Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Location, Location, Habitat: How the Value of Ecosystem Services Varies across Location and by Habitat

Location, Location, Habitat: How the Value of Ecosystem Services Varies across Location and by... ABSTRACT: We used a choice experiment to examine how ecosystem service values (ESVs) vary across locations and, for the first time, across habitats. The study context was three habitats (oyster reef, salt marsh, and black mangrove) in two U.S. Gulf Coast locations. The null hypothesis of ESV equality across locations was rejected 44% of the time and, when tested over suites of services, was rejected 50% of the time. Across habitats, the null hypothesis was rejected 22% and 10% of the time, respectively. Overall, benefit transfer across habitats appeared to work fairly well, whereas results were more mixed across locations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Land Economics University of Wisconsin Press

Location, Location, Habitat: How the Value of Ecosystem Services Varies across Location and by Habitat

Land Economics , Volume 92 (2) – Mar 29, 2016

Location, Location, Habitat: How the Value of Ecosystem Services Varies across Location and by Habitat


Matthew G. Interis and Daniel R. Petrolia ABSTRACT. We used a choice experiment to examine how ecosystem service values (ESVs) vary across locations and, for the first time, across habitats. The study context was three habitats (oyster reef, salt marsh, and black mangrove) in two U.S. Gulf Coast locations. The null hypothesis of ESV equality across locations was rejected 44% of the time and, when tested over suites of services, was rejected 50% of the time. Across habitats, the null hypothesis was rejected 22% and 10% of the time, respectively. Overall, benefit transfer across habitats appeared to work fairly well, whereas results were more mixed across locations. (JEL H41, Q51) I. INTRODUCTION A central advantage of choice experiments over more traditional stated preference valuation methods such as contingent valuation is that they can be used to estimate the value of particular ecosystem services (Adamowicz et al. 1998). Furthermore, several studies have investigated whether choice experiments can be used to improve benefit transfer, with the intuition being that the modeling of changes at the ecosystem service level allows transferred values to be adjusted accordingly, based on the ecosystem services of the site to which values are being transferred (see Morrison and Bergland [2006] for a review of this literature). In the present study, we use a choice experiment to estimate the value of incremental changes in four ecosystem services--water quality, fisheries support, flood protection, and bird habitat--in each of two different locations: Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary, Louisiana, and Mobile Bay, Alabama. Further · · 92 (2): 292­307 ISSN 0023-7639; E-ISSN 1543-8325 2016 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System more, we estimate the value of these ecosystem services when provided by three distinct habitat types found along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico: oyster reefs, black mangroves, and salt marsh. Each...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-wisconsin-press/location-location-habitat-how-the-value-of-ecosystem-services-varies-O43V613ZGp
Publisher
University of Wisconsin Press
Copyright
Copyright by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
ISSN
1543-8325
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ABSTRACT: We used a choice experiment to examine how ecosystem service values (ESVs) vary across locations and, for the first time, across habitats. The study context was three habitats (oyster reef, salt marsh, and black mangrove) in two U.S. Gulf Coast locations. The null hypothesis of ESV equality across locations was rejected 44% of the time and, when tested over suites of services, was rejected 50% of the time. Across habitats, the null hypothesis was rejected 22% and 10% of the time, respectively. Overall, benefit transfer across habitats appeared to work fairly well, whereas results were more mixed across locations.

Journal

Land EconomicsUniversity of Wisconsin Press

Published: Mar 29, 2016

There are no references for this article.