Valuing the Services of Coastal Ecosystems: A Meta-analysis of Contingent Valuation Studies

Valuing the Services of Coastal Ecosystems: A Meta-analysis of Contingent Valuation Studies

D. Latinopoulos

Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Page: 
13-30
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V5-N1-13-30
Received: 
N/A
|
Accepted: 
N/A
|
Published: 
31 March 2010
| Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

Coastal ecosystems provide many and diverse functions, creating signifi cant environmental values that should be taken into consideration during coastal management decisions. The most widely used method in coastal ecosystem valuation is contingent valuation, a method that can deal with the assessment of direct and indirect ecosystem uses and also of non-use motivations in natural resource economics. In this framework, the main aim of the present paper is to statistically examine the variation of coastal ecosystem values, as derived from 20 contingent valuation case studies. More precisely, this variation is explained by means of a meta-analysis application (meta-regression analysis), where the dependent variable is the willingness to pay for coastal ecosystems protection (or restoration), whereas the set of explanatory variables comprise three main categories of primary studies’ characteristics: (a) the environmental characteristics of the reference sites, (b) the site characteristics and (c) the methodological characteristics of the contingent valuation studies. The results of this paper show that all three categories comprise significant factors that explain the heterogeneity in coastal ecosystem values. Moreover, it has been found that specific site characteristics, such as the size of the reference coastal areas and the major environmental threats within these areas, are the most significant determinants of the variation in the willingness to pay. Finally, according to the outcome of a benefi t transfer exercise performed on the results of the meta-regression analysis, the accrued set of estimators can be further applied in order to form a generalized benefit transfer function for the assessment of other coastal ecosystems.

Keywords: 

benefit transfer, coastal ecosystems, contingent valuation, meta-analysis, meta-regression analysis, willingness to pay

  References

[1] Mitchell, R.C. & Carson, R.T., Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, 1989.

[2] Brouwer, R., Langford, I.H., Bateman, I.J. & Turner, R.K., A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change, 1(1), pp. 47–57, 1999. doi:10.1007/s101130050007

[3] Woodward, R.T. & Wui, Y.S., The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 37(2), pp. 257–270, 2001. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00276-7

[4] Brander, L.M., Florax, R.J. & Vermaat, J.E., The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and meta-analysis of the literature. Environmental and Resource Economics, 33(2), pp. 223–225, 2006. doi:10.1007/s10640-005-3104-4

[5] Ghermandi, A., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Brander, L.M., de Groot, H.L.F. & Nunes, P., Exploring diversity: a meta-analysis of wetland conservation and creation. Working paper, Free University of Amsterdam, 2007.

[6] Enjolras, G. & Boisson, J.M., Valuing lagoons using a meta-analytical approach: methodological and practical issues. Working Papers 08-05, LAMETA, University of Montpellier, 2008.

[7] Carter, R.W.G., Coastal Environments, Academic Press: London, 1988.

[8] De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A. & Boumans, R.M.J., A typology for the classification,  description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), pp. 393–408, 2002. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7

[9] Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & Van den Belt, M., The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, pp. 253–260, 1997. doi:10.1038/387253a0

[10] Emerton, L., Counting Coastal Ecosystems as an Economic Part of Development Infrastructure, IUCN Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group Asia, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2006.

[11] Latinopoulos, D., Economic valuation of irrigation water: implications from a meta-analysis. Proc. of the 8th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Lemnos Island, Vol. A, pp. 531–538, 2003.

[12] Bergstrom, J.C. & Taylor, L.O., Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: theory and practice. Ecological Economics, 60(2), pp. 351–360, 2006. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.015

[13] Alberini, A., Rosato, P., Longo, A. & Zanatta, V., Information and willingness to pay in a contingent valuation study: the value of S. Erasmo in the Lagoon of Venice. Journal of Environmental Policy and Management, 48(2), pp. 155–176, 2005.

