IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i24p13798-d702016.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in the US Rio Grande Basin

Author

Listed:
  • Weiwei Wang

    (School of Business, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

  • Jianhong E. Mu

    (Environment and Planning Program, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, Austin, TX 78752, USA)

  • Jadwiga R. Ziolkowska

    (Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA)

Abstract

In recent decades, the US Rio Grande Basin has experienced serious ecosystem degradation as a result of recurring severe droughts and a growing population. Monetary valuation of ecosystem services is essential for encouraging conservation where natural resources such as freshwater are limited. Research in this field is still very limited, and economic estimations of ecosystem services in the US Rio Grande Basin have not been undertaken extensively. This study adds to the existing contemporary literature by means of the willingness-to-pay evaluation. We found the mean household wiliness to pay of total ecosystem services across the Rio Grande Basin to amount to USD 62/year, and the average perceived economic value was estimated to be USD 26.2, USD 19.7, USD 8.1, and USD 7.1 yearly for conservation of habitat for wildlife, provision of freshwater supplies, recreational activities, and cultural heritage, respectively. The income and perceptions about the importance of various ecosystem services in the Rio Grande Basin were among the main determinants of respondents’ assessments. The findings provide an appropriate foundation for incorporating perceived economic value into watershed management and conservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Weiwei Wang & Jianhong E. Mu & Jadwiga R. Ziolkowska, 2021. "Perceived Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in the US Rio Grande Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13798-:d:702016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13798/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13798/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tan, Ruipeng & Lin, Boqiang, 2019. "Public perception of new energy vehicles: Evidence from willingness to pay for new energy bus fares in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 347-354.
    2. Robert Tibshirani, 2011. "Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso: a retrospective," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 73(3), pages 273-282, June.
    3. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    4. Wainger, Lisa A. & King, Dennis M. & Mack, Richard N. & Price, Elizabeth W. & Maslin, Thomas, 2010. "Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decisions?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 978-987, March.
    5. Jones, Nikoleta & Sophoulis, Costas M. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2008. "Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2478-2491, December.
    6. Cati Torres & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Communicating Research on the Economic Valuation of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2016-12, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    7. Osiolo, Helen Hoka, 2017. "Willingness to pay for improved energy: Evidence from Kenya," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 104-112.
    8. Rister, M. Edward & Sturdivant, Allen W. & Lacewell, Ronald D. & Michelsen, Ari M., 2011. "Challenges and Opportunities for Water of the Rio Grande," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), pages 1-12, August.
    9. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    10. Retallack, Matthew, 2021. "The intersection of economic demand for ecosystem services and public policy: A watershed case study exploring implications for social-ecological resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    11. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
    12. Rister, M. Edward & Sturdivant, Allen W. & Lacewell, Ronald D. & Michelsen, Ari M., 2011. "Challenges and Opportunities for Water of the Rio Grande," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 367-378, August.
    13. Garcia, Serge & Harou, Patrice & Montagné, Claire & Stenger, Anne, 2009. "Models for sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Application to forest biodiversity," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 59-78, January.
    14. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    15. Johnson, Nancy L. & Baltodano, Maria Eugenia, 2004. "The economics of community watershed management: some evidence from Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 57-71, May.
    16. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    17. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Liebe, Ulf, 2010. "Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: A meta-study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 366-374, December.
    18. Mwebaze, Paul & Marris, Gay C. & Brown, Mike & MacLeod, Alan & Jones, Glyn & Budge, Giles E., 2018. "Measuring public perception and preferences for ecosystem services: A case study of bee pollination in the UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 355-362.
    19. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen, 2014. "A Meta-study Investigating the Sources of Protest Behaviour in Stated Preference Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(1), pages 35-57, May.
    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. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline, 2017. "Motivations matter: Behavioural determinants of preferences for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 64-74.
    2. Halkos, George E. & Jones, Nikoleta, 2012. "Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 90-99.
    3. Lo, Alex Y. & Jim, C.Y., 2015. "Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 58-66.
    4. Ressurreição, Adriana & Gibbons, James & Dentinho, Tomaz Ponce & Kaiser, Michel & Santos, Ricardo S. & Edwards-Jones, Gareth, 2011. "Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 729-739, February.
    5. Magnus Söderberg & David Barton, 2014. "Marginal WTP and Distance Decay: The Role of ‘Protest’ and ‘True Zero’ Responses in the Economic Valuation of Recreational Water Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(3), pages 389-405, November.
    6. Mark Pennington & Manuel Gomes & Cam Donaldson, 2017. "Handling Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 623-634, August.
    7. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Needham, Mark D. & Morzillo, Anita T. & Moehrke, Caitlin, 2012. "Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 271-281.
    8. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2019. "Distinguishing protest responses in contingent valuation: A conceptualization of motivations and attitudes behind them," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-20, January.
    9. Halkos, George & Jones, Nikoleta, 2011. "Social factors influencing the decision to pay for the protection of biodiversity: A case study in two national parks of Northern Greece," MPRA Paper 34581, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Lyssenko, Nikita & Martinez-Espineira, Roberto, 2009. "`Been there done that': Disentangling option value effects from user heterogeneity when valuing natural resources with a use component," MPRA Paper 21976, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Apr 2010.
    11. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    12. Szabó, Zoltán, 2011. "Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 37-44.
    13. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    14. Tobarra-González, Miguel Angel, 2014. "Valoración del Parque Natural de Calblanque y tratamiento de respuestas protesta," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(01), pages 1-24, June.
    15. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    16. Ik-Chang Choi & Hyun No Kim & Hio-Jung Shin & John Tenhunen & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Korea: Correcting for the Endogeneity Bias in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    17. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    18. Wakita, Kazumi & Kurokura, Hisashi & Oishi, Taro & Shen, Zhonghua & Furuya, Ken, 2019. "Exploring the effect of psychometric variables on willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services: A survey in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 130-138.
    19. Tyagi, Ashish & Shortle, James S., 2016. "Modeling Endogenous Change in Water Allocation Mechanisms: A Non-Cooperative Bargaining Approach," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235571, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Tisdell, Clem & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2008. "Contingent valuation as a dynamic process," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1443-1458, August.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13798-:d:702016. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.