Abstract
Abandonment of traditional farming practices, such as hay-making and pasturing, has resulted in rapid loss of open wet grassland habitats in Europe. The globally threatened Aquatic Warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola L.) is a bird species that occurs almost exclusively in open fen mires, which have virtually disappeared in Western Europe, but still persist locally in Eastern Europe. Focusing on the world’s most important breeding site for Aquatic Warbler, the Zvaniec fen mire in Belarus, we estimated Belarusian citizens’ willingness-to-pay for adequate conservation management of this fen mire and its focal species the Aquatic Warbler. Results from a discrete choice experiment indicated that Belarusian citizens were willing to pay for appropriate conservation programmes of the Zvaniec fen mire. Scything and mechanical mowing were preferred compared to controlled burning, and especially over herbicide treatment of encroaching shrubs. Conservation management was preferred over legal protection of wetland areas without management. Respondents considered such passive conservation to be insufficient to maintain open fen mire habitat and gave a higher priority to active conservation management programmes. These preferences are consistent with evidence-based knowledge about what is effective conservation management for the Aquatic Warbler. Given the gradual disappearance of Europe’s traditional cultural landscapes, we discuss the challenge to fund the maintenance of this biocultural biodiversity legacy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Intensification of agriculture and forestry, and expansion of transport infrastructure have drastically intensified land management in Western Europe (e.g. Angelstam et al. 2004, 2017; Donald et al. 2006). This has led to alteration, fragmentation and loss of a wide range of habitats (Fahrig 2003), which cause decline in biological diversity. Both natural wetlands and wet grasslands of cultural origin in Western Europe are good examples of this process (Thorup 2005; Schekkerman et al. 2008; Roodbergen et al. 2011; Manton 2016; Manton and Angelstam 2018). For long time farming practices based on grazing and hay-making thus provided habitats for a range of bird species (Thorup 1998; Manton 2016). However, due to intensified land management practices and subsequent conversion and loss of habitat, wader bird populations have declined over the past four decades (International Wader Study Group 2003; Ottvall and Smith 2006). Additionally, modification of traditional farming practices, drainage and altered hydrological regimes, climate change, and increased predators pressure have been put forward as factors contributing to the decline in wetland bird populations (Gill et al. 2007; Isaksson et al. 2007; Schekkerman et al. 2008; Teunissen et al. 2008; Roodbergen et al. 2011; Manton 2016).
The decline of the Aquatic Warbler (Acrocephalus paludicola L.) is another example of this process. This is a globally endangered species, which occurs exclusively in open fen mires under traditional use (Kloskowski and Krogulec 1999; Tanneberger et al. 2008; Briedis and Keiss 2016) and is currently almost extinct in Western and Central Europe (BirdLife 2008). Fen mires were used for hay-making, embedded in low intensity farming in the context of traditional village systems combining animal husbandry, plant crops and use of low-productive or poorly accessible sites (dry meadows, heathlands, wetlands) for grazing and hay-making (Byalova 2012; Elbakidze and Angelstam 2007). The decline of this species was caused by the massive draining of wetlands for intensive agricultural use, especially after WWII (Briedis and Keiss 2016; Tanneberger et al. 2008). Despite international efforts to save the Aquatic Warbler, the population is still decreasing, and the range is shrinking. It has not been registered in Latvia since 2003 or in Germany since 2009 (Tanneberger et al. 2008). In Lithuania it has only one small breeding population (Bačelytė and Preikša 2016), but still occurs regularly in several areas in Poland (Tomiałojć and Stawarczyk 2003; Żmihorski et al. 2016). Continued habitat loss remains a significant threat for the species’ survival.
However, in landscapes where traditional land management is still practiced, wet meadows and fen ecosystems are better maintained (Thorup 1998; Illyés et al. 2008). Regions located in the periphery of economic development, i.e. further away from markets of Western Europe (Gunst 1989), are more likely to contain intact biodiversity because of lower levels of land management transformation (Angelstam et al. 2013). The lowlands across the Belarus-Ukraine border in the western part of Dnieper River Basin known as the transboundary Paleśsie region (Kułak and Chmielewski 2010) hosts the largest and best-preserved fen mire landscape in Europe. This includes the Pripyat-Stokhid-Prostyr, Mid-Prypiać and Almany Mires Ramsar wetland sites, together with the downstream Turaŭ meadows in Belarus, which host large wetland bird populations and are crucial resting areas during migration (Verkuil et al. 2012).
These areas with suitable habitat for Aquatic Warbler are currently threatened by two different processes. First, intensification of agriculture (e.g., massive amelioration, peat soil erosion, introduction of monocultures and chemical treatment of crops) leads to substantial habitat transformation and degradation of wetland biodiversity. Second, complete abandonment of the traditional agricultural practices (e.g., hay-mowing and small-scale pastures as prerequisites for animal husbandry for rural livelihoods) implies shrinking of the semi-natural open fen habitats. These two processes occur simultaneously, affecting different patches of wetlands.
Nevertheless, smaller patches of fen habitats still remain relatively intact. Adequate conservation management measures of Paleśsie’s wetlands are therefore crucial to preserve these remaining sites in a favourable state (BirdLife 2008). Maintaining this cultural landscape biodiversity requires sustaining traditional types of fen management. However, maintaining management systems that support cultural landscape is a major challenge, which requires collaboration of private, public and civic sectors (Crumley et al. 2018). A key aspect is the extent to which citizens are willing to pay for conservation management that emulates traditional land use practices of biodiversity, particularly if they are neither necessary for securing local livelihoods, nor a part of economically viable agriculture. Coping with this complex challenge is not only a matter of wetland ecology and management, but also policy and economics, which requires interdisciplinary exchange of information between environmental managers, pure and applied scientists, and with an international perspective on conservation.
The aim of this study is to estimate Belarusian citizens’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for conservation management of wet fen grassland habitats to sustain populations of the globally threatened Aquatic Warbler in Belarus. This study therefore integrates three topics: ecology, conservation management and economic valuation. We selected the Zvaniec fen mire in the Paleśsie lowland region in southern Belarus as case study area. Then we defined four different alternative biodiversity conservation management approaches for the Zvaniec fen mire. Finally, we estimated citizens’ marginal WTP for biodiversity conservation. According to our knowledge this is one of the first non-market valuation studies of environmental goods conducted in Belarus, an East-European country in transition, and which plays an important role in supporting the European continent’s biodiversity (Edman et al. 2011; Otto et al. 2011).
Methodology
Case study area and country-specific context
The case study area was the Zvaniec fen located in the Paleśsie region in South-Western Belarus, near the Ukrainian border (52°03′N, 24°51′E, Fig. 1).
Belarus enjoys a quite developed state-governed system of biodiversity conservation comprising Environmental Protection Act, Nature Protection Act, Nature Protected Areas Act, and other legislation as well as strategic documents aimed at biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Additionally, Belarus is a Party to the major international agreements regulating spatial protection of wetlands biodiversity and key species. Various forms of Nature protected areas of Belarus currently total 1789.7 million ha constituting 8.7% of the country’s area (Anonymous 2017). Unlike in many Western European countries (e.g., Angelstam et al. 2011; Peters and von Ungern 2017; Joosten et al. 2017) spatial extension of nature protected areas is facilitated by the absolute predominance of the state-owned land. However, a centralised system of land use and governance of natural resources may lead to ambiguous outcomes since biodiversity conservation may collide with other state policies; in particular where/when economic development goals are being achieved at the expense of biodiversity (Anonymous 2014; Chikalov and Kaskevich 2013).
