Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services among Stakeholder Groups in a South-Central U.S. Watershed with Regional Conflict
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 142, Issue 9
Abstract
Ecosystem services valuation has become a popular approach to weighing trade-offs in environmental management, particularly where natural resources such as freshwater are limited. The authors assessed multiple stakeholders’ social perception regarding a suite of ecosystem services in a south-central U.S. watershed that is water stressed and experiencing intense sociopolitical conflict. First, the ecosystem service beneficiaries were identified and characterized according to how they use and value ecosystem services. Second, the factors underlying social importance and economic support for maintaining these ecosystem services were analyzed. Finally, a willingness to pay approach was used to identify the economic value of services and explored potential biases in water management based on social and cultural attributes. Results (1) identified habitat for species and water quality as the most important and economically valuable ecosystem services, respectively, and (2) uncovered potential conflicts between water user groups based on whether or not they resided in the watershed. The authors suggest managers can use results (1) for dealing with water conflicts by examining stakeholder group attitudes toward specific services, and (2) to quantify the economic value of ecosystem services currently invisible in decision-making domains.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all of the people in the Kiamichi watershed, Oklahoma City, and experts at the University of Oklahoma that kindly responded to the questionnaire. The authors also thank Tracy Boyer for useful comments, and Kelsey Bowman, Melanie Lawson, and Joseph Sardasti for assisting with field work. The Oklahoma Biological Survey and the South Central Climate Science Center at the University of Oklahoma provided funding for the development of this research. AJC was partially funded by the NSF Idaho EPSCoR Program and by the National Science Foundation under award number IIA-1301792. With regards to the ASCE Data Sharing Policy, the authors are unable to share the data at this time because it is part of a broader survey with information beyond the scope of this article, which the authors plan to use for other manuscripts. The authors certify that the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the Protection of Human at the University of Oklahoma has approved the IRB protocol with permit number 2733.
References
Atkinson, C. L., Julian, J. P., and Vaughn, C. C. (2014). “Species and function lost: Role of drought in structuring stream communities.” Biol. Conserv., 176, 30–38.
Balvanera, P., Kremen, M. C., and Martínez-Ramos, M. (2005). “Applying community structure analysis to ecosystem function: Examples from pollination and carbon storage.” Ecol. Appl., 15(1), 360–375.
Baron, J. S., et al. (2002). “Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater.” Ecol. Appl., 12(5), 1247–1260.
Bateman, I., and Turner, R. K. (1993). “Valuation of the environment, methods and techniques: Revealed preference methods.” Sustainable environmental economics and management: Principles and practice, R. K. Turner, ed., Belhaven Press, London, 120–191.
Boyle, K. J., and Bergstrom, J. C. (1999). “Doubt, doubts, and doubters: The genesis of a new research agenda?” Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in The US, EU, and developing countries, I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis, eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., 183–206.
Brauman, K. A., Daily, G. C., Duarte, T. K, and Mooney, H. A. (2007). “The nature and value of ecosystem services: An overview highlighting hydrologic services.” Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 32, 67–98.
Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., and Meade, N. F. (2001). “Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence.” Environ. Resour. Econ., 19(2), 173–210.
Castro, A. J., et al. (2014). “Ecosystem service trade-offs from the supply to social demand: A landscape-scale spatial analysis.” Landscape Urban Plann., 132, 102–110.
Castro, A. J., García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Palomo, I., and Iniesta-Arandía, I. (2013). “Multidimensional approaches in ecosystem services assessment.” Earth observation of ecosystem services, C. Di Bella and D. Alcaraz-Segura, eds., Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, 105–124.
Castro, A. J., Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M., Aguilera, P. A., López, E., and Cabello, J. (2011). “Social preferences regarding the delivery of ecosystem services in a semiarid Mediterranean region.” J. Arid Environ., 75(11), 1201–1208.
Castro, A. J., Vaughn, C., Julian, J. P, and García-Llorente, M. (2016). “Social demand of ecosystem services for watershed management.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 52(1), 209–221.
Castro, A. J., Vaughn, C., Julian, J. P, García-Llorente, M., and Bowman, K. N. (2015). “Social perception and supply of ecosystem services: A watershed approach for carbon related ecosystem services.” Biodiversity in ecosystems—Linking structure and function blanco, Y.-H. Lo, J. A. Blanco, and S. Roy, eds., Universidad Publica de Navarra, Spain, 443–455.
Costanza, R., et al. (1997). “The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital.” Nature, 387(6630), 253–260.
de Groot, R. S., et al. (2012). “Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units.” Ecosyst. Serv., 1(1), 50–61.
García-Llorente, M., Castro, A. J., Quintas-Soriano, C., Castro, H., Montes, C., and Martín-López, B. (2016). “The value of time in biological conservation and supplied ecosystem services: A willingness to give up time exercise.” J. Arid Environ., 124, 13–21.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Díaz, S., and Montes, C. (2011a). “Can ecosystem properties be fully translated into service values? An economic valuation of aquatic plant services.” Ecol. Appl., 21(8), 3083–3103.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., González, J. A., Alcorlo, P., and Montes, C. (2008). “Social perceptions of the impacts and benefits of invasive alien species: Implications for management.” Biol. Conserv., 141(12), 2969–2983.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Nunes, P. A. L. D., González, J. A., Alcorlo, P., and Montes, C. (2011b). “Analyzing the social factors that influence willingness to pay for the management of invasive alien species under two different strategies: Eradication and prevention.” Environ. Manage., 48(3), 418–435.
