Abstract
This study proposes the valuation of wetland functions as an alternative to the conventional approach to wetland valuation, in order to derive indicators for decision-making in wetland management. It is illustrated that these functions can be valuated in terms of the goods and services they provide to society. Using a functional approach, the functions are identified and the goods and services they provide are explicitly allocated among them; then, the latter are valuated with the Contingent Valuation method. Statistical analysis of the data provides welfare measures that reflect the value of these functions. It is argued that the values of separate functions are more useful in policy-making than their aggregated value.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A tool for the assessment of wetland functions and for predictions on functional performance under alternative management scenarios has been developed in EVALUWET, an integrated EU project. Central to this are the Functional Assessment Procedures (Jannsen et al. 2005).
Protest votes are present when respondents who might place a non-zero value to a function state zero WTP because of disagreement to the payment vehicle. For this reason, such votes are removed from the sample. A “no” answer to the payment principle is considered a protest vote if the respondent believes that the state is responsible for financing the restoration.
References
Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Contingent valuation methodology report, report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58:4602–4614
Azavedo C, Herriges JA, Kling CL (2000) Iowa wetland: perceptions and values. Staff report 00-SR 91. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, USA
Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD (1995) Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecol Econ 12:161–179
Bergstrom JC, Boyle KJ, Job CA, Kealy MJ (1996) Assessing the economic benefits of ground water for environmental policy decisions. Water Res Bull 32:279–291
Brouwer R, Langford IH, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (1999) A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Reg Environ Change 1:47–57
Brown TC, Ajzen I, Hrubes D (2003) Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 46:353–361
Burgess D (2000) Determining society’s values for programmes to improve the welfare of farm animals in the UK. PhD thesis, Queen’s University Belfast
Carson RT (2000) Contingent valuation: a user’s guide. Environ Sci Technol 34:1413–1418
Carson RT, Mitchell RC (1995) Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manage 28:155–173
Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 8(4):45–64
Dupont DP (2003) CVM embedding effects when there are active, potentially active and passive users of environmental goods. Environ Resour Econ 25(3):319–341
Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66:332–341
Hanemann WM (1989) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. Am J Agric Econ 71:1057–1061
Hoehn JP, Randall A (1987) A satisfactory benefit–cost indicator from contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 14:226–247
Jannsen R, Goosen H, Verhoeven ML, Verhoeven JTA, Omtzigt AQA, Maltby E (2005) Decision support for integrated wetland management. Environ Model Softw 20:215–229
Kahneman D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manage 22:57–70
Krinsky I, Robb AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719
Lazaridou T, Zalidis G, Papadimos D, Bilas G, Takavakoglou V, Katsavouni S (2001) Interventions for the rehabilitation of the functions of the Cheimaditida–Zazari wetlands. Greek Biotope/Wetland Centre, Thessaloniki, 232 pp
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 33:103–117
Maltby E, Holdgate M, Acreman M, Weir A (1999) Ecosystems management: questions for science and society. Royal Holloway Institute for Environmental Research, Virginia Water
Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington
National Research Council (1997) Valuing ground water: economic concepts and approaches. National Academy, Washington
Nunes PALD, Schokkaert E (2003) Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 45:231–245
Parry-Dziegielewska DA, Mendelsohn R (2005) Valuing air quality in Poland. Environ Resour Econ 30(2):131–163
Psychoudakis A, Ragkos A, Seferlis M (2005) An assessment of wetland management scenarios: the case of Zazari–Cheimaditida, Greece. Water Supply 5(6):115–123
Randall A, Hoehn JP (1996) Embedding in market demand systems. J Environ Econ Manage 30:369–380
Steever WJ, Callaghan-Perry M, Searles A, Stevens T, Svoboda P (1998) Public attitudes and values for wetland conservation in New South Wales, Australia. J Environ Manage 54:1–14
Teal GA, Loomis JB (2000) Effects of gender and parental status on the economic valuation of increasing wetlands, reducing wildlife contamination and increasing salmon populations. Soc Nat Resour 13:1–14
Turner RK, van der Bergh JCJM, Soderquist T, Barendregt A, van der Straaten J, Maltby E, van Ierland EC (2000) Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecol Econ 35:7–23
Veisten K, Hoen HF, Strand J (2004) Sequencing and the adding-up property in contingent valuation of endangered Species: are contingent non-use values economic values? Environ Resour Econ 29(4):419–433
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the European Union, through EVALUWET project (European Valuation and Assessment Tools Supporting Wetland Ecosystem Legislation, 5th Framework Programme, Key Action “Sustainable Management and Quality of Water,” Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development, Contract No. EVK1-CT-2000-00070).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ragkos, A., Psychoudakis, A., Christofi, A. et al. Using a functional approach to wetland valuation: the case of Zazari–Cheimaditida. Reg Environ Change 6, 193–200 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-006-0019-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-006-0019-8