As one of Europe’s biggest intact open fen mires, Zvaniec has been a wetland of international importance (Kazulin et al. 2005). The total surface area of this fen mire is 16,500 ha, of which 10,500 ha were protected as a state nature reserve (zakaźnik).Footnote 1 As a result of centuries of traditional hay-mowing for grass and reed biomass to support local cattle farming, a unique semi-natural ecosystem developed. It provides habitat for many bird species, including the globally threatened Aquatic Warbler for which the Zvaniec mire is the world’s largest breeding site and supports about a quarter of the global population. Additionally, several other rare bird species including Great Snipe (Gallinago media), Corncrake (Crex crex), and Greater Spotted Eagle (Aquila clanga) breed there (Kazulin et al. 2005).
The Zvaniec fen mire remained relatively intact until the 1970s when drainage measures were undertaken. Hydrological changes, combined with cessation of low intensity agricultural use in the 1990s, caused rapid overgrowing of open fen mires with dense reed, shrubs and trees (viz. willows Salix spp. and black alder Alnus glutinosa). This resulted in an on-going decline of fen habitat quality and area. The population of the Aquatic Warbler declined as a result of encroaching shrub and vegetation succession (see Table 1), which ultimately increases the risk of local extinction.
These changes are consistent with the process of abandonment of agriculturally unproductive and unfavourable areas, which took place across Central and Eastern Europe in the end of 20th century (Joosten and Clarke 2002; Bragg and Lindsay 2003). Cattle farming had become economically unattractive, and currently neither agricultural cooperatives nor individual farmers are interested in harvesting hay in Zvaniec fen, mostly because of the low accessibility of the area and the associated high costs. In addition, improvement in the local trade and social services reduced the need to raise cattle for self-subsistence of the local population with a high proportion of retired and elderly people. At the same time, the Zvaniec fen does not suffer any direct development pressure. The drainage systems in the surroundings and an inflow of the nutrients from the nearby crop fields pose some threats for the fen habitats as well, as these may speed up encroachment of reeds and shrubs.
Valuation of wetlands and wet grasslands
Efforts to conserve wet grassland ecosystems may be motivated by the recognition of their ecological, social and economic values. Wetlands are one of the world’s most productive ecosystems with high biological diversity (Kuik et al. 2009). Therefore, considerable literature focuses on various natural and technical aspects of wetland conservation management that belongs to the domain of ecological and landscape sciences (e.g. Malmström et al. 2009; Groeneveld et al. 2007; Van den Bergh et al. 2005; Marjokorpi and Otsamo 2006; Swab et al. 2008; Burlakova et al. 2009; Comín et al. 2001).
Additionally, however, social system dimensions need to be understood for implementation of biodiversity conservation policy. The concept of ecosystem services emerged in the late 1970s (Daily 1997) for the utilitarian framing of ecosystem goods, functions and values as services (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010); besides it offers the opportunity for employing different valuation techniques. This is crucial when addressing problem of their restoration and conservation from an interdisciplinary perspective (e.g. Teal and Peterson 2005; Nielsen-Pincus and Moseley 2013; Brancalion et al. 2014; Turner 2005; Hansson et al. 2012).
The need to accurately quantify benefits arising from ecosystem services (Aronson et al. 2010; Boerema et al. 2017), to incorporate them into decision-making process and to raise awareness of policymakers entails increasing number of studies with this goal within natural and landscape sciences. However, also economic values of wetlands ecosystems are important (e.g. Brancalion et al. 2014; Hansson et al. 2012; Robbins and Daniels 2012; Holl and Howarth 2000; Schultz et al. 2012). Wetland restoration and conservation has become a widely chosen topic of valuation exercises within the domain of environmental and resource economics (see Gren and Söderqvist 1994; Heimlich et al. 1998; Brander et al. 2006; Ghermandi et al. 2007; Wattage and Mardle 2008; Azmi et al. 2009; He et al. 2015). Despite the fact that primary valuation case studies are time and resource intensive, appropriate publications have become quite numerous. For example, a meta-analyses of wetland valuations studies made by Kuik et al. (2009) covered 264 independent observations of economic values for temperate climate zone wetlands, mainly from the US and Europe (see e.g. Barbier et al. 1997 for summary of the applicable valuation techniques). Whilst some of the valuation methods employ a revealed preferences approach relying upon the real choices made by economic agents in the markets, stated preferences valuation methods are survey based (Mitchel and Carson 1989) and derive economic values from the hypothetical markets. The latter approach is the only one consistent with the theory of economics to estimate non-use value—the component of total economic value, arising from the fact of very existence of the natural good (Krutilla 1967), which is likely to be substantial in case of semi-intact wetlands.
Discrete choice experiments (DCE) follow stated preferences valuation approach. They are conducted to estimate people’s WTP for the various wetland sites (e.g. Morrison et al. 1999; Carlsson et al. 2003; Birol et al. 2006; Birol and Cox 2007; Weber and Stewart 2009; Luisetti et al. 2011; Johnston et al. 2011; Laurie et al. 2013; Westerberg et al. 2010; Giergiczny et al. 2012; Hess and Giergiczny 2015; Dahmardeh and Shahraki 2014; Yimenu and Nandeeswara Rao 2015; He et al. 2016). Rather than to state their WTP directly, respondents in DCE are asked to make their choices over a set of discrete alternatives, described by various attributes including a monetary bid. Such a setting allows to estimate monetary value not only for the entire natural good under consideration, but also to decompose its value into a set of values of particular attributes which can be compared to each other in order to determine socially optimal conservation management programme in accordance with the people’s preferences.
Construction of the DCE scenario
A conservation management programme could prevent or mitigate undesirable changes in the Zvaniec fen mire. An effective method to prevent the overgrowing of fen mires is low-intensity mowing (single swath every few years, late in the vegetation season) under unchanged or improved hydrological conditions with stable high water levels (Wheeler and Shaw 1995; Joosten and Clarke 2002). Regular mowing and removal of biomass are prioritised as essential management methods by the International Action Plans for the conservation of the globally endangered the Aquatic Warbler in order to prevent deterioration of open fen mires and to stop the loss of their unique biodiversity (BirdLife 2008; Bragg and Lindsay 2003). An annual biomass harvesting on 1500–2000 ha of Zvaniec fens in alternating locations, would result in each location being mown every few years. This scheme is expected to effectively slow down shrub encroachment and subsequent woodland succession. Four different management options were proposed as alternatives in the choice experiment, namely scything, mechanical mowing, controlled burning and herbicide treatment.
Manual Scything is considered the most culturally authentic but practically abandoned technique of biomass harvesting. It conserves a characteristic sedge tussock structure of vegetation (Middleton et al. 2006a, b), which enhances breeding success by providing food and cover for the Aquatic Warbler.
Mechanical Mowing Because it seems difficult in practice to re-introduce traditional scything on a large scale, a mowing machinery that achieves similar effect as scything has been developed and tested in neighbouring areas in Poland (Lachmann et al. 2010). Such equipment allows implementing large-scale mowing without considerable damage to the soft peat soils and micro-relief of fen mires, even if this is questioned by some other recent studies (Kotowski et al. 2013). Mechanical mowing normally takes place in two annual rounds. However, neither scything, nor mowing or scrub removal should be carried out during the Aquatic Warbler breeding season from early March until late July. However, the biomass harvested in late summer/autumn (August–September) and in winter has little value as fodder. This biomass can potentially be used locally as bio-fuel, if processed with the appropriate briquetting technology (Tanneberger and Wichtmann 2011). However, this requires certain technical and organisational preconditions on the ground, which are currently not fulfilled in case of Zvaniec.
Controlled Burning of dry biomass in winter is a low-cost management option. However, this has negative consequences as it may result in increased nutrient availability due to fertilisation with ash and topsoil peat mineralisation, which accelerate vegetation succession and scrub encroachment (Schmidt et al. 2000). In addition, burning is detrimental to overwintering invertebrates that provide food for the Aquatic Warbler (Tanneberger et al. 2008), which dwell in standing vegetation, tussocks and in the soil.
