Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp 346–359 | Cite as

Impact of Perceived Importance of Ecosystem Services and Stated Financial Constraints on Willingness to Pay for Riparian Meadow Restoration in Flanders (Belgium)

  • Wendy Y. ChenEmail author
  • Joris Aertsens
  • Inge Liekens
  • Steven Broekx
  • Leo De Nocker
Article

Abstract

The strategic importance of ecosystem service valuation as an operational basis for policy decisions on natural restoration has been increasingly recognized in order to align the provision of ecosystem services with the expectation of human society. The contingent valuation method (CVM) is widely used to quantify various ecosystem services. However, two areas of concern arise: (1) whether people value specific functional ecosystem services and overlook some intrinsic aspects of natural restoration, and (2) whether people understand the temporal dimension of ecosystem services and payment schedules given in the contingent scenarios. Using a peri-urban riparian meadow restoration project in Flanders, Belgium as a case, we explored the impacts of residents’ perceived importance of various ecosystem services and stated financial constraints on their willingness-to-pay for the proposed restoration project employing the CVM. The results indicated that people tended to value all the benefits of riparian ecosystem restoration concurrently, although they accorded different importances to each individual category of ecosystem services. A longer payment scheme can help the respondents to think more about the flow of ecosystem services into future generations. A weak temporal embedding effect can be detected, which might be attributed to respondents’ concern about current financial constraints, rather than financial bindings associated with their income and perceived future financial constraints. This demonstrates the multidimensionality of respondents’ financial concerns in CV. This study sheds light on refining future CV studies, especially with regard to public expectation of ecosystem services and the temporal dimension of ecosystem services and payment schedules.

Keywords

Perceived importance of ecosystem services Stated financial constraints Riparian meadow restoration Contingent valuation method Temporal embedding Flanders 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful for the grant provided by the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office (BELSPO) and the General Research Fund from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. We would also like to express special thanks to Dr. Danny T. Wang (Department of Marketing, Hong Kong Baptist University) for providing kind assistance with econometric computation.

