Abstract
Many regulating ecosystem services exhibit non-excludability and non-rivalry characteristics akin to public goods. This makes it unlikely that such regulating ecosystem services will attract a price in the marketplace. Policymakers, therefore, find difficulties in determining a correct economic valuation for regulating ecosystem services, with potentially severe consequences for aligning policy for ecosystem service provision with public preferences for service delivery. This research used a choice modelling approach to estimate public preferences for delivery of two regulating ecosystem services; reductions in the flood risk to the British city of York (implemented by filling in drainage ditches in peat moorland further up the catchment), and a reduction in CO2 emissions (implemented by planting Poplar trees for biomass either locally in the study area or elsewhere in the UK). The choice experiment presented respondents with options providing different levels of CO2 reduction, implemented locally or nationally, and different levels of flood risk reduction, at a range of different prices, with a tax as the payment vehicle. Subsequent analysis with latent class (LC) models showed considerable heterogeneity of preference among respondents, particularly with regard to the location of tree planting for CO2 reduction. One LC segment showed a significant preference for achieving a high level CO2 reduction through national, as opposed to local tree planting, potentially indicating the existence of NIMBYism. The same LC segment displayed a preference for moderate reductions in the flood risk to York, even though this would deliver no personal benefit for a substantial proportion of the segment. This could, therefore, indicate altruistic behaviour towards geographically proximate beneficiaries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Provisioning ecosystem services encompass food, fresh water, fuelwood, fibre, biochemical and genetic resources, regulating ecosystem services include climate, disease and water regulation, and water purification, while cultural services contain spiritual and religious properties, recreation and tourism and cultural heritage. Supporting ecosystem services facilitate the production of all other ecosystem service classifications by aiding soil formation, nutrient cycling and primary production (MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) 2003).
Contingent valuation typically involves asking respondents whether they accept a given policy change at a given monetary cost. While contingent valuation measures the aggregate value of a policy change, a choice experiment identifies the value respondents place on individual aspects of a policy change.
Use values arise from direct or indirect interaction between the resource or service concerned and the individual providing the valuation (e.g. the direct benefit which improved water quality confers on a recreational swimmer, or the indirect benefit which it confers on a recreational angler). An individual can derive non-use values from environmental services or resources without interacting with the resource or service concerned (e.g. by valuing the benefits which the resource or service confers on individuals in other locations, other generations or simply by virtue of its continued existence) (Champ et al. 2003).
The acronym refers to an aversion to the siting of undesirable features or facilities local to an individual. That individual would prefer that the undesirable features of facilities were located elsewhere, i.e. ‘not in my backyard’. Hence this type of behaviour is termed NIMBYism.
Such respondents were identified using a GAC Likert scale where respondents are asked whether they agree or disagree with a series of statements relating to the environment.
In Meyer and Liebe (2010) respondents are characterised as altruistic if they possess an organ card or have voluntarily given blood at least once in their life.
The no change option is delivered without any additional taxation burden.
Some choice modelling literature refer to strength 3 designs as resolution 4 designs.
Respondents may associate the planting of Poplar trees in Nidderdale with reductions in downstream flood risk.
Importantly, because all of the attribute levels are independent of one another, the attribute levels within any block are unconfounded, thereby allowing utility changes to be attributable to changes in a particular environmental attribute.
Also referred to as a Gumbel distribution.
Effects coding is used in the CL and LC models to reveal the utility of the lowest environmental attribute levels (N5, U5 and FLOOD4) outside the no change option. The coding of these environmental attribute levels under dummy coding produces confoundment with the no change option, which means that the utility associated with the lowest levels of the environmental attributes cannot be resolved separately.
Throughout the questionnaire it was assumed that respondents are in the best position to judge the likely positive benefits of reductions in CO2 emissions in their respective locales, regionally, nationally and globally.
Tougher moorland terrain for walkers/tourists and concerns about the impact of moorland ditch filling on the local flood risk.