In the case of the Chemical Treatment of shrubs with herbicides, it is not clear if this option could contribute to the sustainable conservation of the fens. Nevertheless, herbicides are likely to be effective for controlling shrub encroachment at least for a short time (Klimkowska et al. 2010; Teal and Peterson 2005), but their application will entail negative effects on aquatic and semi-aquatic invertebrates (Crompton 2007), which are the main diet of the Aquatic Warbler.
Also, some other factors that are important for the effective conservation of this site were introduced in the DCE, including the necessity of the annual mowing of part of the area and the extent of the enlargement of the nature reserve. Whilst the former factor corresponds to the concept of active conservation, the latter is in line with the idea of passive conservation (e.g., Carey 2003). Whereas active conservation targets particular populations, species or habitats, passive conservation favours maintenance of natural processes within ecosystems. Other things being equal, either a larger protected area or a larger managed area would be expected to improve the state of the open fen mire habitat. However, both factors imply social costs which might be more obvious to the general public than the corresponding benefits as, unlike the majority of the biodiversity-linked benefits, the costs of conservation actions can be calculated using market prices. While old-growth forests need passive conservation in a large area allowing natural disturbance regimes to operate (Angelstam and Kuuluvainen 2004), cultural grasslands require active management (Manton and Angelstam 2018). The comparison of people’s marginal WTP for one additional spatial unit of active conservation vs. one additional spatial unit of passive conservation of wetland ecosystems is necessary to account for people’s preferences towards a particular conservation approach. Thus, three more attributes were included into the DCE besides the management option itself, i.e. (a) the surface that has to be annually subjected to active conservation management, (b) the enlargement of the nature reserve area, and (c) the cost. All the above listed attributes (variables) and corresponding levels (values) used in the DCE (see Table 2) were also agreed in consultations with policy makers and conservation experts during focus groups.
Experimental design and survey administering
The final version of the questionnaire was tested in a pilot study of 50 respondents. The payment vehicle used in the survey was an obligatory annual payment that all adult Belarusian residents would have to make to a fund exclusively dedicated to the conservation of the Zvaniec wetland’s focal species.
Each respondent faced sixteen choice situations, every one consisting of the status quo alternative with no additional conservation program and no extra payment required, and three programme alternatives. The choice-sets were prepared following the optimal-orthogonal-in-the-difference design (OOD).Footnote 2
Following the best–worst (BW) approach, each respondent was asked to select the most preferred alternative out of four, the least preferred alternative out of three, and the most preferred alternative of the remaining two, effectively providing a full ranking of all four alternatives in every choice task.
The questionnaire consisted of four parts. The first part examined respondent’s general attitude towards biodiversity and conservation issues. The second part described the ecological importance of stopping the succession of trees and bushes at the open fen mire and introduced possible policy options. As the conservation of the Zvaniec mire is important for saving the Aquatic Warbler, this bird being the sites’ flagship species, maps with its current spatial distribution, breeding sites and illustrative photos were presented to the respondents. The third part introduced the choice tasks themselves. Each respondent faced sixteen successive choice-sets presented on computer screen as colour tables. An example of a choice card is presented in Fig. 2. The fourth part contained debriefing questions and collected socio-economic data, including gender, age, location, education, household characteristics, and income.
The questionnaire was administered face-to-face on a sample of the Belarusian population. Interviews were conducted in respondents’ houses in January 2010. The sample covered the area of Minsk (the capital of Belarus), regional and district centres, as well as rural areas situated in different parts of the country, thus covering all of its regions. Questionnaires were randomly assigned to individuals in the course of the random door-to-door round, with the socio-economics controlled to be consistent with those of the Belarusian population. A total of 270 complete interviews were conducted and 206 valid questionnaires were used in the subsequent econometric analysis. Descriptive statistics of the sample are presented in Table 3.
Econometric modelling
In a DCE exercise, individuals are asked to identify their preferred choice i among a given set of J alternatives. The data analysis follows the Random Utility Model (RUM) (McFadden 1974). Under RUM, it is assumed that the observed choice from an individual n is the one she expects to provide her with the highest utility. Her utility function, Uni, can be decomposed into a systematic part, Vni, and a stochastic part, \(\varepsilon_{ni}\). The probability Pni that the decision maker n chooses alternative i instead of another alternative j of the choice set is \(P_{ni} = \Pr (V_{ni} + \varepsilon_{ni} > V_{nj} + \varepsilon_{nj} \forall j \ne i)\). If \(\varepsilon_{nj}\) is assumed to be an independently and identically distributed extreme value type I (Train 2003), this probability has a closed form multinomial logit (MNL) expression,
where x is a vector of variables and β is a vector of parameters.
In our exercises, respondents instead of a standard best choice, were using the Best–Worst elicitation format (BW). We assumed that respondents reveal their rank-order (i.e. preference order) in accordance with the RUM model. We can then associate the best available alternative with the highest level of utility and the worst with the lowest level of utility. The rank of the other alternatives should also be coherent with the underlying utility levels. The respondent is assumed to select the alternative she prefers most, and if that is not available she would select the second-best option, etc. Information on the most preferred alternative alone is sufficient to estimate preference parameters. More efficient estimates, i.e. that with lower standard errors, could be obtained when information on lower ranked alternatives is used in addition; such efficiency gains are particularly relevant when the data are scarce. However, the question of real relevance in this context is whether the preferences that drive responses in such full elicitation approaches are the same as those from the standard-stated choice methods.
A common practice amongst analysts is to pool all BW stages and estimate a joint model whilst only accounting for potential heteroskedasticity, i.e. scale differences, across the stages. However, early work by Hausman and Ruud (1987) and Ben-Akiva et al. (1991), already provides warnings about the stability of preference structures when using the traditional ranking approach where the full preference order is obtained through a sequence of ‘best’ questions. Despite these findings, many researchers estimate joint models using all ranks (either coming from standard ranking or BW) without testing preference stability across ranks. In most applications of the BW elicitation format, this is justified by the belief that BW tasks are superior to the standard ranking approach as they take advantage of a person’s propensity to respond more consistently to extreme options (Flynn et al. 2007; Marley 2010). Moreover, these researchers also claim that by moving the focus away from middle ranked alternatives, the BW approach potentially circumvents the stability issues observed in the ranking approach. However, this advantage of BW over ranking in terms of preference stability is rarely tested. Giergiczny et al. (2017), showed in their recent study that BW and traditional ranking reveal exactly the same inconsistencies and that BW does not solve any problems which were identified for ranking.
In this study we tested a joint model hypothesis against stage-specific models in the way described by Giergiczny et al. (2017). Using the exploded logit formula,
where \(\beta\) represent preference parameters and μ represent scale parameters, we estimated models in which the following assumptions were made: Model (I) \(\beta\) and μ are constant across all stages, Model (II) μ varies across all stages and \(\beta\)’s are constant, and finally Model (III) \(\beta\) parameters are stage specific. Model I imply that both preference parameters and scale estimates are constant across the stages. If this is true, then all stages of BW could be pooled, and more efficient estimates would be obtained. Model II implies that the only differences in estimates across the stages are in scale estimates. This would mean that after controlling for scale differences, all stages of BW could be pooled, and more efficient preference estimates would be obtained, and finally, Model III implies that both preference and scale estimates vary across the stages, so the data for each stage should be estimated independently.
Model specification I is nested within model specifications II-III. Similarly, model specification II is nested in model specification III. A Likelihood Ratio (LR) test can be performed to test whether model specification I, II or III provides a better fit to the observed choices. When model specification III is supported by the LR-test, complete stability of utility parameters across the stages is rejected and only the model on best choice data should be estimated.
