IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v180y2021ics0921800919319500.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Direct and indirect valuation of air-quality regulation service as reflected in the preferences towards distinct types of landscape in a biosphere reserve

Author

Listed:
  • Raviv, Orna
  • Tchetchik, Anat
  • Lotan, Alon
  • Izhaki, Ido
  • Zemah Shamir, Shiri

Abstract

Air-quality regulation was recently judged to be the most important ecosystem service (ES) provided by open landscape in Israel. However, the socioeconomic value of air-quality regulation (AQR) service may vary among the distinct landscape types providing it, especially where several drivers-of-change affect differently the ES flux at distinct ecosystem types. Using a choice experiment, we assessed directly and indirectly the value of AQR as reflected in the choice preferences towards AQR and towards the types of landscape that potentially provide it. We assessed (a) the value of AQR based on national and regional trade-off choices, (b) the interaction of the respondent's characteristics with the value domain, and (c) the effect of drivers of change on choice preferences. We found that both populations valued AQR above all other attributes, willing to pay $23 to $68 to preserve it. Furthermore, no-payment preferences were still aiming to preserve ES. However, the landscape preferences favoring the preservation of maquis shrubland may not sustain the desired AQR service levels and would require further land management decisions. Although estimating the effect of drivers-of-change on human wellbeing is still a challenge, assessing the change in the regulating services' value can support sustainable management practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Raviv, Orna & Tchetchik, Anat & Lotan, Alon & Izhaki, Ido & Zemah Shamir, Shiri, 2021. "Direct and indirect valuation of air-quality regulation service as reflected in the preferences towards distinct types of landscape in a biosphere reserve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:180:y:2021:i:c:s0921800919319500
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106835
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919319500
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106835?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri & Barton, David N. & Geneletti, Davide & Langemeyer, Johannes & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Marttunen, Mika & Antunes, Paula & Keune, Hans & Santos, Rui, 2016. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 238-249.
    2. van Hardeveld, H.A. & Driessen, P.P.J. & de Jong, H. & Nefs, M. & Schot, P.P. & Wassen, M.J., 2018. "How valuing cultural ecosystem services can advance participatory resource management: The case of the Dutch peatlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 113-125.
    3. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    4. Campbell, Elliott T. & Tilley, David R., 2014. "Valuing ecosystem services from Maryland forests using environmental accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 141-151.
    5. Jérôme Dupras & Jérémy Laurent-Lucchetti & Jean-Pierre Revéret & Laurent DaSilva, 2018. "Using contingent valuation and choice experiment to value the impacts of agri-environmental practices on landscapes aesthetics," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 679-695, July.
    6. Hynes, Stephen & O’Reilly, Paul & Corless, Rebecca, 2015. "An on-site versus a household survey approach to modelling the demand for recreational angling: Do welfare estimates differ?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 136-145.
    7. Sheremet, Oleg & Ruokamo, Enni & Juutinen, Artti & Svento, Rauli & Hanley, Nick, 2018. "Incentivising Participation and Spatial Coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Service Schemes: Forest Disease Control Programs in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 260-272.
    8. 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.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    10. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    11. Armatas, Christopher A. & Campbell, Robert M. & Watson, Alan E. & Borrie, William T. & Christensen, Neal & Venn, Tyron J., 2018. "An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 1-18.
    12. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    13. Kenter, Jasper O. & Jobstvogt, Niels & Watson, Verity & Irvine, Katherine N. & Christie, Michael & Bryce, Ros, 2016. "The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 270-290.
    14. Divinsky, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2017. "Ecosystem service tradeoff between grazing intensity and other services - A case study in Karei-Deshe experimental cattle range in northern Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 16-27.
    15. Divinski, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2018. "Opportunity costs of alternative management options in a protected nature park: The case of Ramat Hanadiv, Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 494-504.
    16. Sergey S. Rabotyagov & Adriana M. Valcu-Lisman & Catherine L. Kling, 2016. "Resilient Provision of Ecosystem Services from Agricultural Landscapes: Trade-offs Involving Means and Variances of Water Quality Improvements," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1295-1313.
    17. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Diaz-Simal, Pedro & Koundouri, Phoebe & Rulleau, Bénédicte, 2015. "Valuing climate change mitigation: A choice experiment on a coastal and marine ecosystem," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 87-94.
    18. Morey, Edward R. & Thiene, Mara, 2017. "Can Personality Traits Explain Where and With Whom You Recreate? A Latent-Class Site-Choice Model Informed by Estimates From Mixed-Mode LC Cluster Models With Latent-Personality Traits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 223-237.