References
Aabø S, Strand J (2004) Public library valuation, nonuse values, and altruistic motivations. Libr Inf Sci Res 26(3):351–372. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2004.01.003
Bateman I, Day B, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econom 60(2):450–460. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.003
BBC (2004) York floods as more rain forecast. Retrieved 28 November, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3448713.stm
BBC (2010) Heathrow third runway plan unfair, High Court told. Retrieved 12 June, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8528708.stm
BERR (Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) (2008) Renewable energy awareness and attitudes research: management summary. BERR, London. Available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46271.pdf
Birol E, Villalba E, Smale M (2009) Farmer preferences for milpa diversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach. Environ Dev Econ 14:521–540. doi:10.1017/S1355770X08004944
Bjorner T, Hansen L, Russell C (2004) Environmental labelling and consumers’ choice: an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan. Environ Econ Manag 47(3):411–434. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2003.06.002
Boxall P, Adamowicz W (2002) Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ Resour Econ 23(4):421–446. doi:10.1023/A:1021351721619
Burgess L (2007) Discrete choice experiments [computer software]. Sydney, Australia: Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology Sydney. Retrieved 3 July, 2009, from http://crsu.science.uts.edu.au/choice/choice.html
Champ P, Boyle K, Brown T (eds) (2003) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 1–25; 27–58
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) (2009) The UK renewable energy strategy. DECC, London. Available at http://www.decc.gov.uk
Guagnano G, Dietz T, Stern P (1994) Willingness to pay for public goods: a test of the contribution model. Psychol Sci 5(6):411–415
Hausman J, McFadden D (1984) A specification test for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52:1219–1240
Jenkins R, Lister D (2006) Winds, rain, chill: it must be time for a bank holiday. The Times 26
Jones C, Eiser J (2010) Understanding ‘local’ opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard? Energy Policy 38(6):3106–3117. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.051
Kamakura W, Wedel M (1995) Life-Style segmentation with tailored interviewing. J Market Res 32(3):308–317
Layton D, Brown G (2000) Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev Econ Stat 82(4):616–624. doi:10.1162/003465300559091
Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington
Macalister T (2009) Possibility of new nuclear power plants in Lake District sparks eco concerns. Retrieved 13 June, 2010, from http://www.guardian.co.uk
Macmillan D, Duff E (1998) Estimating the non-market costs and benefits of native woodland restoration using the contingent valuation method. Forestry 71(3):247–259. doi:10.1093/forestry/71.3.247
McCracken J (ed) (2010) NIMBY. In: Oxford english dictionary. Retrieved 13 June, 2010, from http://www.oed.com
Menges R, Schroeder C, Traub S (2005) Altruism, warm glow and the willingness-to-donate for green electricity: an artefactual field experiment. Environ Resour Econ 31(4):431–458. doi:10.1007/s10640-005-3365-y
Meyer R, Liebe U (2010) Are the affluent prepared to pay for the planet? Explaining willingness to pay for public and quasi-private environmental goods in Switzerland. Popul Environ 32(1):42–65. doi:10.1007/s11111-010-0116-y
Ojea E, Loureiro M (2007) Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife. Ecol Econ 63(4):807–814. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.003
Sloane N (2009) A library of orthogonal arrays. Florham Park, USA: AT&T Shannon Lab. Retrieved 22 June, 2010, from http://www2.research.att.com/~njas/oadir/
Stern P, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav 25(3):322–348
Street D, Burgess L (2007) The construction of optimal stated choice experiments. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Taylor A (1989) A Hampshire heathland stays unspoilt. Finan Times 8
Upham P (2009) Applying environmental-behaviour concepts to renewable energy siting controversy: reflections on a longitudinal bioenergy case study. Energy Policy 37(11):4273–4283. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.027
Upreti B (2004) Conflict over biomass energy development in the United Kingdom: some observations and lessons from England and Wales. Energy Policy 32(6):785–800. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00342-7
Upreti B, van der Horst D (2004) National renewable energy policy and local opposition in the UK: the failed development of a biomass electricity plant. Biomass Bioenergy 26(1):61–69. doi:10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00099-0
Wedel M, DeSarbo W (1995) A mixture likelihood approach for generalized linear models. J Class 12(1):21–55. doi:10.1007/BF01202266
Acknowledgments
This research was made possible through funding from the White Rose Studentship Network on impacts of large-scale upland management change on ecosystem services.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Drake, B., Smart, J.C.R., Termansen, M. et al. Public preferences for production of local and global ecosystem services. Reg Environ Change 13, 649–659 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0252-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0252-7