After rejecting the hypothesis of a joint model, the data on best choices were analysed using MNL and more advanced mixed logit model (MMNL) (McFadden 1974; Train 2003), which is any model whose choice probabilities take the form
where \(\frac{{e^{{\beta^{\prime}_{n} x_{ni} }} }}{{\sum\nolimits_{j} {e^{{\beta^{\prime}_{n} x_{nj} }} } }}\) is a standard logit formula, \(\phi (\beta \left| {b,\Omega } \right.)\) is the density of the random coefficients with mean b and covariance Ω. Thus, the logit expression can be treated as a special mixed logit case with \(\beta\) being fixed. Limitation of the standard MNL which represent only the systematic taste variation, but not random taste variations is relaxed by assuming a mixing distribution that is not degenerated at fixed parameters. In the MMNL model, we accounted for the panel structure of the data and systematic taste variation.
The utility function for both MNL and MMNL models includes four effects-coded variables associated with the shrub removal method (Manual Scything, Mechanical Mowing, Controlled Burning and Chemical Treatment), the three continuous variables: Managed Area, Enlarging Conservation Area, Cost and a dummy variable SQ denoting status quo alternative. A linear in attributes specification of the utility functions was used on the basis of preliminary analyses that did not reveal any consistent and significant nonlinearity in response with the data at hand.
For the MMNL model, all the non-monetary attributes were assumed to follow normal distribution, while the cost coefficient was assumed to follow log-normal distribution.Footnote 3 Since the integral in equation [3] cannot be evaluated analytically the probabilities have to be simulated; in each run 500 random draws were generated.
As a final step, we calculated the WTPs from the model estimates. WTPs were calculated as marginal rates of substitution of non-monetary attributes of the good under consideration for the monetary attribute; in other words, WTP for non-monetary attribute a was calculated as negative ratio of partial derivative of the utility function with respect to the variable a to the partial derivative of the utility function with respect to the monetary variable Cost.
The values were calculated for each person in the data, taking into account the socio-demographic interactions, and hence we also obtained heterogeneity in the MNL model.
Results
Preference stability
We start the result section with testing the hypothesis of the stability of utility parameters in the repeated BW experiment. As discussed in the previous section, we estimated three Models I, II and III. The test results are presented in Table 4. The LR-test shows that model specification II, in which we control for scale heterogeneity, fits significantly better than model specification I and, more importantly, model specification III significantly outperforms model specifications I and II. This result suggests that only controlling for differences in scale parameters is insufficient and that wrongfully assuming parameter stability across stages may lead to incorrect inferences. Hence, the warnings of previous research on pooling responses from repeated best surveys are confirmed and extend to pooling responses across the stages from the repeated BW format. Our results in this regard are fully consistent with findings reported in Giergiczny et al. (2017), who confirmed the same pattern concerning the four independent datasets collected in different context (marketing, transportation and non-market valuation).
Best choice results
The modelling results are given in Table 5 as two sets of estimated model parameters—for MNL and MMNL. Besides the model coefficients which represent marginal utility, respondents derived from the corresponding attribute, MMNL parameters include estimates of standard deviations of the random parameters’ distribution, assumed in the model, being a general measure of the preferences’ heterogeneity in case of appropriate attribute.
The signs of the coefficients with main effects are consistent with a priori expectations. The estimates for SQ parameter are negative, indicating that respondents generally would like some conservation management programme to be implemented. The negative coefficient with the Cost indicates that the respondents are on average price-sensitive which is consistent with the economic theory. The positive and statistically significant coefficients for Managed Area and Enlarging Protection Area imply that conservation programmes associated with larger area of removing shrubs and the enlargement of the existing reserve are more likely to be chosen. Positive and statistically significant coefficients for Manual Scything and Mechanical Mowing indicate that people, on average, associate positive utility with these two methods, whereas Controlled Burning and Chemical Treatment with herbicides contribute, on average, negatively to their utility.
The signs and significance of interaction terms are consistent with a priori expectations. The coefficient by Cost-Income ratio is negative indicating that respondents with a higher income have lower price sensitivity, i.e. their WTP for the conservation programme is higher, other factors being equal. Other interactions with socio-demographics also implied behaviourally plausible results. Respondents with a university degree derive a higher marginal utility associated with enlarging the reserve. Users, i.e. respondents who declared visiting the wetland in the past have a higher marginal utility for the Managed Area and Enlarging Conservation Area attributes.
By using the MMNL model, we obtained an improvement in log-likelihood by 813.6 units compared with the MNL model, which means a significant improvement of the model fit (p = 0.99). Similarly, the means of the normally distributed parameters are all statistically significant, and the standard deviations of the random parameters were all statistically significant at the 99 per cent confidence interval, indicating substantial taste heterogeneity among respondents which clearly shows that the MMNL model gives significantly better fit to the data than the MNL model. The five normally distributed random coefficients have relatively high standard deviations with coefficients of variation ranging from 1.21 to 2.27.Footnote 4 The mean and standard deviation of underlying log-normal distribution for the Cost coefficient were also highly significant.
A strong negative correlation is observed between Manual Scything and Controlled Burning (Table 6). This high level of correlation made sense as these two methods are very different, so it was likely that respondents who, for example, like scything, dislike burning, and vice versa. A similar pattern holds for Controlled Burning vs Mechanical Mowing. We also found a relatively high positive correlation between Managed Area and Enlarging Conservation Area, which seems reasonable as people who were more concerned about the area where shrubs were removed also had a higher preference for increasing the size of the reserve. Indeed, the larger the areas from which the shrubs were removed, the better are the conditions for the rare bird species. Similarly, the larger the reserve is, the better the conservation of the site is, so the high positive correlation between these two random taste coefficients makes sense. Correlation levels for other pairs of coefficients are relatively small.
Since the MMNL model gives significantly a better fit to the data than the MNL model, we focus our attention here on WTP estimates obtained for the MMNL model only, whilst the WTP values for the MNL model are left as the reference level. Looking at WTP estimates (Table 7) we see that WTP for manual removal was 13.43 USD and was valued more highly than mechanical removal (10.65 USD). We also see that burning was valued less negatively (− 2.86 USD) than chemical removal which was perceived as the worst method of management (− 21.24 USD). The WTP for the area of removal and the reserve size were both positive, with the former being about four times as high i.e. 9.60 USD compared 2.28 USD. This indicated that respondents strongly preferred active conservation by restoration management to simply enlarging the reserve. When moving from the MNL model to the MMNL model, the WTP measures increased for the majority of components and substantial levels of heterogeneity were obtained across respondents. This is typically observed when cost is assumed to follow a log-normal distribution (Giergiczny et al. 2012). The ordering of WTP remains the same for the both models.
Discussion
Positive environmental preferences do not depend on the natural resource governance system
Our results show that people in Belarus derive positive and significant economic benefits from fen mires conservation. This is in line with the results of valuation studies conducted in West European countries including stated preferences studies (e.g. Birol et al. 2006; Carlsson et al. 2003). This indicates that people’s environmental preferences are to a large extent independent of the dominating type of natural resource governance (top-down in Belarus vs. multi-level in the West), the advance of market transformation or the structure of property in the economic system (a high degree of state-owned property in Belarus compared to mostly private property in the West).
