Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:58:45.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of user characteristics on valuation of ecosystem services in Doñana Natural Protected Area (south-west Spain)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2007

BERTA MARTÍN-LÓPEZ ,
CARLOS MONTES  and
JAVIER BENAYAS
BERTA MARTÍN-LÓPEZ*
Affiliation:
Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, c. Darwin 2, Edificio Biología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
CARLOS MONTES
Affiliation:
Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, c. Darwin 2, Edificio Biología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
JAVIER BENAYAS
Affiliation:
Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, c. Darwin 2, Edificio Biología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
*
*Correspondence: Dr Martín-López Tel: +34 91 497 80 08 Fax: +34 91 497 80 01 e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Economic valuation of ecosystem services by stated preferences techniques is usually used by policy-makers to develop environmental management practices. Critics of the contingent valuation (CV) method have argued that respondents are influenced by several factors, which mean that people do not apply economic motives in responding to CV questions. This study examines the influence of individuals’ environmental behaviour and knowledge about the good concerned on the CV results and the CV problem of benefit aggregation in order to determine the extent of the hypothetical market. Here a CV study in the Doñana National and Natural Park (Spain) found that both individual environmental behaviour and knowledge influenced willingness to pay for sustaining specific ecosystem services provided by the biodiversity of Doñana. A distance-decay function was found, which determined the social benefits of the ecosystem services of Doñana. The study illustrates the importance of understanding non-economic motives behind values in order to obtain further information which can support decision-making in environmental management.

Keywords

contingent valuationecosystem servicesenvironmental behaviourgeographic distancelocal knowledge
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 215 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balisteri, E., McClelland, G., Poe, G. & Schulze, W. (2001) Can hypothetical questions reveal true answers? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environmental and Resource Economics 18: 275–292.Google Scholar
Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R. & Swanson, J. (2002) Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: a Manual. Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benayas, J., de Lucio, J.V. & Bernáldez, F.G. (1987) Environmental attitude shifts as revealed by landscape tastes and activity preferences. The Environmentalist 7: 21–30.Google Scholar
Brown, T., Champ, P., Bishop, R. & McCollum, D. (1996) Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Economics 72: 152–166.Google Scholar
Carson, R., Groves, T. & Machina, M. (2000) Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, California, USA.Google Scholar
de Lucio, J.V. & Múgica, M. (1994) Landscape preferences and behaviour of visitors to Spanish National Parks. Landscape and Urban Planning 29: 145–160.Google Scholar
Edwards, S.F. (1986) Ethical preferences and the assessment of existence values: does the neoclassical model fit? Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 15: 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbersen, B. (2001) Nature on the Doorstep. The Relationship between Protected Natural Areas and Residential Activity in the European Countryside. Utrecht/Wageningen, the Netherlands: Alterra.Google Scholar
García Mora, M.R., Montes, C., Castro, H., Molina, F. & Baudry, J. (2003) Towards a new ecoregional vision for the management of protected areas in the Mediterranean region. In: Linkages in the Mediterranean Landscape. The Role of Protected Areas in the Territorial Context, ed. García Mora, M.R. & Montes, C., pp.8–25. Sevilla, España: Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
García Novo, F. & Marín Cabrera, C. (2005) Dońana, Water and Biosphere. Madrid, España: Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. (2000) Econometric Analysis, 4th edition. New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall International.Google Scholar
Gómez-Limón García, J., Medina Domingo, L., Atance Muńoz, I. & Garrido Palomero, A. (2003) Los visitantes de la comarca de Dońana. Sostenible 4: 1–113.Google Scholar
Hanley, N., Schläpfer, F. & Spurgeon, J. (2003) Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management 68: 297–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horton, B., Colarullo, G., Bateman, I.J. & Peres, C.A. (2003) Evaluating non-user willingness to pay for a large-scale conservation programme in Amazonia: a UK/Italian contingent valuation study. Environmental Conservation 30: 139–146.Google Scholar
Johnson, F.R., Dunford, R.W., Desvouges, W.H. & Banzhaf, M.R. (2001) Role of knowledge in assessing nonuse values for natural resource damages. Growth and Change 32: 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Knetsch, J.L. (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22: 90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniivilä, M. (2006) Users and non-users of conservation areas: are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys? Ecological Economics 59: 530–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotchen, M.J. & Reiling, S.D. (2000) Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics 32: 93–107.Google Scholar
Kriström, B. (1993) Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 3: 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J.B. (2000) Vertically summing public good demand curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Economics 76: 312–321.Google Scholar
MEA (2003) Ecosystems and Human Well-being. A Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R.C. & Carson, R.T. (1989) Using Survey to Value Public Goods. The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC, USA: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Montes, C., Borja, F., Bravo, M.A. & Moreira, J.M. (1998) Reconocimiento Biofísico de Espacios Naturales Protegidos. Doñana: Una Aproximación Ecosistémica. Sevilla, España: Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B. & Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Múgica, M. & De Lucio, J.V. (1996) The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences. a case study at Dońana National Park (Spain), Journal of Environmental Management 47: 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norusis, M.J. (2003) SPSS 12.0 Statistical Procedures Companion, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nyborg, K. (2000) Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 42: 305–322.Google Scholar
Paradiso, M. & Trisorio, A. (2001) The effect of knowledge on the disparity between hypothetical and real willingness to pay. Applied Economics 33: 1359–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pate, J. & Loomis, J. (1997) The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecological Economics 20: 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, L., Folke, C. & Gunderson, L. (2000) Valuation of ecosystem services in institutional context. Ecosystems 3: 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rekola, M., Pouta, E., Kuuluvainen, O., Tahvonen, C. & Li, Z. (2000) Incommensurable preferences in contingent valuation: the case of Natura 2000 Network in Finland. Environmental Conservation 27: 260–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagoff, M. (1988) The Economics of the Earth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sigelman, L. & Zeng, L. (1999) Analizing censored and sample-selected data with Tobit and Heckit models. Political Analysis 8: 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spash, C.L. (1997) Ethics and environmental attitudes with implications for economic valuation. Journal of Environmental Management 50: 403–416.Google Scholar
Spash, C.L. & Hanley, N. (1995) Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecological Economics 12: 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, T., Echeverría, J., Glass, R., Hager, T. & More, T. (1991) Measuring the existence value of wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show? Land Economics 67: 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, T., More, T. & Glass, R. (1994) Interpretation and temporal stability of CV bids for wildlife existence: a panel study. Land Economics 70: 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, R.J. & Walsh, R.G. (1985) Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Economics 61: 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tisdell, C., Wilson, C. & Swarna Nantha, H. (2005) Policies for saving a rare Australian glider: economics and ecology. Biological Conservation 123: 237–248.Google Scholar
Veall, M.R. & Zimmermann, K.F. (1992) Pseudo-R2s in the Ordinal Probit model. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 16: 333–342.Google Scholar