IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i8p1267-d882511.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Spatial Information in Peri-Urban Ecosystem Service Valuation and Policy Investment Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew R. Sloggy

    (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, CA 92507, USA)

  • Francisco J. Escobedo

    (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, CA 92507, USA)

  • José J. Sánchez

    (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, CA 92507, USA)

Abstract

The supply of ecosystem services and the benefits that peri-urban areas provide to society are increasingly being modeled and studied using various ecological, environmental, social, and economic approaches. Nevertheless, the different types and levels of demand, preferences, or values for ecosystem services that different human beneficiaries have, often require information and econometric methods to account for human awareness or knowledge of the spatial underpinnings behind these processes, services, and benefits. Specifically, spatial information regarding the location of an ecosystem, its functions, and its services can play an important role in the value and support for policies affecting conservation of peri-urban ecosystems such as payments for ecosystem service (PES) programs. Such PES programs are policy instruments that promote the use of ecosystem services for resources management and conservation objectives. Therefore, to better address this understudied aspect in the landscape ecology and peri-urban ecosystem services modeling literature, we used an online, interactive, spatially explicit survey ( n = 2359) in Bogotá, Colombia to evaluate the role of spatial information on investment and policy preferences for such programs. Using an econometric approach to account for respondents’ spatial literacy (i.e., spatial information) of peri-urban ecosystem services, we analyzed how knowledge of space affected an individual’s choices related to ecosystem services and the economic value of environmental and conservation policies. We found that, as spatial literacy increased, respondents were more likely to prefer that government invest in regulating ecosystem services, specifically water resources, and less likely to prefer investing in other ecosystem services. Although spatial literacy did not necessarily affect respondent’s actual willingness to pay (WTP) for these policies in the form of monthly monetary payments, it did influence the types of programs respondents cared about and the magnitude of resources they were willing to invest. Our findings suggested that increasing spatial literacy would change preferences for government spending but not an individuals’ WTP in contexts such as peri-urban areas and PES programs. Results could be used by landscape ecologists, conservation biologists, natural resource scientists, and environmental/ecological economists to better understand and design more efficient education, conservation, and management strategies to increase public engagement in peri-urban contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew R. Sloggy & Francisco J. Escobedo & José J. Sánchez, 2022. "The Role of Spatial Information in Peri-Urban Ecosystem Service Valuation and Policy Investment Preferences," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:1267-:d:882511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1267/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1267/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick Puhani, 2000. "The Heckman Correction for Sample Selection and Its Critique," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 53-68, February.
    2. Darvill, Rachel & Lindo, Zoë, 2015. "Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: Implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 153-161.
    3. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & João C. Azevedo & Pascual Fernández, 2021. "Ecosystem Services, Sustainable Rural Development and Protected Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-3, September.
    4. Gregory Brown & Maggi Kelly & Debra Whitall, 2014. "Which 'public'? Sampling effects in public participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geographic information (VGI) systems for public lands management," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(2), pages 190-214, February.
    5. Rodriguez, Maykol & Bodini, Antonio & Escobedo, Francisco J. & Clerici, Nicola, 2021. "Analyzing socio-ecological interactions through qualitative modeling: Forest conservation and implications for sustainability in the peri‑urban bogota (Colombia)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 439(C).
    6. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    7. Ribaudo, Marc & Greene, Catherine & Hansen, LeRoy & Hellerstein, Daniel, 2010. "Ecosystem services from agriculture: Steps for expanding markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2085-2092, September.
    8. Dupont, Diane P. & Bateman, Ian J., 2012. "Political affiliation and willingness to pay: An examination of the nature of benefits and means of provision," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 43-51.
    9. Joseph Hiebert & Karen Allen, 2019. "Valuing Environmental Amenities across Space: A Geographically Weighted Regression of Housing Preferences in Greenville County, SC," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    10. Siyuan He & Yang Su, 2022. "Understanding Residents’ Perceptions of the Ecosystem to Improve Park–People Relationships in Wuyishan National Park, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.
    11. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J. & Smetschka, Barbara & Ringhofer, Lisa, 2016. "Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 24-32.
    12. Althaus, Scott L., 1998. "Information Effects in Collective Preferences," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(3), pages 545-558, September.
    13. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Rose, John, 2012. "Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 21-31.
    14. Dertwinkel-Kalt Markus, 2016. "Salience and Health Campaigns," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 1-22, June.
    15. Bateman, Ian J. & Mawby, James, 2004. "First impressions count: interviewer appearance and information effects in stated preference studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 47-55, May.
    16. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
    17. Lau, Jacqueline D. & Hicks, Christina C. & Gurney, Georgina G. & Cinner, Joshua E., 2018. "Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities by wealth, age, and education," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 91-98.
    18. Stephen ES Crook & Arielle Levine & David Lopez-Carr, 2021. "Perceptions and Application of the Ecosystem Services Approach among Pacific Northwest National Forest Managers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    21. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    22. Villegas-Palacio, Clara & Berrouet, Lina & López, Connie & Ruiz, Aura & Upegui, Alba, 2016. "Lessons from the integrated valuation of ecosystem services in a developing country: Three case studies on ecological, socio-cultural and economic valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 297-308.
    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. Claudia Dworczyk & Benjamin Burkhard, 2022. "Challenges Entailed in Applying Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand Mapping Approaches: A Practice Report," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, December.

    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. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    2. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    3. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    4. 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).
    5. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    6. Loc, Ho Huu & Park, Edward & Thu, Tran Ngoc & Diep, Nguyen Thi Hong & Can, Nguyen Trong, 2021. "An enhanced analytical framework of participatory GIS for ecosystem services assessment applied to a Ramsar wetland site in the Vietnam Mekong Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    7. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    8. Jennifer Hodbod & Emma Tebbs & Kristofer Chan & Shubhechchha Sharma, 2019. "Integrating Participatory Methods and Remote Sensing to Enhance Understanding of Ecosystem Service Dynamics Across Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-30, August.
    9. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    10. Graça, Manjate, 2018. "Scope effects in contingent valuation: an application to the valuation of irrigation water quality improvements in Infulene Valley, Mozambique," Research Theses 334752, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    11. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    12. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    13. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    14. 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).
    15. Lisa A. Robinson & James K. Hammitt, 2013. "Behavioral economics and the conduct of benefit–cost analysis: towards principles and standards," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 10, pages 317-363, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Wakita, Kazumi & Shen, Zhonghua & Oishi, Taro & Yagi, Nobuyuki & Kurokura, Hisashi & Furuya, Ken, 2014. "Human utility of marine ecosystem services and behavioural intentions for marine conservation in Japan," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 53-60.
    17. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June.
    18. Veronesi, Marcella & Chawla, Fabienne & Maurer, Max & Lienert, Judit, 2014. "Climate change and the willingness to pay to reduce ecological and health risks from wastewater flooding in urban centers and the environment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-10.
    19. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    20. Bingjie Song & Guy M. Robinson & Douglas K. Bardsley, 2020. "Measuring Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-30, 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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:1267-:d:882511. 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.