This study also indicates that citizens in Belarus are, on average, willing to pay a substantial amount of money for the conservation management of the Zvaniec mire as a habitat for the Aquatic Warbler and other co-occurring endangered species. For instance, the estimated mean WTP for a conservation programme comprising mowing 1,000 ha/year on the Zvaniec fen mire yields an equivalent of 20.25 USD’2010. If extrapolated on the total adult population of Belarusians,Footnote 5 this yields annual WTP of more than 8240 USD per hectare of the Zvaniec mire which is close to the upper boundary of results internationally obtained in valuation studies (Wichmann et al. 2016). This result reveals that on average Belarusian citizens are aware of the necessity for investing financially in biodiversity conservation. Among the four alternative management methods, a positive WTP was associated with the hand scything and mechanical mowing options, with scything being the most preferred solution. As this technique is considered to be the most adequate for conservation of fen mire ecosystems, the result confirms that pro-environmental preferences predominate amongst Belarusian citizens.
The mean WTP for the mechanical mowing programme, which is the most likely to be undertaken in practice, was about 40 percent lower than the WTP for scything. In contrast, the WTP values for burning and herbicide application were negative. From the answers to the debriefing questions, we learned that people on average were afraid of using chemicals for the purposes of controlling shrub encroachment. The estimated negative WTP for herbicide treatment was in line with findings of some other studies, emphasising public concern and providing examples of the aversion to the methods by the general public (e.g. Teal and Peterson 2005). As far as the burning option is concerned, its negative evaluation can be explained by a mass-media social campaign against uncontrolled vegetation burning in early Spring. This means that the two kinds of vegetation burning could have been mixed up by respondents. Controlled burning management might also be associated with peat fires, which impose safety risks on the local inhabitants and may cause health problems due to smoke pollution. However, undrained fen mires are characterised by peat soil saturated with water (mostly groundwater) and are hence less prone to peat fires.
Interestingly, while low-intensity land use for nature conservation purposes was clearly supported, the option of enlarging the nature reserve was much less popular. In fact, respondents, on average, were willing to pay more than twice as much for increasing the managed area by one hectare compared to enlarging the Zvaniec Nature Reserve by one hectare. Respondents thus considered passive conservation to be insufficient to maintain open fen mire habitat, and they give priority to the conservation management programmes. Respondents’ preferences are consistent both with the importance of maintaining cultural landscapes and traditional rural practices, as well as with current international biodiversity conservation policies which state that active landscape management is essential for the conservation of anthropogenic cultural landscapes. The relatively low WTP for enlarging the reserve compared to mowing area could also reflect society’s mistrust of state nature protection instruments, a frequent opinion that was expressed in the follow-up questions. This falls in line with studies demonstrating that active methods yield quicker and more effective/concrete results than passive ones (Aronson et al. 2010). Thus, active conservation programmes seem more societally desirable despite their potentially higher costs. Nevertheless, more intensive efforts could be put forward to strengthen people’s positive attitude towards officially established spatial conservation designations like zakaźniks, reserves, etc. in order to maintain environmentally optimal combination of active and passive conservation measures.
Coping with cultural and natural landscape degradation in Eastern Europe
Already von Thünen (1910), observed that the types and intensities of land use were related to the distance from the market. Loss of fen mire habitat in Europe is consistent with a generally expanding human footprint in terms of increasingly intensified land use from the core to the periphery of economic development (e.g., Gunst 1989). This has resulted in clear gradients of alteration, fragmentation and loss of both traditionally multifunctional cultural landscapes and naturally dynamic forest landscapes (Puumalainen et al. 2003; Angelstam et al. 2017; Manton 2016). The West–East gradient is particularly interesting because it involves the eastern border of the European Union, which can be viewed as a fault line regarding the level of past modification of ecological systems with their better conservation status in the East than the West (e.g., Edman et al. 2011; Manton 2016).
However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union the rate of land cover change increased in Eastern Europe (Alcantara et al. 2013; Prishchepov et al. 2013; Angelstam et al. 2017). There is a current desire to intensify land use in order to gain short-term economic benefits (e.g., Naumov et al. 2016). This transition also enables natural resource extraction in previously protected areas (Naumov et al. 2017) and is associated with illegal and/or unregulated resource harvesting (Newell and Henry 2017), as well as a reduction in the allocation of resources for biodiversity conservation (Wells and Williams 1998). Concerning cultural landscapes, rural de-population is a ubiquitous trend (e.g., Burneika et al. 2014), thus leading to declining biocultural values of traditional cultural landscapes.
Mitigation of these issues concerning biocultural values needs to involve also the social system component of cultural landscapes. Throughout Europe, rural and peripheral areas like Paleśsie suffer stagnating economies and population decline. Creating and communicating positive images by branding is one feasible regional development strategy. However, there is no evidence of any positive effect of marketing campaigns on in-migration (Niedomysl 2007). In response to this, there is an emerging focus on particular places rather than sectors, and on investments in new jobs rather than subsidies. This stresses the need for building on local strengths and qualities for rural place marketing and lifestyle migration. Nature, including cultural landscapes, are key assets (Garrido et al. 2017a, b), as well as the social capital created by such values’ importance for sense of place and cross-sectorial collaboration (Westlund and Kobayashi 2013). In this context, the considerable WTP stated by Belarusians for conservation of cultural landscape in case of the Zvaniec fen mire, a place being important for European and global biodiversity conservation, seems a promising signal.
Who should pay for biodiversity conservation, especially for costly active conservation management emulating traditional land use systems such as fen mires or other types of cultural landscapes? Processes in the West have already caused biodiversity loss, and the frontier of intensification is moving to more peripheral areas (e.g., Naumov et al. 2018). Is it only those in the East who currently want to intensify land use for human well-being (but began later than their Western counterparts)? Should those who benefitted financially and who also caused the biodiversity loss in the past from raw materials domestic extracting and importing (and thus won materially) pay? Within the EU, there are indeed policies and different types of funding schemes aimed at sharing costs among Member States and their regions; often also with some opportunities for non-EU countries in Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, regions with the least economic and political participation capacity tend to benefit the least and take on more of the dis-services accruing from industrialisation and the resulting footprint (Steger and Filcak 2008).
Notes
Only 60% of the mire was formally protected when constructing the survey. The Zvaniec reserve was finally expanded in the beginning of 2011 and currently covers whole the fen mire.
In addition to maintaining orthogonality in OOD design attributes common across alternatives never take the same level in a given choice situation so respondents are forced to trade on all attributes in the experiment, whilst the orthogonality of the design ensures that the independent influence which each attribute has upon choice can be determined (Street and Burgess 2007). The other advantage of OOD over D-efficient designs is that they do not require the prior knowledge of preference parameters.
Assuming log-normal distribution for Cost restricts all respondents to have negative coefficients by Cost. In addition, log-normal cost allows for random taste variation in price sensitivity and guarantees WTP to have finite moments (Daly et al. 2012). However, assuming a log-normal distribution for cost is not a standard approach. Most authors in the field of environmental valuation assume cost to be fixed as this prevents mean WTP values from ‘exploding’. We question this practice; detailed discussion on this topic is presented in Giergiczny et al. (2012).
The coefficient of variation (CV) is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean. It shows the extent of variability in relation to the mean of the population.
The country’s total population in 2016 was 9,327,329 people, where around 72% of them were adults (https://myfin.by/wiki/term/naselenie-belarusi, accessed 15th February 2018).