Gordon, L., Finlayson, C. M., and Falkenmark, M. (2010). “Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services.” Agric. Water Manage., 97(4), 512–519.
Guo, Z., Xiao, X., and Li, D. (2000). “An assessment of ecosystem services: Water flow regulation and hydroelectric power production.” Ecol. Appl., 10(3), 925–936.
Harrison, P. A. (2010). “Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: An introduction to the RUBICODE project.” Biodivers. Conserv., 19(10), 2767–2772.
Heckman, J. J. (1979). “Sample selection bias as a specification error.” Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.
Hennessy-Fiske, M. (2011). “Tribes, small-town residents fear Oklahoma City will drain their lake.” Los Angeles Times, 〈http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/13/nation/la-na-oklahoma-lake-20111113〉 (Nov. 13, 2011).
Higuera, D., Martín-Lopez, B., and Sanchez-Jabba, A. (2012). “Social preferences towards ecosystem services provided by cloud forests in the neotropics: Implications for conservation strategies.” Reg. Environ. Change, 13(4), 861–872.
Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2005). “Loveable mammals and lifeless plants: How children’s interests in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature.” Int. J. Sci. Educ., 27(6), 655–677.
Loomis, P., Kent, L., Strange, K., Fausch, K., and Covich, A. (2000). “Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey.” Ecol. Econ., 33(1), 103–117.
Martín-López, B., et al. (2012). “Uncovering ecosystem services bundles through social preferences.” PLoS One, 7(6), e38970.
Martín-López, B., Montes, C., and Benayas, J. (2007). “The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation.” Biol. Conserv., 139(1–2), 67–82.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: The assessment series (four volumes and summary), Island Press, Washington, DC.
Mitchell, R. C., and Carson, R. T. (1989). “Using survey to value public goods. The contingent valuation method.” Resources for the future, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Mouchet, M. A., et al. (2014). “An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services.” Global Environ. Change, 28, 298–308.
Mueller, J. M. (2014). “Estimating willingness to pay for watershed restoration in flagstaff, Arizona using dichotomous-choice contingent valuation.” For.: An Int. J. For. Res., 87(2), 327–333.
Mueller, J. M., Swaffar, W., Nielsen, E. A., Springer, A. E., and Masek Lopez, S. (2013). “Estimating the value of watershed services following forest restoration.” Water Resour. Res., 49(4), 1773–1781.
Nicolau, J. L., and Más, F. J. (2005). “Heckit modelling of tourist expenditure: Evidence from Spain.” Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manage., 16(3), 271–293.
OWRB (Oklahoma Water Resources Board). (2008). “Water solutions for Oklahoma.” Oklahoma Governor’s Water Conf., Oklahoma City.
Perrings, C., et al. (2011). “Ecosystem services, targets, and indicators for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.” Front. Ecol. Environ., 9(9), 512–520.
Peterson, M. J., Hall, D. M., Feldpausch-Parker, A. M., and Rai Peterson, T. (2009). “Obscuring ecosystem function with application of the ecosystem services concept.” Conserv. Biol., 24(1), 113–119.
Quintas-Soriano, C., Castro, A. J., García-Llorente, M., Cabello, J., and Castro, H. (2014). “From supply to social demand: A landscape-scale analysis of the water regulation service.” Landscape Ecol., 29(6), 1069–1082.
Sigelman, L., and Zeng, L. (1999). “Analyzing censored and sample selected data with Tobit and Heckit models.” Political Anal., 8(2), 167–182.
Sodhi, N. S., et al. (2009). “Local people value environmental services provided by forested parks.” Biodivers. Conserv., 19(4), 1175–1188.
Spash, C. L. (2000). “Ethical motives and charitable contributions in contingent valuation: Empirical evidence from social psychology and economics.” Environ. Value, 9(4), 453–479.
Vaughn, C. C., Atkinson, C. L., and Julian, J. P. (2015). “Multiple droughts lead to long-term losses in mussel-provided ecosystem services.” Ecol. Evol., 5(6), 1291–1305.
Vaughn, C. C., and Taylor, C. M. (1999). “Impoundments and the decline of freshwater mussels: A case study of an extinction gradient.” Conserv. Biol., 13(4), 912–920.
Venkatachalam, L. (2004). “The contingent valuation method: A review.” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 24(1), 89–124.
Ward, D. A., Ngairorue, B. T., Apollus, A., and Tjiveze, H. (2000). “Perceptions and realities of land degradation in arid Otjimbingwe, Namibia.” J. Arid Environ., 45(4), 337–356.
Welsh, L. W., Endter-Wada, J., Downard, R., and Kettenring, K. M. (2013). “Developing adaptive capacity to droughts: The rationality of locality.” Ecol. Soc., 18(2), 7.
Winkler, R. (2006). “Valuation of ecosystem goods and services: An integrated dynamic approach.” Ecol. Econ., 59(1), 82–93.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 142 • Issue 9 • September 2016
Copyright
© 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Dec 11, 2015
Accepted: Feb 23, 2016
Published online: May 6, 2016
Published in print: Sep 1, 2016
Discussion open until: Oct 6, 2016
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.