IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/war/wpaper/2019-05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Unraveling local preferences and willingness to pay for different management scenarios: A choice experiment to Biosphere Reserve management

Author

Listed:
  • Nekane Castillo-Eguskitza

    () (Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU)

  • David Hoyos

    (Faculty of Economics and Busines, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU; Research Group on Ecological Economics and Political Ecology)

  • Miren Onaindia

    (Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU)

  • Mikolaj Czajkowski

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw; Charles University, Environmental Center, Prague)

Abstract

Economic valuation of ecosystem services has emerged as a valuable tool to promote conservation and sustainable land management. Our study adds to this literature, by reporting the results of a discrete choice experiment used to analyse local population preferences and willingness-to-pay for selected ecosystem services resulting from different management scenarios in the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve (Biscay, Spain). The ecosystem services considered include quality of water bodies, agricultural production, native forest protection, biodiversity, and recreation. The results indicate that the local population is willing to financially support a new management plan focused on the improvement of ecosystem health and landscape multifunctionality and sustainability, with recreation being the least valued ecosystem service. These findings may be used to inform conservation and management policies to maximize social well-being. They can also help to prioritize investments and allocation of funding and hence minimise land use conflicts.

Suggested Citation

  • Nekane Castillo-Eguskitza & David Hoyos & Miren Onaindia & Mikolaj Czajkowski, 2019. "Unraveling local preferences and willingness to pay for different management scenarios: A choice experiment to Biosphere Reserve management," Working Papers 2019-05, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
  • Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2019-05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/index.php/download_file/4793/
    File Function: First version, 2019
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meleddu, Marta & Pulina, Manuela, 2016. "Evaluation of individuals’ intention to pay a premium price for ecotourism: An exploratory study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 67-78.
    2. repec:eee:ecoser:v:11:y:2015:i:c:p:115-127 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Sviataslau Valasiuk & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & Tomasz Żylicz & Knut Veisten & Askill Harkjerr Halse & Iratxe Landa Mata & Marine Elbakidze & Per Angelstam, 2017. "Is Forest Landscape Restoration Socially Desirable? A Discrete Choice Experiment Applied to the Scandinavian Transboundary Fulufjället National Park Area," Working Papers 2017-10, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    5. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    6. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Buszko-Briggs, Malgorzata & Hanley, Nick, 2009. "Valuing changes in forest biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2910-2917, October.
    7. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    8. Torres, Cati & Faccioli, Michela & Riera Font, Antoni, 2017. "Waiting or acting now? The effect on willingness-to-pay of delivering inherent uncertainty information in choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 231-240.
    9. repec:eee:ecoser:v:23:y:2017:i:c:p:9-17 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Mélanie Jaeck & Robert Lifran, 2014. "Farmers’ Preferences for Production Practices: A Choice Experiment Study in the Rhone River Delta," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 112-130, January.
    11. Kristine Pakalniete & Juris Aigars & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Solvita Strake & Ewa Zawojska & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Understanding the distribution of economic benefits from improving coastal and marine ecosystems," Working Papers 2016-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. repec:eee:ecolec:v:154:y:2018:i:c:p:419-429 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Giergiczny, Marek & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Żylicz, Tomasz & Angelstam, Per, 2015. "Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 8-23.
    14. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 15-24.
    15. repec:taf:clarxx:v:43:y:2018:i:6:p:846-861 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. repec:eee:ecoser:v:23:y:2017:i:c:p:228-237 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2015. "The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 333-351.
    18. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    19. 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.
    20. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Fernández-Macho, Javier, 2009. "The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2372-2381, June.
    21. repec:ucp:jaerec:doi:10.1086/691697 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. 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.
    23. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    24. Carson, Richard T. & DeShazo, J.R. & Schwabe, Kurt A. & Vincent, Jeffrey R. & Ahmad, Ismariah, 2015. "Incorporating local visitor valuation information into the design of new recreation sites in tropical forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 338-349.
    25. Tek B. Dangi & Tazim Jamal, 2016. "An Integrated Approach to “Sustainable Community-Based Tourism”," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(5), pages 1-32, May.
    26. repec:sss:wpaper:201405 is not listed on IDEAS
    27. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    28. repec:eee:ecoser:v:7:y:2014:i:c:p:89-97 is not listed on IDEAS
    29. repec:eee:ecoser:v:17:y:2016:i:c:p:87-98 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ecosystem services; discrete choice experiment; social preferences; economic valuation; Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:war:wpaper:2019-05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marcin Bąba). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.