References

  1. Akter S, Brouwerb R, Branderb L, van Beukeringb P (2009) Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets. Ecol Econ 68:1858–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alam K (2011) Public attitudes toward restoration of impaired river ecosystems: does residents’ attachment to place matter? Urban Ecosyst 14:635–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baranzini A, Faust A-K, Huberman D (2010) Tropical forest conservation: attitudes and preferences. For Policy Econ 12:370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbier E (2007) Valuing ecosystem services. Econ Policy 22:177–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman IJ, Turner RK (1992) Evaluation of the environment: the contingent valuation method. Centre for Social and Economic research on the Global Environment, GEC Working Paper 92-18Google Scholar
  6. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson J (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60:450–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birol E, Karousakis K, Koundouri P (2006) Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Sci Total Environ 365:105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blaine TW, Lichtkoppler FR (2004) Willingness to pay for green space preservation: a comparison of soil and water conservation district clientele and the general public using the contingent valuation method. J Soil Water Conserv 59:203–208Google Scholar
  10. Blaine TW, Lichtkoppler FR, Jones KR, Zondag RH (2005) An assessment of household willingness to pay for curbside recycling: a comparison of payment card and referendum approaches. J Environ Manag 76:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bliem M, Getzner M (2012) Willingness-to-pay for river restoration: differences across time and scenarios. Environ Econ Policy Stud 14:241–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bliem M, Getzner M, Rodiga-Laßnig P (2012) Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. J Environ Manag 103:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyle KJ (2003) Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 111–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Broberg T (2010) Income treatment effects in contingent valuation: the case of the Swedish predator policy. Environ Resour Econ 46:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brox JA, Kumar RC, Stollery KR (2003) Estimating willingness to pay for improved water quality in the presence of item nonresponse bias. Am J Agric Econ 85:414–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bruyere BL, Beh AW, Lelengula G (2009) Differences in perceptions of communication, tourism benefits, and management issues in a protected area of rural Kenya. Environ Manag 43:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bryman A (2008) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Buijs AE (2009) Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study into local residents’ support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains. J Environ Manag 90:2680–2689Google Scholar
  19. Bullock JM, Aronson J, Newton AC, Pywell RF, Rey-Benayas JM (2011) Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 26:541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J Environ Econ Manag 17:230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cameron TA, Shaw WD, Ragland SR (1999) Nonresponse bias in mail survey data: salience vs. endogenous survey complexity. In: Herriges JA, Kling CL (eds) Valuing recreation and the environment: revealed preference methods in theory and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 217–251Google Scholar
  22. Carson RT (2011) Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar Publishing, NorthamptonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carson RT (2012) Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren’t available. J Econ Perspect 26:27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Carson RT, Wilks L, Imber D (1994) Valuing the preservation of Australia’s Kakadu conservation zone. Oxf Econ Pap 46:727–749Google Scholar
  25. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19:173–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Carson RT, Mitchell RC, Hanemann M, Kopp RJ, Presser S, Ruud PA (2003) Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Resour Econ 25:257–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Casado-Arzuaga I, Madariaga I, Onaindia M (2013) Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J Environ Manag 129:33–43Google Scholar
  28. Champ PA, Bishop RC (2001) Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ Resour Econ 19:383–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Champ PA, Flores NE, Brown TC, Chivers J (2002) Contingent valuation and incentives. Land Econ 78:591–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Chee YE (2004) An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 120:549–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Clark J, Burgess J, Harrison CM (2000) “I struggled with this money business”: respondents’ perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 33:45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Collett D (1991) Modelling binary data. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Colombo S, Calatrava-Requena J, Hanley N (2006) Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods. Ecol Econ 58:850–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Connelly NA, Knuth BA, Kay DL (2002) Public support for ecosystem restoration in the Hudson River Valley, USA. Environ Manag 29:467–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Costanza R, Kubiszewski I, Ervin D, Bluffstone R, Boyd J, Brown D, Chang H, Dujon V, Granek E, Polasky S, Shandas V, Yeakley A (2011) Valuing ecological systems and services. F1000 Biol Rep 3:14. doi: 10.3410/B3-14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Crow T, Brown T, De Young R (2006) The riverside and Berwyn experiences: contrasts in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban landscapes, and their effects on people. Landsc Urban Plan 75:282–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Daily GC, Matson PA (2008) Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9455–9456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. de Oca GSM, Bateman IJ (2006) Scope sensitivity in households’ willingness to pay for maintained and improved water supplies in a developing world urban area: investigating the influence of baseline supply quality and income distribution upon stated preferences in Mexico City. Water Resour Res 42:W07421. doi: 10.1029/2005WR003981 Google Scholar
  41. De Standaard (9 Jan 2009) Europees geld voor vallei van GroebegrachtGoogle Scholar
