Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The valuation of forest carbon services by Mexican citizens: the case of Guadalajara city and La Primavera biosphere reserve

  • Original Study
  • Published:
Regional Environmental Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Adequate demand for, and recognition of, forest carbon services is critical to success of market mechanisms for forestry-based conservation and climate change mitigation. National and voluntary carbon-offsetting schemes are emerging as alternatives to international compliance markets. We developed a choice experiment to explore determinants of local forest carbon-offset valuation. A total of 963 citizens from Guadalajara in Mexico were asked to consider a purchase of voluntary offsets from the neighbouring Biosphere Reserve of La Primavera and from two alternative more distant locations: La Michilía in the state of Durango and El Cielo in Tamaulipas. Surveys were applied in market stall sessions and online using two different sampling methods: the snowball technique and via a market research company. The local La Primavera site attracted higher participation and valuation than the more distant sites. However, groups particularly interested in climate change mitigation or cost may accept cost-efficient options in the distant sites. Mean implicit carbon prices obtained ranged from $6.79 to $15.67/tCO2eq depending on the surveying methodology and profile of respondents. Survey application mode can significantly affect outcome of the experiment. Values from the market stall sessions were higher than those from the snowball and market research samples obtained online; this may be linked to greater cooperation associated with personal interaction and collective action. In agreement with the literature, we found that valuation of forest carbon offsets is associated with cognitive, ethical, behavioural, geographical and economic factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There were 67 protests and confused respondents in the market stall sample (20 %), 78 in the snowball (16 %), and 19 in the market research sample (12 %).

  2. The percentage of the population focused on location, carbon or cost refers to the percentage of complete questionnaires (Table 5).

  3. As mentioned in the previous section the groups focused on carbon and cost may give up a project in La Primavera if cost-efficient options are not available locally, as shown by the negative signs for La Primavera in rows 9 and 10 in Table 3. We use the valuation figures from the group focused on location only as proxy for the local benefits of La Primavera.

  4. These figures can be computed as (La Primavera–La Michilía)/Carbon.

References

  • Achtnicht M (2011) Do environmental benefits matter? Evidence from choice experiments among house owners in Germany. Ecol Econ 70:2191–2200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adaman F, Karali N, Kumbaroglu G, Or I, Özkaynak B, Zenginobuz U (2011) What determines urban households’ willingness to pay for CO2 emission reductions in Turkey: a contingent valuation survey. Energy Pol 39:689–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akter S, Bennett J (2009) Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the carbon pollution reduction scheme in Australia. Prepared for: Australian agricultural and resource economics society: 53rd annual conference 2009

  • Akter S, Brouwer R, Brander L, Van Beukering P (2009) Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets. Ecol Econ 68:1858–1863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Economic Issues 8:83–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Balderas Torres A, Marchant R, Lovett JC, Smart JCR, Tipper R (2010) Analysis of the carbon sequestration costs of afforestation and reforestation agroforestry practices and the use of cost curves to evaluate their potential for implementation of climate change mitigation. Ecol Econ 69:469–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg S, Möser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psych 27:14–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(2):450–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bator FM (1958) The anatomy of market failure. Quart J Econ 72:351–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett J, Adamowicz V (2001) Some fundamentals of environmental choice modellings. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Chap 3. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 37–69

  • Bennett J, Blamey R (2001) Introduction. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Chap 1. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 1–10

  • Bergmann A, Hanley N, Wright R (2006) Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Pol 34:1004–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk RA, Fovell RG (1999) Public perceptions of climate change: a “willingness to pay assessment”. Clim Change 41:413–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Weimer DL (2004) Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples. J Environ Econ Manag 47:331–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berumen (2005) Presentacion “Estudio de Opinion sobre el Bosque La Primavera.” Berumen y Asociados S.A. de C. V. Junio de 2005, Mexico