References
Alcantara C, Kuemmerle T, Baumann M, Bragina EV, Griffiths P, Hostert P, Knorn J, Müller D, Prishchepov AV, Schierhorn F, Sieber A, Radeloff FC (2013) Mapping the extent of abandoned farmland in Central and Eastern Europe using MODIS time series satellite data. Environ Res Lett 8:1–9
Angelstam P, Kuuluvainen T (2004) Boreal forest disturbance regimes, successional dynamics and landscape structures—a European perspective. Ecol Bull 51:117–136
Angelstam P, Mikusinski G, Fridman J (2004) Natural forest remnants and transport infrastructure—does history matter for biodiversity conservation planning? Ecol Bull 51:149–162
Angelstam P, Andersson K, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Jonsson B-G, Roberge J-M (2011) Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991–2010: policy implementation process and outcomes on the ground. Silva Fennica 45:1111–1133
Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Axelsson R (2013) Knowledge production and learning for sustainable landscapes: Europe’s East and West as a laboratory. Ambio 43:113–265
Angelstam P, Khaulyak O, Yamelynets T, Mozgeris G, Naumov V, Chmielewski TJ, Elbakidze M, Manton M, Prots B, Valasiuk S (2017) Green infrastructure development at European Union’s eastern border: effects of road infrastructure and forest habitat loss. J Environ Manage 193:300–311
Anonymous (2014) Пocтaнoвлeниe Coвeтa Mиниcтpoв Pecпyблики Бeлapycь oт 17.06.2011 №794 “O нeкoтopыx вoпpocax дoбычи тopфa и oптимизaции cиcтeмы ocoбo oxpaняeмыx пpиpoдныx тeppитopий” (Teкcт пpaвoвoгo aктa c измeнeниями и дoпoлнeниями нa 1 янвapя 2014 гoдa). http://pravo.newsby.org/belarus/postanovsm2/sovm201.htm Accessed 16 Feb 2018
Anonymous (2017) Охрана окружающей среды в Республике Беларусь. Статистический сборник. Национальный статистический комитет Республики Беларусь. Минск
APB—Birdlife Belarus (2009) Report on estimation of the Aquatic Warbler population in Belarus. http://www.aquaticwarbler.net/mon/reports.html. Accessed Mar 2010
Aronson J, Blignaut JN, Milton SJ, Le Maitre D, Esler KJ, Limouzin A, Fontaine C, De Wit MP, Mugido W, Prinsloo P, Van Der Elst L, Lederer N (2010) Are socioeconomic benefits of restoration adequately quantified? A meta-analysis of recent papers (2000–2008) in restoration ecology and 12 other scientific journals. Restor Ecol 18:143–154
Azmi MI, Cullen R, Bigsby H, & Awang NAG (2009) The existence value of peat swamp forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Paper presented at New Zealand Agriculture and Resource Economics Society (NZARES) Conference. 27–28 August 2009. Tahuna Beach Resort, Nelson, New Zealand
Bačelytė I, Preikša Ž (2016) The evaluation of vegetation in Lithuanian habitats of Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola. Žmogaus ir gamtos sauga, pp 90–93 (ISSN 1822-1823)
Barbier EB, Acreman MC, Knowler D (1997) Economic valuation of wetlands: a guide for policy makers and planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland
Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T, Shiroishi F (1991) Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J Bus Res 23:253–268
BirdLife International (2008) International Species Action Plan for the Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola. Updated version, 2010. http://www.cms.int/species/aquatic_warbler/meetings/2nd%20Mtg/docs/Doc_10_Revised_Int_SAP_E.pdf. Accessed Sept 2010
Birol E, Cox V (2007) Using choice experiments to design wetland management programmes: the case of Severn Estuary Wetland, UK. J Environ Plann Manag 50:363–380
Birol E, Karousakis K, Koundouri P (2006) Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecol Econ 60:145–156
Boerema A, Rebelo AJ, Bodi MB, Esler KJ, Meire P (2017) Are ecosystem services adequately quantified? J Appl Ecol 54:358–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12696
Bragg O, Lindsay R (2003) Strategy and action plan for mire and Peatland conservation in Central Europe. Wetlands International, Wageningen
Brancalion PHS, Cardozo IV, Camatta A, Aronson J, Rodrigues RR (2014) Cultural ecosystem services and popular perceptions of the benefits of an ecological restoration project in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Restor Ecol 22:65–71
Brander LM, Florax RJGM, Vermaat JE (2006) The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the nature. Environ Resour Econ 33:223–250
Briedis M, Keiss O (2016) Extracting historical population trends using archival ringing data—an example: the globally threatened Aquatic Warbler. J Ornithol 157:419–425
Burlakova LE, Karatayev AY, Padilla DK, Cartwright LD, Hollas DN (2009) Wetland restoration and invasive species: apple snail (Pomacea insularum) feeding on native and invasive aquatic plants. Restor Ecol 17:433–440
Burneika D, Daugirdas V, Ubarevičienė R (2014) Migration as a factor of development of the depopulating areas in East EU countries—the case of Lithuania. Europa XXI 27:79–95
Byalova TU (ed) (2012) The Belarusians in the photos of Isaac Serbau 1911–12. The Piatruś Broŭka Belarusian Encyklopedia Publishing House, Minsk
Carey AB (2003) Restoration of landscape function: reserves or active management? Forestry 76:221–230
Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lijenstolpe C (2003) Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecol Econ 47:95–103
Chikalov K, Kaskevich O (2013) Swamps are not just peat. Annual report of the campaign “protect Belarusian swamps” 2012—2013 http://bahna.land/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%87%D1%91%D1%82_ENG.compressed.pdf Accessed 16th Feb 2018
Comín FA, Romero JA, Hernández O, Menéndez M (2001) Restoration of wetlands from abandoned rice fields for nutrient removal, and biological community and landscape diversity. Restor Ecol 9:201–208
Crompton TR (2007) Toxicants in aqueous ecosystems. Qualitative toxicity data for organic compounds in fish and invertebrates. Springer, Berlin
Crumley CL, Lennartsson T, Westin A (2018) Issues and concepts in historical ecology. The past and future of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Dahmardeh M, Shahraki J (2014) Economic valuation of environmental resources in Hamoon International wetland, using the choice experiment method. Int J Agric For 5:394–401
Daily G (ed) (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC
Daly AJ, Hess S, Train KE (2012) Assuring finite moments for willingness-to-pay in random coefficients models. Transportation 39:19–31
Donald PF, Sanderson FJ, Burfield IJ, van Bommel FPJ (2006) Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990–2000. Agr Ecosyst Environ 116:189–196
Edman T, Angelstam P, Mikusinski G, Roberge J-M, Sikora A (2011) Spatial planning for biodiversity conservation: assessment of forest landscapes’ conservation value using umbrella species requirements in Poland. Landsc Urban Plan 102:16–23
Elbakidze M, Angelstam P (2007) Implementing sustainable forest management in Ukraine’s Carpathian Mountains: the role of traditional village systems. For Ecol Manag 249:28–38
Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515
Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J (2007) Best-worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 26:171–189
Garrido P, Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Plieninger T, Pulido F, Moreno G (2017a) Stakeholder perspectives of wood pasture ecosystem services: a case study from Iberian dehesas. Land Use Policy 60:324–333
Garrido P, Elbakidze M, Angelstam P (2017b) Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 157:96–104
Ghermandi A, van den Bergh JCJM, Brander LM, de Groot HLF, Nunes PALD (2007) Exploring diversity: a meta-analysis of wetland conservation and creation. In: Proceedings of 9th International BIOECON Conference on Economics and Institutions for Biodiversity Conservation. Cambridge, UK, September 19–21, 2007
Giergiczny M, Valasiuk S, Czajkowski M, De Salvo M, Signorello G (2012) Including cost income ratio into utility function as a way of dealing with ‘exploding’ implicit prices in mixed logit models. J For Econ 18:370–380
