Cameron & Richard Carson & J. Deshazo & Denzil Fiebig & William Greene & David Hensher & Donald Waldman, 2005. "Recent Progress on Endogeneity in Choice Modeling," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 255-265, December.
    2. A. Caparros & P. Campos & G. Montero, 2003. "An operative framework for total hicksian income measurement - Application to a multiple-use forest," Post-Print hal-00719124, HAL.
    3. Gaetano Grilli & Silvia Ferrini & Tiziana Luisetti & R. Kerry Turner, 2022. "The role of choice experiments in natural capital accounting approaches: fast track versus simulated exchange value in the Deben Estuary saltmarshes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 65(7), pages 1281-1300, June.
    4. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    6. Pablo Campos & José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Álvarez & Bruno Mesa, 2022. "Measurement of the Threatened Biodiversity Existence Value Output: Application of the Refined System of Environmental-Economic Accounting in the Pinus pinea Forests of Andalusia, Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, July.
    7. Grilli, Gianluca & Notaro, Sandra & Campbell, Danny, 2018. "Including Value Orientations in Choice Models to Estimate Benefits of Wildlife Management Policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 70-81.
    8. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    9. Ian J. Bateman & Catherine L. Kling, 2020. "Revealed Preference Methods for Nonmarket Valuation: An Introduction to Best Practices," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(2), pages 240-259.
    10. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    11. Edens, Bram & Hein, Lars, 2013. "Towards a consistent approach for ecosystem accounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 41-52.
    12. Alejandro Caparrós & Pablo Campos & Gregorio Montero, 2003. "An Operative Framework for Total Hicksian Income Measurement: Application to a Multiple-Use Forest," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 173-198, October.
    13. Caparrós, Alejandro & Oviedo, José L. & Álvarez, Alejandro & Campos, Pablo, 2017. "Simulated exchange values and ecosystem accounting: Theory and application to free access recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 140-149.
    14. Scheufele, Gabriela & Pascoe, Sean, 2023. "Ecosystem accounting: Reconciling consumer surplus and exchange values for free-access recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    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. Caparrós, Alejandro & Oviedo, José L. & Álvarez, Alejandro & Campos, Pablo, 2017. "Simulated exchange values and ecosystem accounting: Theory and application to free access recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 140-149.
    2. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    3. Pelletier, Marie-Chantale & Heagney, Elizabeth & Kovač, Mladen, 2021. "Valuing recreational services: A review of methods with application to New South Wales National Parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    4. Alejandro Caparrós & José L. Oviedo & Alejandro Álvarez & Pablo Campos, 2015. "Simulated exchange values and ecosystem accounting," Working Papers 1512, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    5. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    6. Campos, Pablo & Mesa, Bruno & Álvarez, Alejandro & Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2022. "Towards measuring environmental income through a refined United Nations SEEA EA: Application to publicly-owned, protected, pine-forest-farm case studies in Andalusia, Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    7. José L Oviedo & Pablo Campos & Alejandro Caparrós, 2022. "Contingent valuation of landowner demand for forest amenities: application in Andalusia, Spain," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(3), pages 615-643.
    8. Scheufele, Gabriela & Pascoe, Sean, 2023. "Ecosystem accounting: Reconciling consumer surplus and exchange values for free-access recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    9. Campos, Pablo & Caparrós, Alejandro & Oviedo, José L. & Ovando, Paola & Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Díaz-Balteiro, Luis & Carranza, Juan & Beguería, Santiago & Díaz, Mario & Herruzo, A. Casimiro & Martín, 2019. "Bridging the Gap Between National and Ecosystem Accounting Application in Andalusian Forests, Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 218-236.
    10. Alcon, Francisco & Marín-Miñano, Cristina & Zabala, José A. & de-Miguel, María-Dolores & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2020. "Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    11. Ovando, Paola & Campos, Pablo & Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2016. "Ecosystem accounting for measuring total income in private and public agroforestry farms," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 43-51.
    12. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    13. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    14. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    15. 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.
    16. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    17. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    18. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    19. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, "undated". "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Laura Enthoven & Goedele Van den Broeck, 2021. "Promoting Food Safety in Local Value Chains: The Case of Vegetables in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:ecoser:v:74:y:2025:i:c:s221204162500049x. 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.