  • Brainard JS, Bateman IJ, Lovett AA (2009) The social value of carbon sequestered in Great Britain’s woodlands. Ecol Econ 68:1257–1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brey R, Riera P, Mogas J (2007) Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: an application to Spanish forests. Ecol Econ 64:305–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Brander L, Van Beukering P (2008) “A convenient truth”: air travel passengers’ willingness to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Clim Change 90:299–313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cai B, Cameron TA, Gerdes GR (2011) Distal order effects in stated preference surveys. Ecol Econ 70:1101–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron T (2005) Individual option prices for climate change mitigation. J Public Econ 89:283–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron T, Englin J (1997) Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods. J Environ Econ Manage 33:296–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson F, Kataria M, Krupnick A, Lampi E, Lofgren A, Qin P, Chung S, Sterner T (2010) Paying for mitigation: a multiple country study. Resources for the future, discussion papers

  • Christie M, Hanley N, Hynes S (2007) Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behavior methods. J Forest Econ 13:75–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CONAFOR (2008) Expo Forestal: La importancia del Mercado Voluntario de Carbono. Comisión Nacional Forestal Unidad de Comunicación Social B29-2008. http://www.conafor.gob.mx/portal/docs/secciones/comunicacion/B29-2008.pdf. Accessed 1 Jan 2012

  • CONANP (2000) Natural protected area management plan for La Primavera. Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas. SEMARNAT, Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly H (1990) Commentary: toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong BHJ, Montoya-Gómez G, Nelson K, Soto-Pinto L, Taylor J, Tipper R (1995) Community forest management and carbon sequestration: a feasibility study from Chiapas, México. Interciencia 20:409–416

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong BHJ, Tipper R, Montoya-Gomez G (2000) An economic analysis of the potential for carbon sequestration by forests: evidence from southern Mexico. Ecol Econ 33:313–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong BHJ, Ochoa Gaona S, Quechulpa Montalvo S, Esquivel Bazán E, Pérez Hernández N (2004) Economics of agroforestry carbon sequestration. In: Alavalapati JRR, Mercer DE (eds) Valuing agroforestry systems, Chap 7. Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 123–138

  • Diederich J, Goeschl T (2011) Willingness to pay for individual greenhouse gas emissions reductions: evidence from a large field experiment. University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics, discussion paper series no. 517

  • Dietz T, Dan A, Shwom R (2007) Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology 72:185–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Universal (2005) Newspaper. Consume incendio el bosque La Primavera. April 30th, 2005. http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=280968&tabla=notas. Mexico. Accessed on-line on 10 Feb 2012

  • Ethier RG, Poe GL, Schulze WD, Clark J (2000) A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Econ 76:54–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farley J (2010) Conservation through the economics lens. Environ Manage 45:26–38. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9232-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Galindo LM (2009) La economía del cambio climático en México: síntesis. SHCP/SEMARNAT, México

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (1993) Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. J Risk Uncertainty 7:177–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources. The econometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton K, Bayon R, Turner G, Higgins D (2007) State of the voluntary carbon markets 2007: picking up steam. Ecosystem marketplace and new carbon finance. Available at http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/StateoftheVoluntaryCarbonMarket17July.pdf. Accessed 1 Sep 2011

  • Hausman JA, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52:1219–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hersch J, Viscusi WK (2006) The generational divide in support for environmental policies: European evidence. Clim Change 77:121–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN (1987) Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behaviour: a metaanalysis. J Environ Educ 18:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne P, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2005) Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecol Manag 207:189–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INEGI (2001) Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales de México. Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, México

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson E, Nemet GF (2010) Willingness to pay for climate policy: a review of estimates. La Follette school working paper no. 2010–2011. University of Wisconsin, Madison

