IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/resene/v85y2026ics0928765525000636.html

The effects of spatial framing and attribute range on the measurement of nonuse values of biodiversity improvements

Author

Listed:
  • Uggeldahl, Kennet Christian
  • Lundhede, Thomas
  • Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl
  • Olsen, Søren Bøye

Abstract

Assessing the value of changes in environmental conditions using stated preference valuation studies requires accurate quantification and communication of outcomes that affect human welfare. Using a stated choice experiment to estimate primarily nonuse value of changes in biodiversity per se, i.e., as an inherent characteristic of an ecosystem, we employ a composite metric known as the Biodiversity Intactness Index to capture and communicate the multifaceted nature of biodiversity. However, using complex ecological indices to value abstract concepts might make respondents more susceptible to effects related to the framing of the choice context, thereby raising concerns about validity. Employing a split sample design, we find that value estimates depend on the spatial context in which biodiversity improvements are presented: the larger the spatial scale, the smaller the value. Varying the range of the biodiversity improvement attribute in additional split samples, we find that in two out of the three tested spatial framings, the results are insensitive to the presented attribute range. Respondents thus appear to react to the absolute, rather than the relative, size of the improvements presented. The results from these two spatial framings also exhibit sensitivity to scope, supported by both internal and external scope tests. These findings might alleviate some of the validity concerns associated with employing abstract ecological indices in stated preference valuation studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Uggeldahl, Kennet Christian & Lundhede, Thomas & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2026. "The effects of spatial framing and attribute range on the measurement of nonuse values of biodiversity improvements," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:resene:v:85:y:2026:i:c:s0928765525000636
    DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2025.101539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765525000636
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2025.101539?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. Farnsworth, K.D. & Adenuga, A.H. & de Groot, R.S., 2015. "The complexity of biodiversity: A biological perspective on economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 350-354.
    2. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    3. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    4. Ole Bonnichsen & S�ren B�ye Olsen, 2016. "Correcting for non-response bias in contingent valuation surveys concerning environmental non-market goods: an empirical investigation using an online panel," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(2), pages 245-262, February.
    5. Michela Faccioli & Klaus Glenk, 2022. "More in Good Condition or Less in Bad Condition? Valence-Based Framing Effects in Environmental Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 98(2), pages 314-336.
    6. Tobias Börger & Klaus Glenk & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Katrin Rehdanz, 2025. "Mitigating Cost-Vector Effects in Stated Choice Experiments Using Cheap Talk and Opt-Out Reminders," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(3), pages 701-737.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    8. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    9. Nick Hanley & Clive Spash & Lorna Walker, 1995. "Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 249-272, April.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, August.
    11. Uggeldahl, Kennet & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Lundhede, Thomas & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2025. "Public perceptions of biodiversity and the value of its conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    12. Boyd, James & Ringold, Paul & Krupnick, Alan & Johnston, Robert J. & Weber, Matthew A. & Hall, Kim, 2016. "Ecosystem Services Indicators: Improving the Linkage between Biophysical and Economic Analyses," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 8(3-4), pages 359-443, June.
    13. Ivana Logar & Roy Brouwer, 2018. "Substitution Effects and Spatial Preference Heterogeneity in Single- and Multiple-Site Choice Experiments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(2), pages 302-322.
    14. van Bueren, Martin & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(01), pages 1-32.
    15. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    16. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2010. "Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1532-1544, May.
    17. David Konisky, 2011. "Public Preferences for Environmental Policy Responsibility," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 41(1), pages 76-100, Winter.
    18. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Akaichi, Faical & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2019. "Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 135-155.
    19. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Colombo, Sergio & Faccioli, Michela, 2024. "Enhancing the face validity of choice experiments: A simple diagnostic check," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    20. R. J. Scholes & R. Biggs, 2005. "A biodiversity intactness index," Nature, Nature, vol. 434(7029), pages 45-49, March.
    21. Johnston, Robert J. & Segerson, Kathleen & Schultz, Eric T. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2011. "Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of aquatic ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1946-1956, September.
    22. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Martinsen, Louise & Hasler, Berit & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2011. "Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental preservation projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1170-1177, April.
    23. Joan L. Walker & Yanqiao Wang & Mikkel Thorhauge & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2018. "D-efficient or deficient? A robustness analysis of stated choice experimental designs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 215-238, March.
    24. 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.
