IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v24y2017icp138-146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Awareness of greater numbers of ecosystem services affects preferences for floodplain management

Author

Listed:
  • Richards, Daniel R.
  • Warren, Philip H.
  • Maltby, Lorraine
  • Moggridge, Helen L.

Abstract

People’s preferences for different habitat management scenarios determine the way that floodplain habitats are managed, and the ecosystem services that they provide. Making people aware of a greater number of ecosystem services may encourage them to design habitat management that better balances the provision of conflicting services. To investigate the impacts of ecosystem service information on people’s preferences for floodplain habitat management options, we manipulated the number of ecosystem services that participants knew about, and the level of detail of the information they were provided with. The preferences of participants differed depending on the number of services that were described. Providing people with ecosystem service information had a quantifiable effect on their preferences among different habitat management options, and increased the variability in preferences between people. These findings are consistent with the theory that ecosystem service information should encourage people to consider a wider range of benefits that nature provides, and this in turn may enable habitat management that better balances trade-offs between different services. Simply describing more ecosystem services to people had no effect on their preferences for management options, suggesting that detailed, empirical data on ecosystem services are required to affect decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Richards, Daniel R. & Warren, Philip H. & Maltby, Lorraine & Moggridge, Helen L., 2017. "Awareness of greater numbers of ecosystem services affects preferences for floodplain management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 138-146.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:24:y:2017:i:c:p:138-146
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221204161730075X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.001?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. Laurans, Yann & Mermet, Laurent, 2014. "Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 98-105.
    2. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    3. Bruce Tonn & Mary English & Cheryl Travis, 2000. "A Framework for Understanding and Improving Environmental Decision Making," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 163-183.
    4. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
    5. Kumar, Manasi & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 808-819, February.
    6. de Palma, Andre & Myers, Gordon M & Papageorgiou, Yorgos Y, 1994. "Rational Choice under an Imperfect Ability to Choose," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 419-440, June.
    7. James G. March, 1978. "Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 587-608, Autumn.
    8. Malhotra, Naresh K, 1982. "Information Load and Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(4), pages 419-430, March.
    9. Ekin Birol & Victoria Cox, 2007. "Using choice experiments to design wetland management programmes: The case of Severn Estuary Wetland, UK," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(3), pages 363-380.
    10. Gruenfeld, Deborah H & Mannix, Elizabeth A. & Williams, Katherine Y. & Neale, Margaret A., 1996. "Group Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information Distribution Affect Process and Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-15, July.
    11. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    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. Niccolucci, Valentina & Coscieme, Luca & Marchettini, Nadia, 2021. "Benefit transfer and the economic value of Biocapacity: Introducing the ecosystem service Yield factor," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    2. Kim, Ilkwon & Lee, Jae-hyuck & Kwon, Hyuksoo, 2021. "Participatory ecosystem service assessment to enhance environmental decision-making in a border city of South Korea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    3. Zuzana Drillet & Tze Kwan Fung & Rachel Ai Ting Leong & Uma Sachidhanandam & Peter Edwards & Daniel Richards, 2020. "Urban Vegetation Types are Not Perceived Equally in Providing Ecosystem Services and Disservices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Maczka, Krzysztof & Chmielewski, Piotr & Jeran, Agnieszka & Matczak, Piotr & van Riper, Carena J., 2019. "The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 173-183.
    5. Md. Ishtiaque Haider Ishty* & Ahmad Aldrie Amir & Nor Diana Mohd Idris & Mohd Raihan Taha & Mohammad Imam Hasan Reza, 2019. "Flood Risk Perception and Land Use Change Analysis in Flood Affected- Communities: A Case Study of Temerloh, Malaysia," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 5(2), pages 298-307, 02-2019.
    6. Antonia Katharina Ruckli & Sabine Dippel & Nora Durec & Monika Gebska & Jonathan Guy & Juliane Helmerichs & Christine Leeb & Herman Vermeer & Stefan Hörtenhuber, 2021. "Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Pig Farms in Selected European Countries: Combining LCA and Key Performance Indicators for Biodiversity Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.

    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. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    2. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    3. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2011. "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Tom Thomas & Eric Lamm, 2012. "Legitimacy and Organizational Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 191-203, October.
    5. Mark D. Packard & Brent B. Clark & Peter G. Klein, 2017. "Uncertainty Types and Transitions in the Entrepreneurial Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 840-856, October.
    6. Stoeckl, Natalie & Farr, Marina & Larson, Silva & Adams, Vanessa M. & Kubiszewski, Ida & Esparon, Michelle & Costanza, Robert, 2014. "A new approach to the problem of overlapping values: A case study in Australia׳s Great Barrier Reef," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 61-78.
    7. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Schilling, P., 2015. "Analysing Farmers’ Use of Price Hedging Instruments: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 50, March.
    8. Tom E. Thomas, 2005. "Are business students buying it? A theoretical framework for measuring attitudes toward the legitimacy of environmental sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 186-197, May.
    9. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    10. Fredrik Carlsson, 2010. "Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 167-177, June.
    11. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    12. Newark, Daniel A., 2014. "Indecision and the construction of self," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 162-174.
    13. Fernando San Miguel & Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Irrational’ stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 307-322, March.
    14. Pascal Haegeli & Wolfgang Haider & Margo Longland & Ben Beardmore, 2010. "Amateur decision-making in avalanche terrain with and without a decision aid: a stated choice survey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 52(1), pages 185-209, January.
    15. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    16. Petracca, Enrico, 2015. "A tale of paradigm clash: Simon, situated cognition and the interpretation of bounded rationality," MPRA Paper 64517, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Liberman, Varda & Ross, Lee, 2006. "Idiosyncratic matching and choice: When less is more," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 168-183, November.
    18. Carla Susana A. Assuad, 2020. "Understanding Rationality in Sustainable Development Decision-Making: Unfolding the Motivations for Action," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(3), pages 1086-1119, September.
    19. Basak Kalkanci & Kay-Yut Chen & Feryal Erhun, 2011. "Contract Complexity and Performance Under Asymmetric Demand Information: An Experimental Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 689-704, April.
    20. Bernhard Hirsch & Yvonne Schneider, 2010. "Erklärungs- und Gestaltungsbeiträge verhaltenswissenschaftlicher Theorien für eine integrierte Rechnungslegung," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 7-35, June.

    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:ecoser:v:24:y:2017:i:c:p:138-146. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.