Giergiczny M, Dekker T, Hess S, Chintakayala PH (2017) Testing the stability of utility parameters in repeated best, repeated best-worst and one-off best-worst studies. Eur J Transp Infrastruct Res 17:457–476
Gill JA, Langston RHW, Alves JA, Atkinson PW, Bocher P, Cidraes Vieira N, Crockford NJ, Gélinaud G, Groen N, Gunnarsson TG, Hayhow B, Hooijmeijer J, Kentie R, Kleijn D, Lourenço PM, Masero JA, Meunier F, Potts PM, Roodbergen M, Schekkerman H, Schröder J, Wymenga E, Piersma T (2007) Contrasting trends in two Black-tailed Godwit populations: a review of causes and recommendations. Wader Study Group Bull 114:43–50
Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 69:1209–1218
Gren IM, Söderqvist T (1994) Economic valuation of wetlands: a survey. Beijer Discussion Paper Series no. 54, Beijer Institute, Stockholm
Groeneveld EVG, Massé A, Rochefort L (2007) Polytrichum strictum as a nurse-plant in peatland restoration. Restor Ecol 15:709–719
Gunst P (1989) Agrarian systems of central and eastern Europe. In: Chirot D (ed) The origins of backwardness in Eastern Europe: economics and politics from the Middle Ages until the early twentieth century. California University Press, California, pp 53–91
Hansson A, Pedersen E, Weisner SEB (2012) Landowners’ incentives for constructing wetlands in an agricultural area in south Sweden. J Environ Manage 113:271–278
Hausman JA, Ruud PA (1987) Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. J Econom 34:83–104
He J, Moffette F, Fournier R, Revéret J-P, Théau J, Dupras J, Boyer J-P, Varin M (2015) Meta-analysis for the transfer of economic benefits of ecosystem services provided by wetlands within two watersheds in Quebec, Canada. Wetl Ecol Manag 23:707–725
He J, Dupras J, Poder TG (2016) The value of wetlands in Quebec: a comparison between contingent valuation and choice experiment. J Environ Econ Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2016.1199976
Heimlich RE, Weibe KD, Claassen R, Gadsy D, House RM (1998) Wetlands and Agriculture: private interests and public benefits. Resource Economics Division, E.R.S., USDA, Agricultural Economic Report 765.10
Hess S, Giergiczny M (2015) Intra-respondent heterogeneity in a stated choice survey on wetland conservation in Belarus: first steps towards creating a link with uncertainty in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 60:327–347
Holl KD, Howarth RB (2000) Paying for restoration. Restor Ecol 8:260–267
Illyés E, Botta-Dukát Z, Molnár Z (2008) Patch and landscape factors affecting the naturalness-based quality of three model grassland habitats in Hungary. Acta Bot Hung 50:179–197
International Wader Study Group (2003) Waders are declining worldwide. Wader Study Group Bull 101/102:8–12
Isaksson D, Wallander J, Larsson M (2007) Managing predation on ground-nesting birds: the effectiveness of nest exclosures. Biol Conserv 136:136–142
Johnston RJ, Segerson K, Schultz ET, Besedin EY, Ramachandran M (2011) Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of aquatic ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 70:1946–1956
Joosten H, Clarke D (2002) Wise use of mires and peatlands—background and principles including a framework for decision-making. International Mire Conservation Group and International Peat Society, Saarijärven Offset Oy, Saarijärvi, Finland
Joosten H, Tanneberger F, Moen A (eds). 2017. Mires and peatlands of Europe. Status, distribution and conservation. Schweizerbart and Borntraeger science publishers, Germany. ISBN 978-3-510-65383-6
Kazulin AV, Viarhiejčyk LA, Zujonak SV (2005) Skarby pryrody Biełarusi [Treasures of the Belarusian nature], 2nd edn. Minsk, Belarus
Klimkowska A, Dzierża P, Kotowski W, Brzezińska K (2010) Methods of limiting the willow shrub re-growth after initial removal on fen meadows. J Nat Conserv 18:12–21
Kloskowski J, Krogulec J (1999) Habitat selection of Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola in Poland: consequences for conservation of the breeding areas. Vogelwelt 120:113–120
Kotowski W, Jabłońska E, Bartoszuk H (2013) Conservation management in fens: do large tracked mowers impact functional plant diversity? Biol Conserv 167:292–297
Krutilla JV (1967) Conservation reconsidered. Am Econ Rev 57:777–786
Kuik O, Brander L, Ghermandi A, Markandya A, Navrud S, Nunes P, Schaafsma M, Vos H, Wagtendonk A (2009) The value of wetland ecosystem services in europe: an application of GIS and meta-analysis for value transfer. In; 17th annual conference of the European association of environmental and resource economists (EAERE), 2009-06-24—2009-06-27, Amsterdam
Kułak A, Chmielewski TJ (2010) Changes in the physiognomy of the landscape of the West Polesie from the middle of the 19th century till the beginning of the 21st century. In: Chmielewski TJ, Piasecki D (eds) The future of hydrogenic landscapes in european biosphere reserves. University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Polesie National Park, Polish Academy of Sciences—Branch in Lublin, National UNESCO-MaB Committee of Poland
Lachmann L, Marczakiewicz P, Grzywaczewski G (2010) Grassland in a changing world, protecting aquatic warblers (Acrocephalus paludicola) through a landscape-scale solution for the management of fen peat meadows in Poland. Grassland Sci Eur 15:711–713
Laurie W, Newell S, Swallow K (2013) Real-payment choice experiments: valuing forested wetlands and spatial attributes within a landscape context. Ecol Econ 92:37–47
Luisetti T, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (2011) Testing the fundamental assumption of choice experiments: are values absolute or relative? Land Econ 87:284–296
Malmström CM, Butterfield HS, Barber C, Dieter B, Harrison R, Qi J, Riaño D, Schrotenboer A, Stone S, Stoner CJ, Wirka J (2009) Using remote sensing to evaluate the influence of grassland restoration activities on ecosystem forage provisioning services. Restor Ecol 17:526–538
Manton M (2016) Functionality of wet grasslands as green infrastructure. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae 2016:119
Manton M, Angelstam P (2018) Defining benchmarks for restoration of green infrastructure: a case study combining the historical range of variability of habitat and species’ requirements. Sustainability, in press
Marjokorpi A, Otsamo R (2006) Prioritization of target areas for rehabilitation: a case study from West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Restor Ecol 14:662–673
Marley AAJ (2010) The best-worst method for the study of preferences: theory and application. In: Frensch PA, Schwarzer R (eds) Cognition and neuropsychology: international perspectives on psychological science, vol 1. Psychology Press, Hove, pp 147–157
McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York
Middleton B, Grootjans AP, Jensen K, Olde Venterink H, Margóczi K (2006a) Fen, management and research perspectives: an overview. In: Bobbink R, Beltman B, Verhoeven JTA, Whigham DF (eds) Wetlands: functioning, biodiversity conservation, and restoration. Ecological studies (analysis and synthesis), vol 191. Springer, Berlin
Middleton BA, Holsten B, Van Diggelen R (2006b) Biodiversity management of fens and fen meadows by grazing, cutting and burning. Appl Veg Sci 9:307–316
Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC
Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R (1999) Valuing improved wetlands quality using choice modeling. Water Resour Res 35:2805–2814
Naumov V, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M (2016) Barriers and bridges for intensified wood production in Russia: insights from the environmental history of a regional logging frontier. For Policy Econ 66:1–10
Naumov V, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M (2017) Satisfying rival objectives in forestry in the Komi Republic: effects of Russian zoning policy change on forestry intensification and riparian forest conservation. Can J Forest Res 47:1339–1349
Naumov V, Manton M, Elbakidze M, Rendenieks Z, Priedniek J, Uglyanets S, Yamelynets T, Zhivotov A, Angelstam P (2018) How to reconcile wood production and biodiversity conservation? The Pan-European boreal forest history gradient as an “experiment”. J Environ Manage 218:1–13