  42. De Valck J, Vlaeminck P, Broekx S, Liekens I, Aertsens J, Chen WY, Vranken L (2014) Benefits of clearing forest plantations to restore nature? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium. Landsc Urban Plan 125:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Del Saz-Salazar S, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2009) The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive: a comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Sci Total Environ 407:4574–4583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Diamond PA (1996) Testing the internal consistency of contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 30:337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Diamond P, Hausman J (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 8:45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Dutta M, Banerjee S, Husain Z (2007) Untapped demand for heritage: a contingent valuation study of Prinsep Ghat, Calcutta. Tour Manag 28:83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Echeverría J, Hanrahan M, Solórzano R (1995) Valuation of non-priced amenities provided by the biological resources within the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, Costa Rica. Ecol Econ 13:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. EU (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. The European ParliamentGoogle Scholar
  49. Farber S, Costanza R, Childers DL, Erickson J, Gross K, Grove JM, Hopkinson C, Kahn J, Pincetl S, Troy A, Warren P, Wilson M (2006) Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. Bioscience 56(2):117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Farr M, Stoeckl N, Beg RA (2014) The non-consumptive (tourism) ‘value’ of marine species in the northern section of the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Policy 43:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Fishbein MA, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  52. Flatley GW, Bennett JW (1996) Using contingent valuation to determine Australian tourists’ values for forest conservation in Vanuatu. Econ Anal Policy 26:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Fleming CM, Bowden M (2009) Web-based surveys as an alternative to traditional mail methods. J Environ Manag 90:284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Getzner M (2012) The regional context of infrastructure policy and environmental valuation: the importance of stakeholders’ opinion. J Environ Econ Policy 1:255–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Gómez-Baggethun R, Pérez MR (2011) Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog Phys Geogr 35:617–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  57. Holl KD, Howarth RB (2000) Paying for restoration. Restor Ecol 8:260–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Holmes TP, Bergstrom JC, Huszar E, Kask SB, Orr F III (2004) Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecol Econ 49:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Honey-Rosés J, Acuña V, Bardina M, Brozović N, Marcé R, Munné A, Sabater S, Termes M, Valero F, Vega À, Schneider DW (2013) Examining the demand for ecosystem services: the value of stream restoration for drinking water treatment managers in the Llobregat River, Spain. Ecol Econ 90:196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE (2002) A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manag 44(3):426–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hynes S, Hanley N (2009) The “Crex crex” lament: estimating landowners willingness to pay for corncrake conservation on Irish farmland. Biol Conserv 142:180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Iftekhar MS, Takama T (2008) Perceptions of biodiversity, environmental services, and conservation of planted mangroves: a case study on Nijhum Dwip Island, Bangladesh. Wetl Ecol Manag 16:119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ives CD, Kendal D (2013) Values and attitudes of the urban public towards peri-urban agricultural land. Land Use Policy 34:80–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Jacobsen JB, Hanley N (2009) Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? Environ Resour Econ 43:137–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Jacobsen JB, Boiesen JH, Thorsen BJ, Strange N (2008) What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity. Environ Resour Econ 39:247–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Jones N, Sophoulis CM, Malesios C (2008) Economics valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: a case study in Mitilini, Greece. J Socio-econ 37:2478–2491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ (2000) Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecol Econ 33:251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manag 22:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kim S-I, Habb T (2009) Temporal insensitivity of willingness to pay and implied discount rates. Resour Energy Econ 31:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Kontogianni A, Luck GW, Skourtos M (2010) Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: a potential approach to address the ‘endpoint problem’ and improve stated preference methods. Ecol Econ 69:1479–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kovacs KF, Larson DM (2008) Identifying individual discount rates and valuing public open space with stated preference-models. Land Econ 84:209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kozak J, Lant C, Shaikh S, Wang G (2011) The geography of ecosystem service value: the case of the Des Plaines and Cache River wetlands, Illinois. Appl Geogr 31:303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Kumar M, Kumar P (2008) Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 64:808–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lant CL, Roberts RS (1990) Greenbelts in Cornbelt: riparian wetlands, intrinsic values, and market failure. Environ Plan A 22:1375–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé E, Pirard R, Mermet L (2013) Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. J Environ Manag 119:208–219Google Scholar
  77. Lee C-K, Han S-Y (2002) Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks’ tourism resources using a contingent valuation method. Tour Manag 23:531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lindhjem H, Navrud S (2011) Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation? Ecol Econ 70:1628–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lindsey G (1994) Market models, protest bids, and outliers in contingent valuation. J Water Resour Plan Manag 120:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Loomis JB, White DS (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 18:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A (2000) Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol Econ 33:103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. MacMillan D, Hanley N, Lienhoop N (2006) Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine? Ecol Econ 60:299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Marta-Pedroso C, Freitas H, Domingos T (2007) Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: a case study of web based versus in-person interviews. Ecol Econ 62:388–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I et al (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7:e38970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. McFadden D (1994) Contingent valuation and social choice. Am J Agric Econ 76:689–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Menzel S, Teng J (2010) Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv Biol 24:907–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U (2006) Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecol Econ 57:583–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Meyerhoff J, Angeli D, Hartje V (2012) Valuing the benefits of implementing a national strategy on biological diversity—the case of Germany. Environ Sci Policy 23:109–119Google Scholar
