IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fae/ppaper/2019.02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The economic value of NBS restoration measures and their benefits in a river basin context: A meta-analysis regression

Author

Listed:
  • Nabila Arfaoui

    (University Catholic of Lyon, ESDES)

  • Amandine Gnonlonfin

    (Université de Nice/IMREDD)

Abstract

The study collects original monetary estimates for Nature Based Solutions (NBS) and benefits, with restoration approach in a basin context. A database of 187 monetary estimates is constructed to perform the first meta-analysis, which will assess how individuals value the NBS restoration measures and their benefits. We find that individuals value, in particular, global climate regulation, local environmental regulation, recreational activities, and habitat and biodiversity benefits. We find also that NBS measures aimed at floodplains and river streams are more highly valued. The results of this study suggest that the Willingness-to-pay (WTP) is weakly influenced by the methodological variables. While the contingent valuation method affects the WTP compared to studies using choice experiments, the payment and econometric method means have only a marginal effect. Survey modes are never significant. Finally, studies on the US and Europe country contexts show higher WTP than those conducted in Asia.

Suggested Citation

  • Nabila Arfaoui & Amandine Gnonlonfin, 2019. "The economic value of NBS restoration measures and their benefits in a river basin context: A meta-analysis regression," Policy Papers 2019.02, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:fae:ppaper:2019.02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://faere.fr/pub/PolicyPapers/Arfaoui_Gnonlonfin_FAERE_PP2019_02.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2019
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jae Kim & Seung-Nam Kim & Soogwan Doh, 2015. "The distance decay of willingness to pay and the spatial distribution of benefits and costs for the ecological restoration of an urban branch stream in Ulsan, South Korea," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 54(3), pages 835-853, May.
    2. Grischa Perino & Barnaby Andrews & Andreas Kontoleon & Ian Bateman, 2014. "The Value of Urban Green Space in Britain: A Methodological Framework for Spatially Referenced Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 251-272, February.
    3. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    4. Bockarjova, Marija & Botzen, Wouter J.W. & Koetse, Mark J., 2020. "Economic valuation of green and blue nature in cities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Kelly Giraud & John Loomis & Joseph Cooper, 2001. "A Comparison of Willingness to Pay Estimation Techniques From Referendum Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(4), pages 331-346, December.
    6. Chaikumbung, Mayula & Doucouliagos, Hristos & Scarborough, Helen, 2016. "The economic value of wetlands in developing countries: A meta-regression analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 164-174.
    7. 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.
    8. Markus Bliem & Michael Getzner, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay for river restoration: differences across time and scenarios," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(3), pages 241-260, July.
    9. Farber, Stephen & Griner, Brian, 2000. "Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, July.
    10. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    11. Zhongmin, Xu & Guodong, Cheng & Zhiqiang, Zhang & Zhiyong, Su & Loomis, John, 2003. "Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 345-358, March.
    12. Doherty, Edel & Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Buckley, Cathal, 2014. "Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 89-97.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2024. "Limited Substitutability, Relative Price Changes and the Uplifting of Public Natural Capital Values," CESifo Working Paper Series 11156, CESifo.
    2. 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).
    3. Halkos, George, 2013. "The relationship between people’s attitude and willingness to pay for river conservation," MPRA Paper 50560, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Choi, Dong Soon & Ready, Richard, 2021. "Measuring benefits from spatially-explicit surface water quality improvements: The roles of distance, scope, scale, and size," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    5. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    6. Sinclair, Michael & Vishnu Sagar, M.K. & Knudsen, Camilla & Sabu, Joseph & Ghermandi, Andrea, 2021. "Economic appraisal of ecosystem services and restoration scenarios in a tropical coastal Ramsar wetland in India," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    7. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    8. Hermine Vedogbeton & Robert J. Johnston, 2020. "Commodity Consistent Meta-Analysis of Wetland Values: An Illustration for Coastal Marsh Habitat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 835-865, April.
    9. Thomas G Poder & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Fetue Ndefo & Jie He, 2016. "The Economic Value of the Greater Montreal Blue Network (Quebec, Canada): A Contingent Choice Study Using Real Projects to Estimate Non-Market Aquatic Ecosystem Services Benefits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    10. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    11. Hassan, Suziana & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Urban-rural divides in preferences for wetland conservation in Malaysia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 226-237.
    12. Zhaoyi Shang & Yue Che & Kai Yang & Yu Jiang, 2012. "Assessing Local Communities’ Willingness to Pay for River Network Protection: A Contingent Valuation Study of Shanghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, October.
    13. Ik-Chang Choi & Hyun No Kim & Hio-Jung Shin & John Tenhunen & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Korea: Correcting for the Endogeneity Bias in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    14. Dumenu, William Kwadwo, 2013. "What are we missing? Economic value of an urban forest in Ghana," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 137-142.
    15. 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.
    16. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    17. Richardson, Leslie & Keefe, Kelly & Huber, Christopher & Racevskis, Laila & Reynolds, Gregg & Thourot, Scott & Miller, Ian, 2014. "Assessing the value of the Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) in Everglades restoration: An ecosystem service approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 366-377.
    18. Ojeda, Monica Ilija & Mayer, Alex S. & Solomon, Barry D., 2008. "Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 155-166, March.
    19. Rodgers Makwinja & Ishmael Bobby Mphangwe Kosamu & Chikumbusko Chiziwa Kaonga, 2019. "Determinants and Values of Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvement: Insights from Chia Lagoon, Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-26, August.
    20. Sheila M. Olmstead, 2010. "The Economics of Managing Scarce Water Resources," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 179-198, Summer.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Nature Based Solution (NBS); Meta-Analysis; Ecosystem services; Willingness To Pay;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products

    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:fae:ppaper:2019.02. 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: Dorothée Charlier (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/faereea.html .

    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.