Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 56, Issue 4, pp 499–519 | Cite as

Adjusting for Cultural Differences in International Benefit Transfer

  • Stephen HynesEmail author
  • Daniel Norton
  • Nick Hanley


Values for non-market goods can be expected to be sensitive to variations in the cultural contexts of beneficiaries. However, little progress has been made to date in adapting benefit transfer (BT) procedures for cultural variations. Using information from a study that ranked 62 societies with respect to nine attributes of their cultures, we develop an index that is then used to re-weight multiple coastal ecosystem service value estimates. We examine whether these culturally-adjusted BT estimates are statistically different than simply transferring the income-adjusted mean transfer estimates for each coastal ecosystem service from international study sites to the policy site. We find that once differences in income levels have been accounted for, the differences in cultural dimensions between study and policy sites actually have little impact on the magnitude of our transfer estimates. This is not a surprising result given that the majority of the study site estimates are derived from countries that share many ethnic, linguistic and other cultural similarities to the policy site. However, benefit adjustments based on cultural factors could have a much higher impacts in settings different to that investigated here.


Coastal zone resources Ecosystem services Cultural index International benefit transfer 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alberini A, Cropper M, Tsu-Tan F, Krupnick A, Jin-Tan L, Shaw D, Harrington W (1997) Valuing health effects of air pollution in developing countries: the case of Taiwan. J Environ Econ Manag 34: 107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N (2006) Improving the process of valuing non-market benefits: combining citizens’ juries with choice modelling. Land Econ 82(3): 465–478Google Scholar
  3. Barbier EB, Hacker S, Kennedy C, Koch E, Stier A, Silliman B (2011) The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol Monogr 81(2): 169–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barry L, van Rensburg T, Hynes S (2011) Improving the recreational value of Ireland’s coastal resources: a contingent behavioural application. Mar Policy 35: 764–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton D, Mourato S (2003) Transferring the benefits of avoided health Effects from Water pollution between Portugal and Costa Rica. Environ Dev Econ 8: 351–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman I, Ennew C, Lovett A, Rayner A (1999) Modelling and mapping agricultural output values using farm specific details and environmental databases. J Agric Econ 50: 488–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateman I, Jones A, Nishikawa N, Brouwer R (2000) Benefits transfer in theory and practice: a review and some new studies. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE) and School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateman I, Day B, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60: 450–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bateman I, Brouwer R, Cranford M, Hime S, Ozdemiroglu E, Phang Z, Provins A (2009) Valuing environmental impacts: practical guidelines for the use of value transfer in policy and project appraisal. Value transfer guidelines. Eftec, London. Submitted to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Dec 2009.
  10. Beaumont NJ, Austen MC, Atkins JP, Burdon D, Degraer S, Dentinho TP, Derous S, Holm P, Horton T, van Ierland E, Marboe AH, Starkey DJ, Townsend M, Zarzycki T (2007) Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: implications for the ecosystem approach. Mar Pollut Bull 54: 253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blamey R, Common M, Quiggin J (1995) Respondnts to contingent valuation surveys: consumers or citizens?. Aust J Agric Econ 39: 263–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brenner J, Jiménez J, Sardá R, Garola A (2010) An assessment of the nonmarket value of the ecosystem services provided by the Catalan coastal zone, Spain. Ocean Coast Manag 53: 27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brondizio E, Gatzweiler F, Zagrafos C et al (2010) Socio-cultural context of ecosystem and biodiversity valuation. In: McNeely J et al (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB). United Nations Environmental Programme and the European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. CEC (2000) Directive of the European parliament and of the council 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Communities L327/1:72Google Scholar
  15. Colombo S, Hanley N (2008) How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Econ 84: 128–147Google Scholar
  16. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neil R, Paruelo J, Raskin R, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. CSO (2010) Cenus 2006—interactive tables. Accessed 28 June 2010
  18. Devillers P, Devillers-Terschuren J, Ledant J (1991) CORINE biotopes manual: a method to identify and describe consistently sites of major importance for nature conservation. Data specifications—part 2 (EUR 12587/3 EN). Commission of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  19. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Ann Rev Environ Resour 30: 335–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) (2004) A national survey of water-based leisure activities in Ireland 2003. Accessed 17 July 2010 (online)
  21. Failte Ireland (2011) Tourism regions data. Accessed 12 Aug 2011 (online)
  22. Furnham A, Kirkcaldy B, Lynn R (1994) National attitudes to competitiveness, money and work amongst young people: first, second and third world differences. Hum Relat 47: 119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garpe K (2008) Ecosystem services provided by the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak. Swedish EPA, Naturvårdsverket, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghermandi A, van den Bergh J, Brander L, de Groot H, Nunes P (2010) The values of natural and human-made wetlands: a meta-analysis. Water Resour Res 46: W12516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanley N, Barbier E (2009) Pricing nature: cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy-making. Edward Elgar, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanley N, Ready R, Colombo S, Watson F, Stewart M, Bergmann EA (2008) The impacts of knowledge of the past on preferences for future landscape change. J Environ Manag 90: 1404–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henrich J, Boyd R, Bowles S, Camerer C, Fehr E, Gintis H, McElreath R (2001) In search of homo economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Am Econ Rev 91: 73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. Hornborg A, McNeill J, Martinez-Alier J (2007) Rethinking environmental history: world-system history and global environmental change. Altamira Press, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  30. House R, Hanges P, Javidan M, Dorfman P, Gupta V (2004) Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CAGoogle Scholar