Newell JP, Henry LA (2017) The state of environmental protection in the Russian Federation: a review of the post-Soviet era. Eurasian Geogr Econ. https://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2017.1289851
Niedomysl T (2007) Promoting rural municipalities to attract new residents: an evaluation of the effects. Geoforum 38:698–709
Nielsen-Pincus M, Moseley C (2013) The economic and employment impacts of forest and watershed restoration. Restor Ecol 21:207–214
Otto IM, Shkaruba A, Kireyeu V (2011) The rise of multilevel governance for biodiversity conservation in Belarus. Environ Plann 29:113–132
Ottvall R, Smith HG (2006) Effects of an agri-environment scheme on wader populations of coastal meadows of southern Sweden. Agr Ecosyst Environ 113:264–271
Peters J, von Ungern M (2017) Peatlands in the EU Regulatory Environment. Survey with case studies on Poland and Estonia: BfN-Skripten 454. Bonn
Prishchepov AV, Müller D, Dubinin M, Baumann M, Radeloff VC (2013) Determinants of agricultural land abandonment in post-Soviet European Russia. Land Use Policy 30:873–884
Puumalainen J, Kennedy P, Folving S (2003) Monitoring forest biodiversity: a European perspective with reference to temperate and boreal forest zone. J Environ Manage 67:5–14
Robbins AST, Daniels JM (2012) Restoration and economics: a union waiting to happen. Restor Ecol 20:10–17
Roodbergen M, Werf B, Hötker H (2011) Revealing the contributions of reproduction and survival to the Europe-wide decline in meadow birds: review and meta-analysis. J Ornithol 153:53–74
Schekkerman H, Teunissen W, Oosterveld E (2008) The effect of ‘mosaic management’ on the demography of Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa on farmland. J Appl Ecol 45:1067–1075
Schmidt A, Piórkowski H, Bartoszuk H (2000) Remote Sensing Techniques and Geographic Information Systems for wetland conservation and management: Monitoring scrub encroachment in Biebrza National Park. Alterra, Wageningen. Alterra-raport 174
Schultz ET, Johnston RJ, Segerson K, Besedin EY (2012) Integrating ecology and economics for restoration: using ecological indicators in valuation of ecosystem services. Restor Ecol 20:304–310
Steger T, Filcak R (2008) Articulating the basis for promoting environmental justice in Central and Eastern Europe. Environ Justice 1:49–53
Street DJ, Burgess L (2007) The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey
Swab RM, Zhang L, Mitsch WJ (2008) Effect of hydrologic restoration and Lonicera maackii removal on herbaceous understory vegetation in a bottomland hardwood forest. Restor Ecol 16:453–463
Tanneberger F, Wichtmann W (2011) Carbon credits from peatland rewetting: science, policy, implementation and recommendations of a pilot project in Belarus. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart
Tanneberger F, Bellebaum J, Fartmann T, Haferland H-J, Helmecke A, Jehle P, Just P, Sadlik J (2008) Rapid deterioration of Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola habitats at the western margin of the breeding range. J Ornithol 149:105–115
Teal JM, Peterson S (2005) The interaction between science and policy in the control of Phragmites in Oligohaline Marshes of Delaware Bay. Restor Ecol 13:223–227
Teunissen W, Schekkerman H, Willems F, Majoor F (2008) Identifying predators of eggs and chicks of Lapwing Vanellus vanellus and Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa in the Netherlands and the importance of predation on wader reproductive output. Ibis 150:74–85
Thorup O (1998) Ynglefuglene på Tipperne 1928–1992. Dansk Ornitologisk Forenings Tidskrift 92:1–192
Thorup O (2005) Breeding waders in Europe 2000. International Wader Studies 14. International Wader Study Group, UK
Tomiałojć L, Stawarczyk T (2003) Awifauna polski. Polskie Towarzystwo Przyjacioł Przyrody Pro Natura, Wrocław
Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York
Turner RE (2005) On the cusp of restoration: science and society. Restor Ecol 13:165–173
Van den Bergh E, Van Damme S, Graveland J, De Jong D, Baten I, Meire P (2005) Ecological rehabilitation of the schelde estuary (The Netherlands-Belgium; Northwest Europe): linking ecology, safety against floods, and accessibility for port development. Restor Ecol 13:204–214
Verkuil YI, Karlionova N, Rakhimberdiev EN, Jukema J, Wijmenga JJ, Hooijmeijer JC, Pinchuk P, Wymenga E, Baker AJ, Piersma T (2012) Losing a staging area: eastward redistribution of Afro-Eurasian ruffs is associated with deteriorating fuelling conditions along the western flyway. Biol Conserv 149:51–59
Von Thünen J-H (1910) Der isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalökonomie, https://archive.org/details/derisoliertestaa00thuoft
Wattage P, Mardle S (2008) Total economic value of wetland conservation in Sri Lanka identifying use and non-use values. Wetl Ecol Manag 16:359–369
Weber MA, Stewart S (2009) Public values for river restoration options on the Middle Rio Grande. Restor Ecol 17:762–771
Wells MP, Williams MD (1998) Russia’s protected areas in transition: the impacts of perestroika, economic reform and the move towards democracy. Ambio 27(3):198–206
Westerberg VH, Lifran R, Olsen SB (2010) To restore or not? A valuation of social and ecological functions of the Marais des Baux wetland in Southern France. Ecol Econ 69:2383–2393
Westlund H, Kobayashi K (2013) Social capital and rural development in the knowledge society. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Wheeler BD, Shaw SC (1995) A focus on fens. In: Wheeler BD, Shaw SC, Fojnt WJ, Robertson RA (eds) Restoration of temperate wetlands. Willey, Chichester, pp 49–72
Wichmann S, Brander L, Schäfer A, Schaafsma M, van Beukering P, Tinch D, Bonn A (2016) Valuing peatland ecosystem services. In: Bonn A, Alott T, Evans M, Joosten H, Stoneman R (eds) Peatland restoration and ecosystem services. Science, policy and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 324–325
Yimenu Z, Nandeeswara Rao P (2015) Economic analysis of household preferences for wetland attributes: application of choice experiment to the case of Lake Tana Wetlands. IJAIEM. 11:1–15
Żmihorski M, Ławicki Ł, Marchowski D, Wylegała P, Pärt T (2016) Spatial variation in long-term trends in a metapopulation of the globally threatened Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola in Poland. Acta Ornithol. 51:245–256. https://doi.org/10.3161/00016454AO2016.51.2.010
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the kind assistance of Uladzimir Malashevich, the former Aquatic Warbler Conservation Officer, whose work was supported by the Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB), the BirdLife International Partner in the UK within the framework of International Cooperation for Aquatic Warbler Conservation; to Zbigniew Karpowicz, the RSPB Senior Partner Development Officer as well as to two anonymous reviewers. Work conducted by Marek Giergiczny and Sviataslau Valasiuk was supported by the Polish National Science Centre Grant DEC-2012/07/E/HS4/04037. We are also grateful to UNDP Belarus, APB – BirdLife Belarus, to the Swedish research council FORMAS (Grant No. 2011-1737 to Per Angelstam), to the Polish-American Fulbright Commission for their support of the study as well as to the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable inputs.
Funding
Work conducted by Marek Giergiczny and Sviataslau Valasiuk was supported by the Polish National Science Centre (Grant DEC-2012/07/E/HS4/04037). Contribution of Per Angelstam was supported by FORMAS (Grant 2011–1737). The field study has been conducted during post-graduate course of Sviataslau Valasiuk at the Warsaw Ecological Economics Centre (WOEE) and was supported by the Polish-American Fulbright Commission within the framework of Lane Kirkland Programme (edition of 2009/2010).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Valasiuk, S., Giergiczny, M., Żylicz, T. et al. Conservation of disappearing cultural landscape’s biodiversity: are people in Belarus willing to pay for wet grassland restoration?. Wetlands Ecol Manage 26, 943–960 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-018-9622-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-018-9622-y