  89. Miller JR (2005) Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol Evol 20:430–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using survey to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resource for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  91. Moore CC, Holmes TP, Bell KP (2011) An attribute-based approach to contingent valuation of forest protection programs. J For Econ 17:35–52Google Scholar
  92. Nielsen JS (2011) Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: a comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Resour Energy Econ 33:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Noonan DS (2003) Contingent valuation and cultural resources: a meta-analytic review of the literature. J Cult Econ 27:159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Ojeda MI, Mayer AS, Solomon BD (2008) Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta. Ecol Econ 65:155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Palmer MA, Filoso S (2009) Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets. Science 325:575–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Pate J, Loomis J (1997) The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Land Econ 20:199–207Google Scholar
  97. Pearce D (1998) Cost–benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 14:84–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Pearce D, Mourato S, Navrud S, Ready RC (2002) Review of existing studies, their policy use and future research needs. In: Navrud S, Ready R (eds) Valuing cultural heritage: applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, temples and artifacts. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 257–270Google Scholar
  99. Portney P (1994) The contingent valuation debate: why should economists care? J Econ Perspect 8:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Reaves DW, Kramer RA, Holmes TP (1999) Does question format matter? Valuing an endangered species. Environ Resour Econ 14:365–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Redford KH, Adams WM (2009) Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conserv Biol 23:785–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Rey-Benayas JM, Newton AC, Diaz A, Bullock JM (2009) Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325:1121–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Richardson L, Loomis J (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 68(5):1535–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Robertson M, Nichols P, Horwitz P, Bradby K, MacKintosh D (2000) Environmental narratives and the need for multiple perspectives to restore degraded landscapes in Australia. Ecosyst Health 6:119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Rogge E, Nevens F, Gulinck H (2007) Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plan 82:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Rowe RD, Schulze WD, Biffle WS (1996) A test for payment card bias. J Environ Econ Manag 31:178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Ryan M, Scott DA, Donaldson C (2004) Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. J Health Econ 23:237–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Schaich H (2009) Local residents’ perception of floodplain restoration measures in Luxembourg’s Syr Valley. Landsc Urban Plan 93:20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Schläpfer F (2006) Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 57:415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Schneiders A, Wils C, Verheyen R (1999) The use of ecological information in the selection of quality objectives for river conservation and restoration in Flanders (Belgium). Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 2:137–154Google Scholar
  111. Smith JW, Moore RL (2011) Perceptions of community benefits from two wild and scenic rivers. Environ Manag 47:814–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Spash CL, Urama K, Burton R, Kenyon W, Shannon P, Hill G (2009) Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecol Econ 68:955–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Stevens TH, DeCoteau NE, Willis CE (1997) Sensitivity of contingent valuation to alternative payment schedules. Land Econ 73:140–148Google Scholar
  114. Stone K, Bhat M, Bhatta R, Mathews A (2008) Factors influencing community participation in mangroves restoration: a contingent valuation analysis. Ocean Coast Manag 51:476–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Stumborg BE, Baerenklau KA, Bishop RC (2001) Nonpoint source pollution and present values: a contingent valuation study of Lake Mendota. Rev Agric Econ 23:120–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Tallis H, Goldman R, Uhl M, Brosi B (2009) Integrating conservation and development in the field: implementing ecosystem service projects. Front Ecol Environ 7:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: ecological and economic foundation. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  118. Turnbull BW (1976) The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped, censored and truncated data. J R Stat Soc B 38:290–295Google Scholar
  119. Turner RK, Daily GC (2008) The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. Environ Resour Econ 39:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Urama KC, Hodge I (2006) Participatory environmental education and willingness to pay for river basin management: empirical evidence from Nigeria. Land Econ 82:542–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF, van den Berg B, Koopmanschap MA (2006) With a little help from an anchor: discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation. J Socioecon 35:836–853Google Scholar
  122. Veisten K, Hoen HF, Navrud S, Strand J (2004) Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J Environ Manag 73:317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Venkatachalam L (2004) The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ Impact Assess 24:89–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Wainger LA, King DM, Mack RN, Price EW, Maslin T (2010) Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decision? Ecol Econ 69:978–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Weber MA, Steward S (2009) Public values for river restoration options on the Middle Rio Grande. Restor Ecol 17:762–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Xu Z, Cheng G, Zhang Z, Su Z, Loomis J (2003) Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecol Econ 44:345–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Zhao J, Liu Q, Lin L, Lv H, Wang Y (2013) Assessing the comprehensive restoration of an urban river: an integrated application of contingent valuation in Shanghai, China. Sci Total Environ 458–460:517–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy Y. Chen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joris Aertsens
    • 2
  • Inge Liekens
    • 2
  • Steven Broekx
    • 2
  • Leo De Nocker
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of GeographyThe University of Hong KongPokfulamHong Kong
  2. 2.Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO)MolBelgium

Personalised recommendations