IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v77y2026ics2212041625001068.html

Economic valuation of the contribution of a protected area to water quality in the mountainous region of Santa Catarina, Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Simioni, Flávio José
  • Moreira, Tais Toldo
  • Pereira, Lucas Meneguim
  • Vieira, Sabrina Antunes
  • Casemiro Soares, Philipe Ricardo
  • Spinelli Shein, Viviane Aparecida
  • Skoronski, Everton

Abstract

Protected areas play a crucial role in preserving natural resources and providing essential ecosystem services. Therefore, the present study aimed to estimate the economic value of the contribution of the protected area denominated the Farofa Mountain Range Complex to the preservation of springs in the mountainous region of the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil. The area preserves 4987.16 ha with native forests and has springs that form the Caveiras River, which supplies water for human consumption in the city of Lages. The novelty of this paper resides in the determination of valuation using two methods combined with physicochemical water quality variables. The contingent valuation method considered a sample of 374 interviewees who expressed their “willingness to pay” for preserving and conserving the area. The reduction in water treatment costs for the human supply in the city of Lages was also estimated using the “avoided costs“ method, considering the reduction in chemical products resulting from the improvement in the physicochemical variables of the water from the protected area. The results showed that 37.4 % of respondents were willing to contribute an average pay amount of $1.27 per family/month, corresponding to a total economic value of 6.46 to 28.21 million dollars, depending on the opportunity cost of capital adopted in Brazil. The reduction in water treatment costs due to the better quality produced by the protected area corresponded to a potential average avoided cost of 11.0% and 3.6% in the polynomial and logarithmic models, respectively, compared to expenses with conventional treatment. The results demonstrate the importance and relevance of the protected area as an important provider of ecosystem services and water resources. The combination of two valuation methods and water quality data proved to be complementary in this study, expanding the scope of the assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Simioni, Flávio José & Moreira, Tais Toldo & Pereira, Lucas Meneguim & Vieira, Sabrina Antunes & Casemiro Soares, Philipe Ricardo & Spinelli Shein, Viviane Aparecida & Skoronski, Everton, 2026. "Economic valuation of the contribution of a protected area to water quality in the mountainous region of Santa Catarina, Brazil," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:77:y:2026:i:c:s2212041625001068
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101802
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041625001068
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101802?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. Burnice Karimi Ireri & Paul M. Makenzi & Stanley M. Makindi & Peter A. Minang & John M. Mironga, 2024. "Provisioning of water ecosystem services in the Kapingazi River Basin in Kenya: can prospects of willingness to pay improve water quality and quantity?," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(3-4), pages 410-416, May.
    2. Xie, Bai-Chen & Zhao, Wei, 2018. "Willingness to pay for green electricity in Tianjin, China: Based on the contingent valuation method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 98-107.
    3. Börger, Tobias, 2013. "Keeping up appearances: Motivations for socially desirable responding in contingent valuation interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 155-165.
    4. T. Ann-Chyi & L. Sheau-Ting, 2024. "Methodological influences on ecosystem valuation: a systematic review of contingent valuation studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 449-467, October.
    5. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    6. Christian Vossler & Gregory Poe & P. Welsh & Robert Ethier, 2004. "Bid Design Effects in Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(4), pages 401-418, December.
    7. Yu-Yu Cheng & Zhengyi Chen & Xinyun Cao & Tyler D. Ross & Tanya G. Falbel & Briana M. Burton & Ophelia S. Venturelli, 2023. "Programming bacteria for multiplexed DNA detection," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    9. Cirino, Jader Fernandes & Lima, Joao Eustaquio de, . "Valoração contingente da Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA) São José – MG: um estudo de caso," Brazilian Journal of Rural Economy and Sociology (Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural-RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 46(3), pages 1-26.
    10. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "The effect of forest land use on the cost of drinking water supply: A spatial econometric analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 126-136.