  • Johnston RJ, Duke JM (2009) Willingness to pay for land preservation across states and jurisdictional scale: implications for benefit transfer. Land Econ 85(2):217–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (1986) Comments. Valuing environmental goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman and Allanheld Publishers, Totowa, pp 185–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Koellner T, Sell J, Navarro G (2010) Why and how much are firms willing to invest in ecosystem services from tropical forests? A comparison of international and Costa Rican firms. Ecol Econ 69:2127–2139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krinsky I, Robb A (1986) Approximating the statistical properties of elasticities’. Rev Econ Stat 68:715–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landell-Mills N, Porras IT (2002) Silver bullet or fool’s gold: a global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact in the poor. International Institute for Environment and Development, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton DF, Brown G (2000) Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev Econ Stat 82:616–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Berrens R, Bohara A, Jenkins-Smith H, Silva C, Weimer D (2004) Would developing country commitments affect US households’ support for a modified Kyoto Protocol? Ecol Econ 48:329–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Berrens RP, Herron KG (2009) Public support for reducing US reliance on fossil fuels: investigating household willingness to pay for energy research and development. Ecol Econ 68:731–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linacre N, Kossoy A, Ambrosi P (2011) State and trends of the carbon market 2011. The World Bank, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Longo A, Hoyos D, Markandya A (2012) Willingness to pay for ancillary benefits of climate change mitigation. Environ Resour Econ 51:119–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis J, Ekstrand E (1998) Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican Spotted Owl. Ecol Econ 27:29–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere J (2001) Choice experiments: an overview of concepts and issues. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Chap 2. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 13–36

  • Lu JL, Shon ZY (2012) Exploring airline passengers’ willingness to pay for carbon offsets. Transp Res Part D 17:124–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynne GD (2002) Agricultural industrialization: a metaeconomics look at the metaphors by which we live. Rev Agr Econ 24:410–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics, Chap 4. Academic Press, New York, pp 105–142

  • MacKerron GJ, Egerton C, Gaskell C, Parpia A, Mourato S (2009) Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high-)flying young adults in the UK. Energy Pol 37:1372–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan DC, Philip L, Hanley ND, Alvarez-Farizo B (2002) Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group based approaches. Ecol Econ 43:49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan DC, Hanley N, Lienhoop N (2006) Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine? Ecol Econ 60:299–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala GS (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Markowski-Lindsay M, Stevens T, Kittredge DB, Butler BJ, Catanzaro P, Dickinson BJ (2011) Barriers to Massachusetts forest landowner participation in carbon markets. Ecol Econ 71:180–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff J, Liebe U, Hartje V (2009) Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: evidence from two choice experiments in Germany. J Forest Econ 15:37–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nomura N, Akai M (2004) Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Appl Energy 78:453–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohdoko T (2008) Comparison of complete combinatorial and likelihood ratio tests: empirical findings from residential choice experiments. Kobe University, Japan. Selected paper prepared for presentation at the American agricultural economics association, annual meeting, Orlando FL, July 2008

  • Ostrom E (2000) Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J Econ Perspect 14:137–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovchinnikova NV, Czap HJ, Lynne GD, Larmier CW (2009) “I don’t want to be selling my soul”: two experiments in environmental economics. J Socio-Econ 39:221–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (2003) In: Pagiola S, Bishop J, Landell-Mills N (eds) La Venta de Servicios Ambientales Forestales. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Comisión Nacional Forestal, Mexico, pp 407–455

  • PECC (2008) Programa Especial de Cambio Climático. Gobierno Federal, México

    Google Scholar 

  • Perdan S, Azapagic A (2011) Carbon trading: current schemes and future for developments. Energy Pol 39:6040–6054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Stanley M, Hamilton K, Marcello T, Sjardin M (2011) State of the voluntary carbon markets 2011. Ecosystem marketplace/forest trends. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, US

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrolia DR, Bhattacharjee S, Hudson D, Herndon CW (2010) Do Americans want ethanol? A comparative contingent-valuation study of willingness to pay for E-10 and E-85. Energy Econ 32:121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plan Vivo (2010) Website www.planvivo.org. Accessed on the 10 Feb 2012

  • Poe G, Giraud K, Loomis J (2005) Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am J Agr Econ 87:353–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presidencia (2007) Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2007–2012. Presidencia de la República de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. http://pnd.calderon.presidencia.gob.mx/index.php?page=bosques-y-selvas. México

  • Richards K, Stokes C (2004) A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: a dozen years of research. Clim Change 63:1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe J, Bennett J (2001) Framing effects. In: Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, Chap 10. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 202–224

  • Rolfe J, Bennett J, Louviere J (2000) Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecol Econ 35:289–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson PA (1954) The pure theory of public expenditure. Rev Econ Stat 36:387–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sautter J, Ovchinnikova NV, Kruse C, Lynne GD (2011) Farmers’ decisions regarding carbon sequestration: a metaeconomic view. Society Natural Res 24:133–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa R, Gilbride TJ, Campbell T, Hensher DA (2009) Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. Eur Rev Agr Econ 36(2):151–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SEMARNAT (2009) México. Cuarta comunicación nacional ante la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático. SEMARNAT, México

