IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v7y2014icp89-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Doherty, Edel
  • Murphy, Geraldine
  • Hynes, Stephen
  • Buckley, Cathal

Abstract

As demands on the environment and associated ecosystem services increase, the need for a more integrated approach to managing the exploitation of these natural resources also increases. This is particularly true for the alternative types of water bodies such as a sea, river and/or a lake. The purpose of this paper is to explore the preferences of residents in the Republic of Ireland for a number of ecosystem services provided by Irish water bodies. In particular the paper examines whether, and how, preferences for the same ecosystem services differ when the public is asked to consider the alternative water body types (sea, river and lake). This is relevant as the ecosystem services' economic benefits are not necessarily uniform across water bodies, a factor that has not been explored in detail previously.

Suggested Citation

  • Doherty, Edel & Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Buckley, Cathal, 2014. "Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 89-97.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:7:y:2014:i:c:p:89-97
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041613000624
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
    2. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    3. Mavra Stithou & Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Danny Campbell, 2012. "Estimating the Value of Achieving “Good Ecological Status”in the Boyne River Catchmentin Ireland Using Choice Experiments," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 397-422.
    4. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    5. Hynes, Stephen & Tinch, Dugald & Hanley, Nick, 2013. "Valuing improvements to coastal waters using choice experiments: An application to revisions of the EU Bathing Waters Directive," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 137-144.
    6. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri & Yiannis Kountouris, 2008. "Using the Choice Experiment Method to Inform River Management in Poland: Flood Risk Reduction vs. Habitat Conservation in the Upper Silesia Region," DEOS Working Papers 0802, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    7. Edel Doherty & Danny Campbell & Stephen Hynes, 2013. "Models of Site-choice for Walks in Rural Ireland: Exploring Cost Heterogeneity," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 446-466, June.
    8. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(4), pages 591-611, December.
    9. K. G. Willis & P. L. Mcmahon & G. D. Garrod & N. A. Powe, 2002. "Water Companies' Service Performance and Environmental Trade-offs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 363-379.
    10. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    12. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Deriving and Testing Efficient Estimates of WTP Distributions in Destination Choice Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 379-395, November.
    13. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    14. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick & Barberan, Ramon & Lazaro, Angelina, 2007. "Choice modeling at the "market stall": Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 743-751, February.
    15. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
    16. John Curtis, 2003. "Demand for Water-based Leisure Activity," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(1), pages 65-77.
    17. John A. Curtis, 2002. "Estimating the Demand for Salmon Angling in Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 33(3), pages 319-332.
    18. Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo & Dugald Tinch & Andrew Black & Ashar Aftab, 2006. "Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: are benefits transferable?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(3), pages 391-413, September.
    19. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    20. Tait, Peter & Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Bicknell, Kathryn, 2012. "Nonmarket valuation of water quality: Addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 15-21.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Doherty, Edel & Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Buckley, Cathal, 2013. "Are similar ecosystem services valued differently across different water body types: A discrete choice analysis of rivers, lakes and sea attributes?," Working Papers 160055, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    2. Anna Créti & Federico Pontoni, 2014. "Cheaper electricity or a better river? Estimating fluvial ecosystem value in Southern France," Working Papers hal-00998614, HAL.
    3. Mavra Stithou & Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Danny Campbell, 2012. "Estimating the Value of Achieving “Good Ecological Status”in the Boyne River Catchmentin Ireland Using Choice Experiments," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 397-422.
    4. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    6. Stithou, Mavra & Hynes, Stephen & Hanley, Nick & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Estimating the Value of Achieving ‘Good Ecological Status’ under the Water Framework Directive in the Boyne River Catchment: A Mixed Multinomial Logit Approach," Working Papers 148928, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    7. Dai, Dan & Brouwer, Roy & Lei, Kun, 2021. "Measuring the economic value of urban river restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    8. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    11. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "Reprint of ‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 283-294.
    12. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2015. "‘Yes-in-my-backyard’: Spatial differences in the valuation of forest services and local co-benefits for carbon markets in México," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 130-141.
    13. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    14. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    15. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    16. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    18. Ekin Birol & Sukanya Das, 2010. "The Value of Improved Public Services : An Application of the Choice Experiment Method to Estimate the Value of Improved Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure in India," Development Economics Working Papers 23062, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    19. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152198, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Giacomo Pallante & Adam Drucker, 2014. "Niche Markets for Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Preference and Scale Heterogeneity Effects on Nepalese Consumers’ WTP for Finger Millet Products," SEEDS Working Papers 1414, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:7:y:2014:i:c:p:89-97. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.