4.7 Article

Measuring conflicts in the management of anthropized ecosystems: Evidence from a choice experiment in a human-created Mediterranean wetland

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 203, 期 -, 页码 40-50

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.049

关键词

Ecosystem services; Social preferences; Environmental management; Scenario analysis; RAMSAR wetland; Choice experiment

资金

  1. Fundacion Seneca - Agencia de Ciencia y Tecnologia de la Region de Murcia [19342/PI/14]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economics and Competitiveness (MINECO) [AGL2015-64411-R]
  3. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Economic valuation of ecosystem services provides valuable information for the management of anthropized environments, where individual preferences can be heterogeneous and even opposed. Here, we discuss how these ecosystem services were approached in the literature and we address the main issues in relation to their economic valuation. We consider that avoiding misspecifications in economic valuation surveys requires considering the linkages between anthropized ecosystems and human intervention. To illustrate, we analyse the case study of a human-created Mediterranean wetland (El Hondo, SE Spain) using a Choice Experiment. Our findings suggest that management strategies in El Hondo should be oriented to improve the water ecological status, to enhance blodiversity and to develop ecotourism, whereas hunting should be strictly limited and controlled. Our measures of conflict (trade-off between ecosystem services and willingness to pay values) can help to find the optimal allocation of public and private goods and services and for the implementation of compensation schemes in the area. According to public preferences, a conservationist management strategy would generate 331,100 (sic)/year in terms of environmental benefits, whereas a tourism-based management strategy would benefit society with 805,200 (sic)/year. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据