    19. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.
    20. Turkelboom, Francis & Leone, Michael & Jacobs, Sander & Kelemen, Eszter & García-Llorente, Marina & Baró, Francesc & Termansen, Mette & Barton, David N. & Berry, Pam & Stange, Erik & Thoonen, Marijke , 2018. "When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 566-578.
    21. Negev, Maya & Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E. & Zemah Shamir, Shiri & Hassan, Yousef & Amasha, Hani & Raviv, Orna & Fares, Nasrin & Lotan, Alon & Peled, Yoav & Wittenberg, Lea & Izhaki, Ido, 2019. "Using the ecosystem services framework for defining diverse human-nature relationships in a multi-ethnic biosphere reserve," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    22. Raviv, Orna & Zemah Shamir, Shiri & Izhaki, Ido & Sagie, Hila & Negev, Maya & Mazor-Tregerman, Maya & Collins-Kreiner, Noga & Mansfeld, Yoel & Lotan, Alon, 2020. "The socioeconomic value of multiple ecosystem types at a biosphere reserve as a baseline for one holistic conservation plan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    23. Stephen Hynes & Danny Campbell, 2011. "Estimating the welfare impacts of agricultural landscape change in Ireland: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(8), pages 1019-1039, November.
    24. Soto, José R. & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Adams, Damian C., 2018. "Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 31-39.
    25. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    26. Rewitzer, Susanne & Huber, Robert & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Barkmann, Jan, 2017. "Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 197-208.
    27. Martinez-Harms, Maria Jose & Bryan, Brett A. & Figueroa, Eugenio & Pliscoff, Patricio & Runting, Rebecca K. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2017. "Scenarios for land use and ecosystem services under global change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 56-68.
    28. Oleson, Kirsten L.L. & Barnes, Michele & Brander, Luke M. & Oliver, Thomas A. & van Beek, Ingrid & Zafindrasilivonona, Bienvenue & van Beukering, Pieter, 2015. "Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows among indigenous fishers: A discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 104-116.
    29. Jean-Baptiste Marre & Luke Brander & Olivier Thébaud & Jean Boncoeur & Sean Pascoe & Louisa Coglan & Nicolas Pascal, 2015. "Non-market use and non-use values for preserving ecosystem services over time: A choice experiment application to coral reef ecosystems in New Caledonia," Post-Print hal-01198831, HAL.
    30. Kati Häfner & Ingo Zasada & Boris T. van Zanten & Fabrizio Ungaro & Mark Koetse & Annette Piorr, 2018. "Assessing landscape preferences: a visual choice experiment in the agricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 846-861, August.
    31. 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.
    32. 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.
    33. Hynes, Stephen & Ghermandi, Andrea & Norton, Daniel & Williams, Heidi, 2018. "Marine recreational ecosystem service value estimation: A meta-analysis with cultural considerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 410-419.
    34. Paltriguera, L. & Ferrini, S. & Luisetti, T. & Turner, R.K., 2018. "An analysis and valuation of post-designation management aimed at maximising recreational benefits in coastal Marine Protected Areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 121-130.
    35. Liu, Yun & Kong, Qingxia & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2019. "Public preferences for health care facilities in rural China: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    36. Bryan, Brett A. & Ye, Yanqiong & Zhang, Jia'en & Connor, Jeffery D., 2018. "Land-use change impacts on ecosystem services value: Incorporating the scarcity effects of supply and demand dynamics," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 144-157.
    37. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    38. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    39. Daniel K. Lew, 2019. "Place of Residence and Cost Attribute Non-Attendance in a Stated Preference Choice Experiment Involving a Marine Endangered Species," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(3), pages 225-245.
    40. Martín-López, Berta & García-Llorente, Marina & Palomo, Ignacio & Montes, Carlos, 2011. "The conservation against development paradigm in protected areas: Valuation of ecosystem services in the Doñana social-ecological system (southwestern Spain)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1481-1491, June.
    41. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Stability of Willingness-to-Pay for Coastal Management: A Choice Experiment Across Three Time Periods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 64-73.
    42. Faccioni, G. & Sturaro, E. & Ramanzin, M. & Bernués, A., 2019. "Socio-economic valuation of abandonment and intensification of Alpine agroecosystems and associated ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 453-462.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Halkos, George E & Aslanidis, Panagiotis-Stavros & Landis, Conrad & Papadaki, Lydia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2024. "A review on primary and cascading hazards by exploring individuals’ willingness-to-pay for urban sustainability policies," MPRA Paper 122262, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Raviv, Orna & Shiri, Zemah-Shamir & Ido, Izhaki & Alon, Lotan, 2021. "The effect of wildfire and land-cover changes on the economic value of ecosystem services in Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).