  31. Howley P, Hynes S, O’Donoghue C (2010) The citizen versus consumer distinction: An exploration of individuals’ preferences in contingent valuation studies. Ecol Econ 69: 1524–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoyos D, Mariel P, Fernandez-Macho J (2009) The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: some empirical evidence. Ecol Econ 68: 2372–2381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hussain S, Winrow-Griffen A, Moran D, Robinson L, Fofana A, Paramor O, Frid C (2010) An ex ante ecological economic assessment of the benefits arising from marine protected areas in the UK. Ecol Econ 69: 828–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hynes S, Hanley N, O’Donoghue C (2007) Using spatial microsimulation techniques in the aggregation of environmental benefit values: an application to corncrake conservation on Irish farmland. In: Envecon 2007: applied environmental economics conference, organised by the UK Network of Environmental Economists (UKNEE), London, Friday, 23 March 2007Google Scholar
  35. Hynes S, Hanley N, O’Donoghue C (2010) A combinatorial optimization approach to non-market environmental benefit aggregation via simulated populations. Land Econ 86: 345–362Google Scholar
  36. Hynes S, Scully C, Browne A (2011) Valuing marine environmental characteristics associated with changes to the EU bathing water directive. Paper presented at the 3rd annual Beaufort marine socio-economic symposium, at the National University of Ireland, Galway, 11 Nov 2011Google Scholar
  37. Inglehart R, Baker W (2000) Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values. Am Sociol Rev 65: 19–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacobsen JB, Hanley N (2009) Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation?. Environ Resour Econ 43: 137–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnston R, Rosenberger R (2010) Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. J Econ Surv 24: 479–510Google Scholar
  40. Lindhjem H, Navrud S (2009) Asking for individual or household willingness to pay for environmental goods? Implications for aggregate welfare measures. Environ Resour Econ 43: 11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu S (2007) Valuing ecosystem services: an ecological economic approach. PhD thesis, Faculty of the Graduate College, The University of VermontGoogle Scholar
  42. Loomis J (1992) The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: benefit function transfer. Water Resour Res 28: 701–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McVittie A, Moran D (2010) Valuing the non-use benefits of marine conservation zones: an application to the UK Marine Bill. Ecol Econ 70: 413–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MEA: (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Services) (2005) Surveys of sensitive subtidal benthic communities in Kilkieran Bay and Islands SAC and Kingstown Bay SAC. Report prepared by MERC Consultants.,6636,en.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2010 (online)
  46. NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Services) (2010) Galway—special areas of conservation. Accessed 23 July 2010
  47. Navrud S (2007) Practical tools for benefit transfer in Denmark—guidelines and examples. Report to the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  48. Navrud S, Ready R (2007) Environmental value transfer: issues and methods. Springer, Kluwer, DordrectCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nunes PALD, Blaeij A, ven den Bergh J (2009) Decomposition of warm glow for multiple stakeholders: stated choice valuation of shellfish policy. Land Econ 85(3): 485–499Google Scholar
  50. Ojea E, Loureiro M (2007) Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife. Ecol Econ 63: 807–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pearce D (2003) conceptual framework for analysing the distributive impacts of environmental policies. Report prepared for the OECD Environment Directorate workshop on the distribution of benefits and costs of environmental policies, Paris, March 2003. Accessed 23 Aug 2011
  52. Posthuma R (2009) National culture and union membership: a cultural-cognitive perspective. Ind Relat 64: 507–529Google Scholar
  53. Pouta E (2004) Attitude and belief questions as a source of context effect in a contingent valuation survey. J Econ Psychol 25: 229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ready R, Navrud S, Day B, Dubourg R, Machado F, Mourato S, Spanninks F, Rodriquez M (2004) Benefit transfer in Europe: how reliable are transfers between countries?. Environ Resour Econ 29: 67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ronen S, Shenkar O (1985) Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review and synthesis. Acad Manag Rev 10: 435–454Google Scholar
  56. Rosenberger R, Stanley T (2006) Measurement, generalization, and publication: sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecol Econ 60: 372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rozan A (2004) Benefit transfer: a comparison of WTP for air quality between France and Germany. Environ Resour Econ 29: 295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shi X, Wang J (2011) Cultural distance between China and US across GLOBE model and the Hofstede model. Int Bus Manag 2: 1–7Google Scholar
  59. Shrestha R, Loomis J (2001) Testing a meta-analysis model for benefit transfer in international outdoor recreation. Ecol Econ 39: 67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith P (2002) Culture’s consequences: something old and something new. Hum Relat 55: 119–137Google Scholar
  61. Spash C (2000) Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland recreation. Ecol Econ 34: 195–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Spash CL, Vatn A (2006) Transferring environmental value estimates: issues and alternatives. Ecol Econ 60: 379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stern P, Dietz T, Guagnano G (1995) The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. J Environ Econ Manag 26: 271–292Google Scholar
  64. Troy A, Wilson MA (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecol Econ 60: 435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Turner R, Bateman I, Adger W (2000) Economics of coastal and water resources: valuing environmental function, studies in ecological economics series, vol 3. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilk R, Cliggett L (2006) Economies and cultures: foundations of economic anthropology. Westview Press, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilson M, Liu S (2008) Evaluating the non-market value of ecosystem goods and services provided by coastal and nearshore marine systems. In: Patterson M, Glavovic B (eds) Ecological economics of the oceans and coasts. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MAGoogle Scholar
  68. World Values Survey Association (2009) World values survey 1981–2008 official aggregate v.20090901. Aggregate file producer: ASEP/JDS, Madrid.
  69. Zhai G, Suzuki T (2009) International benefit transfer related to coastal zones: evidence from Northeast Asia. Mar Resour Econ 24: 171–186Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SEMRU (Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit), J.E. Cairnes School of Business and EconomicsNational University of Ireland, GalwayGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Division of EconomicsUniversity of StirlingStirlingScotland

Personalised recommendations