    25. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E. & Polak, John W., 2006. "On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-163, February.
    26. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Buszko-Briggs, Malgorzata & Hanley, Nick, 2009. "Valuing changes in forest biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2910-2917, October.
    27. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    28. 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.
    29. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 149-168, June.
    30. Tiziana Luisetti & Ian J. Bateman & R. Kerry Turner, 2011. "Testing the Fundamental Assumption of Choice Experiments: Are Values Absolute or Relative?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 284-296.
    31. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    32. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    33. Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2020. "Relative Versus Absolute Commodity Measurements in Benefit Transfer: Consequences for Validity and Reliability," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1245-1270, August.
    34. Alaya Spencer‐Cotton & Marit E. Kragt & Michael Burton, 2018. "Spatial and Scope Effects: Valuations of Coastal Management Practices," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 833-851, September.
    35. Georgina M. Mace, 2005. "An index of intactness," Nature, Nature, vol. 434(7029), pages 32-33, March.
    36. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-14.
    37. James Boyd & Robert J. Johnston & Paul Ringold, 2023. "Biophysical Measures to Support Analysis and Communication of Existence Values," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 17(2-3), pages 153–230-1, June.
    38. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Malte Oehlmann & Priska Weller, 2015. "The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 385-407, July.
    39. Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 383-398, June.
    40. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    41. Robert J. Johnston & Eric T. Schultz & Kathleen Segerson & Elena Y. Besedin & Mahesh Ramachandran, 2012. "Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(1), pages 102-120.
    42. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 217-237.
    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. Martinet, Vincent & David, Maïa & Mermet-Bijon, Vincent & Crastes Dit Sourd, Romain, 2025. "Cost vector effects in forced-choice discrete choice experiments: Assessing the acceptability of future glyphosate policies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2020. "Relative Versus Absolute Commodity Measurements in Benefit Transfer: Consequences for Validity and Reliability," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1245-1270, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    5. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Maria L. Loureiro & Ståle Navrud & John Rolfe, 2021. "Guidance to Enhance the Validity and Credibility of Environmental Benefit Transfers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 575-624, July.
    6. Qari, Salmai & Börger, Tobias & Lohse, Tim & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2024. "The value of national defense: Assessing public preferences for defense policy options," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. Uggeldahl, Kennet & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Lundhede, Thomas & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2025. "Public perceptions of biodiversity and the value of its conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    8. King, Peter M. & Dallimer, Martin & Lundhede, Thomas & Austen, Gail E. & Fisher, Jessica C. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fish, Robert D. & Davies, Zoe G., 2025. "Stated preferences for the colours, smells, and sounds of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    9. Johnston, Robert J. & Börger, Tobias & Hanley, Nick & Meginnis, Keila & Ndebele, Tom & Siyal, Ghamz E. Ali & Beaumont, Nicola & de Vries, Frans P., 2024. "Consequences of omitting non-lethal wildlife impacts from stated preference scenarios," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    10. Rolfe, John & Carnell, Paul & Marine, Sabiha & Whiteoak, Kym & Zilleruelo, Rodrigo & Wartman, Melissa, 2026. "Valuing coastal wetland restoration in Australia with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    11. Dardanoni, Valentino & Guerriero, Carla, 2021. "Young people' s willingness to pay for environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Lang, Ferdinand & Chen, Cheng & Alemu, Mohammed Hussen & Lundhede, Thomas & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2026. "Private funding for soil health: Private individuals’ preferences for ecosystem services and biodiversity certificates," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    13. Schläpfer, Felix & Getzner, Michael, 2020. "Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    14. Ahi, Jülide Ceren & Aanesen, Margrethe & Kipperberg, Gorm, 2023. "Testing the sensitivity of stated environmental preferences to variations in choice architecture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Farolfi, Giulio & Johnston, Robert J., 2022. "Understanding Public Preferences for Shellfish Aquaculture Expansion: The Role of Production Technology and Environmental Impacts," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322131, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Xie, Lusi & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Kecinski, Maik & Fooks, Jacob R., 2022. "Using economic experiments to assess the validity of stated preference contingent behavior responses," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    18. Papenfus, Michael & Weber, Matt A., 2025. "Valuing wild salmon and steelhead recovery in Oregon’s most urbanized watershed," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    19. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2021. "On Adding-Up as a Validity Criterion for Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(3), pages 587-601, November.
    20. Martínez-Jauregui, María & White, Piran C.L. & Touza, Julia & Soliño, Mario, 2019. "Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    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:resene:v:85:y:2026:i:c:s0928765525000636. 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/inca/505569 .

    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.