    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. Castillo-Eguskitza, Nekane & Hoyos, David & Onaindia, Miren & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2019. "Unraveling local preferences and willingness to pay for different management scenarios: A choice experiment to biosphere reserve management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Raviv, Orna & Shiri, Zemah-Shamir & Ido, Izhaki & Alon, Lotan, 2021. "The effect of wildfire and land-cover changes on the economic value of ecosystem services in Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. Riccardo Scarpa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2017. "A Monte Carlo Evaluation of the Logit-Mixed Logit under Asymmetry and Multimodality," Working Papers in Economics 17/23, University of Waikato.
    4. Baker, K. & Baylis, K. & Bull, G.Q. & Barichello, R., 2019. "Are non-market values important to smallholders' afforestation decisions? A psychometric segmentation and its implications for afforestation programs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 1-13.
    5. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Harrison, Duncan R. & Burns, Rhys J., 2019. "Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    6. 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.
    7. Viola Di Cori & Cristiano Franceschinis & Nicolas Robert & Davide Matteo Pettenella & Mara Thiene, 2021. "Moral Foundations and Willingness to Pay for Non-Wood Forest Products: A Study in Three European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    9. O'Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Kilgarriff, Paul & Ryan, Mary & Tsakiridis, Andreas, 2020. "Assessing preferences for rural landscapes: An attribute based choice modelling approach," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(2), August.
    10. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    11. Zhaohui Zhang & Krishna P. Paudel & Kamal Upadhyaya, 2023. "Preference for rural living environment improvement initiatives in China," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 82(1), pages 61-78, January.
    12. Raviv, Orna & Zemah Shamir, Shiri & Izhaki, Ido & Sagie, Hila & Negev, Maya & Mazor-Tregerman, Maya & Collins-Kreiner, Noga & Mansfeld, Yoel & Lotan, Alon, 2020. "The socioeconomic value of multiple ecosystem types at a biosphere reserve as a baseline for one holistic conservation plan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    14. Anastasija Novikova & Lucia Rocchi & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2019. "Valuing Agricultural Landscape: Lithuanian Case Study Using a Contingent Valuation Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, May.
    15. Fockaert, Lysander & Mathijs, Erik & Vranken, Liesbet, 2021. "Local Support for Agri-Environmental Measures and the Role of Knowledge and Environmental Attitudes," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315153, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Aryal, Kishor & Ojha, Bhuwan Raj & Maraseni, Tek, 2021. "Perceived importance and economic valuation of ecosystem services in Ghodaghodi wetland of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    17. Ali Ardeshiri & Joffre Swait & Elizabeth C. Heagney & Mladen Kovac, 2019. "Preserve or retreat? Willingness-to-pay for Coastline Protection in New South Wales," Papers 1902.03310, arXiv.org.
    18. Cortés-Capano, Gonzalo & Hanley, Nick & Sheremet, Oleg & Hausmann, Anna & Toivonen, Tuuli & Garibotto-Carton, Gustavo & Soutullo, Alvaro & Di Minin, Enrico, 2021. "Assessing landowners’ preferences to inform voluntary private land conservation: The role of non-monetary incentives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    19. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    20. Schaafsma, M. & van Beukering, P.J.H. & Oskolokaite, I., 2017. "Combining focus group discussions and choice experiments for economic valuation of peatland restoration: A case study in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 150-160.

    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:ecolec:v:180:y:2021:i:c:s0921800919319500. 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/ecolecon .

    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.