[14] Atkins, J. & Burdon, D., An initial economic evaluation of water quality improvements in the Randers Fjord, Denmark. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 53(1–4), pp. 195–204, 2006. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.09.024

[15] Barton, D., The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics, 42(1–2), pp. 147–164, 2002. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00044-7

[16] Brouwer, R. & Bronda, R., The cost and benefits of a revised European bathing water directive in the Netherlands. Cost Benefit Analysis and Water Resources Management, ed. R. Brouwer & D. Pearce, Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, pp. 251–269, 2005.

[17] Choe, K., Whittington, D. & Lauria, D.T., The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Economics, 72(4), pp. 519–527, 1996. doi:10.2307/3146913

[18] Georgiou, S., Langford, I., Bateman, I. & Turner, R., Determinants of willingness to pay for reductions in environmental health risks: a case study of bathing water quality. Environment and Planning A, 30, pp. 577–594, 1998. doi:10.1068/a300577

[19] Georgiou, S., Bateman, I., Langford, I. & Day, R., Coastal bathing water health risks: developing means of assessing the adequacy of proposals to amend the 1976 EC directive. Risk Decision and Policy, 5, pp. 49–68, 2000. doi:10.1017/S1357530999100085

[20] Goffe, L., The benefit of improvement in coastal water quality: a contingent approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 45(4), pp. 305–317, 1995. doi:10.1006/jema.1995.0078

[21] Goodman, S.L., Seabrook, W. & Jaffry, S.A., Considering conservation value in economic appraisals of coastal resources. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(3), pp. 313–336, 1998. doi:10.1080/09640569811614

[22] Hanley, N. & Kristrom, B., What’s it worth? Exploring uncertainty over values using contingent valuation. Discussion papers in economics no. 19/02, Economics Department, University of Glasgow, 2002.

[23] Jones, N., Sophoulis, C.M. & Malesios, C., Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: a case study in Mitilini, Greece. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(6), pp. 2478–2491, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2007.06.002

[24] Kontogianni, A., Skourtos, M., Langford, I., Bateman, I. & Georgiou, S., Integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation of environmental assets. Ecological Economics, 37(1), pp. 123–138, 2001. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00270-6

[25] Kontogianni, A., Langford, I., Papandreou, A. & Skourtos, M., Social preferences for improving water quality: an economic analysis of benefits from wastewater treatment. Water Resources Management, 17(5), pp. 317–336, 2003. doi:10.1023/A:1025866818391

[26] Lindahl, T. & Söderqvist, T., Who wants to save the Baltic Sea? Strategic and Environmental Uncertainty in Social Dilemmas, T. Lindahl, PhD Thesis, Department of Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, 2005.

[27] Lipton, D.W., The value of improved water quality to Chesapeake Bay Boaters. Marine Resource Economics, 19(2), pp. 1–6, 2004.

[28] Machado, F. & Mourato, S., Improving the assessment of water related health impacts: evidence from coastal waters in Portugal. CSERGE Working Paper, GEC 99-09, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 1999.

[29] Mourato, S., Georgiou, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Newcombe, J. & Howarth, A., Bathing Water Directive revisions: What are the benefits to England and Wales? A stated preference study. CSERGE Working Paper, ECM 03-12, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 2002. 

[30] Niklitschek, M. & Leon, J., Combining intended demand and yes/no responses in the estimation of contingent valuation models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31(3), pp. 387–402, 1996. doi:10.1006/jeem.1996.0051

[31] Saengsupavanich, C., Seenprachawong, U., Gallardo, W. & Shivakoti, G., Port-induced  erosion prediction and valuation of a local recreational beach. Ecological Economics, 67(1), pp. 93–103, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.018

[32] Zylick, T., Bateman, I., Georgiou, S., Markowska, A., Dziegielewska, D., Turner, R., Graham, A. & Langford, I., Contingent valuation of eutrophication damage in the Baltic Sea region. CSERGE Working Paper, GEC 95-03, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 1995.

[33] McFadden, D., Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural  Economics, 76, pp. 689–708, 1994.

[34] Lindhjem, H. & Navrud, S., How reliable are meta-analyses for international benefit transfers? Ecological Economics, 66(2–3), pp. 425–435, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.005

[35] Rosenberger, R.S. & Stanley, T.D., Measurement, generalization, and publication: sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecological Economics, 60(2), pp. 372–378, 2006. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.018