    11. Baulenas, Eulàlia & Sotirov, Metodi, 2020. "Cross-sectoral policy integration at the forest and water nexus: National level instrument choices and integration drivers in the European Union," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    12. ., 2023. "Legislative history of the SBIR program," Chapters, in: Small Firms and U.S. Technology Policy, chapter 2, pages 8-21, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Cirino, Jader Fernandes & de Lima, João Eustáquio, 2008. "Valoração contingente da Área de Proteção Ambiental (APA) São José – MG: um estudo de caso," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 46(3), January.
    14. Whitehead, John C. & Cherry, Todd L., 2007. "Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 247-261, November.
    15. Price, James I. & Heberling, Matthew T., 2018. "The Effects of Source Water Quality on Drinking Water Treatment Costs: A Review and Synthesis of Empirical Literature," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 195-209.
    16. -, 2023. "Draft programme of work of the ECLAC system 2025," Libros y Documentos Institucionales, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 68603 edited by Eclac.
    17. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    18. Hou, Shuhua & Xu, Jiuping & Yao, Liming, 2021. "Integrated environmental policy instruments driven river water pollution management decision system," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    19. Rodgers Makwinja & Ishmael Bobby Mphangwe Kosamu & Chikumbusko Chiziwa Kaonga, 2019. "Determinants and Values of Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvement: Insights from Chia Lagoon, Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-26, August.
    20. Mustapha Alhassan & Christopher R. Gustafson & Karina Schoengold, 2022. "Effects of information on smallholder irrigation farmers’ willingness to pay for groundwater protection," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 191-203, March.
    21. Victor Ginsburgh, 2017. "Contingent valuation, willingness to pay, and willingness to accept," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/263091, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    22. Danelon, André Felipe & Augusto, Fernanda Gaudio & Spolador, Humberto Francisco Silva, 2021. "Water resource quality effects on water treatment costs: An analysis for the Brazilian case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    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. Bernd Frick & Pamela Wicker, 2018. "The Monetary Value of Having a First Division Bundesliga Team to Local Residents," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 70(1), pages 63-103, February.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Jin, Jianjun & Wan, Xinyu & Lin, Yongsheng & Kuang, Foyuan & Ning, Jing, 2019. "Public willingness to pay for the research and development of solar energy in Beijing, China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Patrizia Riganti, 2022. "Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation Applications to Cultural Capital: Does the Nature of the Goods Matter?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    7. Pasquale Lucio Scandizzo & Maria Rita Pierleoni, 2018. "Assessing The Olympic Games: The Economic Impact And Beyond," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 649-682, July.
    8. Bethany Cooper & Michael Burton & Lin Crase, 2019. "Willingness to Pay to Avoid Water Restrictions in Australia Under a Changing Climate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 823-847, March.
    9. Astrid Cullmann & Julia Rechlitz & Greta Sundermann & Nicole Wägner, 2025. "External costs of water pollution in the drinking water supply sector," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 107(2), pages 504-531, March.
    10. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2018. "The Adding-Up Test in an Incentivized Value Elicitation Mechanism: The Role of the Income Effect," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(3), pages 625-644, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Taale, Francis & Kyeremeh, Christian, 2016. "Households׳ willingness to pay for reliable electricity services in Ghana," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 280-288.
    16. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    17. Yiannis Kountouris & Kyriaki Remoundou, 2016. "Cultural Influence on Preferences and Attitudes for Environmental Quality," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 369-397, May.
    18. Kitessa, R.J., 2018. "On the design and implementation of environmental conservation mechanisms : Evidence from field experiments," Other publications TiSEM cda8497d-6dcf-4092-b815-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Amoah, Anthony & Ferrini, Silvia & Schaafsma, Marije, 2019. "Electricity outages in Ghana: Are contingent valuation estimates valid?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    20. Hasan, Syed M. & Akram, Agha Ali & Jeuland, Marc, 2021. "Awareness of coping costs and willingness to pay for urban drinking water service: Evidence from Lahore, Pakistan," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).

    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:77:y:2026:i:c:s2212041625001068. 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.