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon BD, Johnson NH (2009) Valuing climate protection through willingness to pay for biomass ethanol. Ecol Econ 68:2137–2144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterk W, Mersmann F (2011) “Domestic emission trading systems in developing countries—state of play and future prospects” JIKO Policy Paper 2/2011. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (2006) Stern review on the economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurston HW (2006) Non-market valuation on the internet. In: Alberini A, Kahn JR (eds) Handbook of contingent valuation, Chap 12. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 265–291

  • Tseng WC, Chen CC (2008) Valuing the potential economic impact of climate change on the Taiwan trout. Ecol Econ 65:282–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN (2010) Report of the secretary-general’s high-level advisory group on climate change financing. United Nations, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (2009) Decision 4/CP.15: methodological guidance for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forest and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries. FCCC/CP/11/Add. 1

  • UNFCCC (2010) Annex 5: policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forest and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries. FCCC/CP/2010/2

  • UNFCCC (2011) Draft decision [-/CP.17] Outcome of the Ad Hoc working group on long-term cooperative action under the convention. C. Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forests carbon stocks in developing countries. http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov_2011/decisions/application/pdf/cop17_lcaoutcome.pdf. Accessed on line 5 Feb 2012

  • Viscusi WK, Zeckhauser RJ (2006) The perception and valuation of the risks of climate change: a rational and behavioral blend. Clim Change 77:151–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss JP (2007) Innovation processes in governance: the development of ‘emissions trading’ as a new policy instrument. Sci Public Pol 34:329–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsch H, Kuhling J (2009) Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: the role of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecol Econ 69:166–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiser RH (2007) Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecol Econ 62:19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler A, Schwarzkopf J, Hoffmann VH (2012) Stated versus revealed knowledge: determinants of offsetting CO2 emissions from fuel consumption in vehicle use. Energy Pol 40:422–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Georgina Espinosa, Sebastián Gradilla, Francisco Talavera, Ivette Flores, Rodolfo Aceves, Sara Torres, Renata Romo, Ricardo Ontiveros, Adolfo Macías, Álvaro Ochoa, Primrose Lovett, Luis N., Omar A., Paola Agredano, Rocío González, Juan P. Gutiérrez, Lydia Hernández, the executive office of La Primavera and also the people from Guadalajara for their collaboration. We also thank Jim Smart, Enrico de Minin, Klaus Hubacek, the participants on the session on PES during the ISEE 2010 conference in Oldenburg and two anonymous reviewers for their comments. The research was funded by the Darwin Initiative (Project: 17027 to JCL and ABT); Arturo Balderas Torres acknowledges scholarships granted by CONACYT and SEP.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSTM, Twente Centre for Studies in Technology and Sustainable Development, University of Twente, Postbus 217, 7500, AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Arturo Balderas Torres, Margaret Skutsch & Jon C. Lovett

  2. Ingenieria Ambiental, PTI, Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente (ITESO), 45090, Tlaquepaque, CP, Mexico

    Arturo Balderas Torres

  3. Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7UH, UK

    Douglas C. MacMillan

  4. Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), antigua carretera a Pátzcuaro 8701, 58190, Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico

    Margaret Skutsch

  5. The School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    Jon C. Lovett

Authors
  1. Arturo Balderas Torres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas C. MacMillan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Margaret Skutsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jon C. Lovett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arturo Balderas Torres.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Table 6 Spearman’s rho bivariate correlation between attitudinal and individual characteristics and protest responses
Full size table
Table 7 Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the sub-samples
Full size table
Table 8 Results of the Hausmann-McFadden test when the different options are removed
Full size table
Table 9 Results of the Poe test to identify differences in implicit prices
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Balderas Torres, A., MacMillan, D.C., Skutsch, M. et al. The valuation of forest carbon services by Mexican citizens: the case of Guadalajara city and La Primavera biosphere reserve. Reg Environ Change 13, 661–680 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0336-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0336-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation