IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/teepxx/v9y2020i3p304-318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Which cultural ecosystem services is more important? A best-worst scaling approach

Author

Listed:
  • Kei Kabaya
  • Shizuka Hashimoto
  • Kazuhiko Takeuchi

Abstract

Identifying relatively important ecosystem services beforehand is essential for efficient and effective assessment. Using a best-worst scaling (BWS) method, we investigated the relative importance of cultural ecosystem services (CES) in Japan, where the second phase of national ecosystem service assessment is under consideration. Classifying CES into seven distinct categories (i.e. spiritual and religious values, recreation and tourism, aesthetic values, education and inspiration, social cohesion and sense of place, cultural diversity, and existence and bequest values), we administered a questionnaire survey at the nation-wide scale and collected 28,854 valid BWS responses from 4122 individuals. As a result, BWS successfully elicited the Japanese preferences for CES with completely distinguishable orders, which the conventional rating approach was unable to achieve. Our analysis proposed that future CES assessments in Japan should put more emphasis on aesthetic values as well as existence and bequest values. As we could not find large differences in preferences for these two services across individuals, groups and regions in relative terms, such prioritization could gain broader understanding and supports from wider audiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Kei Kabaya & Shizuka Hashimoto & Kazuhiko Takeuchi, 2020. "Which cultural ecosystem services is more important? A best-worst scaling approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 304-318, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:teepxx:v:9:y:2020:i:3:p:304-318
    DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2019.1683470
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21606544.2019.1683470
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21606544.2019.1683470?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 search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:teepxx:v:9:y:2020:i:3:p:304-318. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/teep20 .

    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.