Ecosystem services from tropical forestry projects – The choice of international market actors

Sell, Joachim; Koellner, Thomas; Weber, Olaf; Proctor, Wendy; Pedroni, Lucio; Scholz, Roland

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2006.02.001

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Behavioural control can support or hinder the transformation of stated demand into observable investment behaviour (Sell et al, 2007). Costbenefit expectations can drive ecosystem services improvements, whether these are financial or non-financial (Koellner et al, 2010).…”

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, private firms have become important actors in PES schemes (Koellner, Sell, & Navarro, 2010). However, what has been somewhat overlooked is their expectations about the financial and non-financial cost-benefit of investing in a water fund as a potential financing mechanism for the PWES scheme to conserve ecosystem services (Goldman-Benner et al, 2012;Koellner, Sell, Gähwiler, & Scholz, 2008;Sell, Koellner, Weber, Pedroni, & Scholz, 2006;Sell et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Firms’ willingness to invest in a water fund to improve water-related ecosystem services in the Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya

Mulatu

Oel

Veen

2015

Water International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A valuation scenario was designed using a contingent-valuation approach and presented to decision makers in business firms in Kenya's Lake Naivasha basin to test how applicable a water fund might be as a potential financing mechanism for a payment for water-related ecosystem services scheme. The findings indicate that measuring a firm's willingness to invest in ecosystem services could help determine whether a firm would invest and engage with other stakeholders to pool their investments in ecosystem services. Linking the institutional decision-making behaviour of a firm and its willingness to invest in a water fund is the novelty of this article.

show abstract

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Firms’ willingness to invest in a water fund to improve water-related ecosystem services in the Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya

Mulatu

Oel

Veen

2015

Water International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A choice task is much easier, less time-consuming, and often more realistic than the rating or ranking tasks used in the other elicitation techniques. It is believed, though difficult to prove, that the more closely a research task mimics real behavior, the more valid and reliable the results (Sell et al 2007). 2 In contingent valuation, for example, respondents have to state whether they would be willing to pay an amount of money marked on a bidding card for a defined environmental good.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring preferences on environmental damages in LCIA. Part 2: choice and allocation questions in panel methods

Mettier

Scholz

2008

Int J Life Cycle Assess

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background, aim, and scope Within life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), 'panel methods' has become a common term to denominate methods that elicit and measure stakeholders' stated preferences on environmental impact categories. Such panel procedures use different question formats to elicit information on weighting across impact categories from the stakeholders. The two most frequently used question formats are score allocation and choice between alternatives. The differences between these two question formats were analyzed in order to give advice on how to frame future panel procedures. Materials and methods A choice-based weighting procedure (choice experiment) for the three damage categories of human health, ecosystems quality, and resources was developed and executed. A logistic regression model was applied in order to estimate the weighting factors for the polled sample. Results from this choice-based procedure were compared to the results from an allocation-based procedure described in part 1 of this paper. Results When weighting factors are elicited by score allocation questions, panelists tend to distribute the scores more equally. A factor of 1.5 between the least and the most weighted damage category was found. Weighting factors from a choice experiment were more spread, i.e., the most important category was weighted considerably higher, whereas the other two categories were weighted less. Thus, for the choice experiment, the range between the most and the least weighted categories was considerably bigger-by about a factor of 4. Discussion A comparison of the two procedures revealed that the weighting of environmental damage categories is considerably influenced by the question of format. The reason for these variations may be different cognitive routines that are applied. In addition, several advantages and shortcomings of choice experiments are discussed. Conclusions The developed, choice-based procedure provided meaningful results. Thus, choice experiments, often used for the monetary valuation of environmental goods, can also be applied in LCIA to elicit nonmonetary weighting factors. Recommendations and perspectives Choice experiments form a new interesting approach for weighting procedures in the future as they have some advantages over the often used score allocation methods. They are simple and more realistic than other procedures, as panelists have practiced in choice tasks from everyday life. We, therefore, recommend such choice-based procedures for future panel studies.Keywords Choice experiments . Framing . Panel surveys . Stated preference . Weighting of damage categories in LCIA 1 Background, aim, and scopeIn general, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) finishes up with a set of three to 12 impact category indicator results that describe the impact of a product system on the environment. Weighting across impact categories is often needed in order to interpret these category indicator results and to draw conclusions. Within LCIA, 'panel methods' Int J Life Cycle Assess (2008) 13:468-476

show abstract

“…A decision-maker's knowledge about the socioeconomic conditions and Ecosystem Services (ES), and firm's prior engagement and experience with PES may influence stated demand and investment intention. Behavioral control is a factor that supports or hinders the transformation of stated demand into observable investment behavior (Sell et al 2007). Cost-benefit expectations are operationalized only as potential motivations in qualitative terms as a driver for demanding ecosystem services improvement either in expecting financial or non-financial cost-benefits (Koellner et al 2010).…”

Section: The Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, private firms have become important demand-side actors in PES schemes (Koellner et al 2010). However, the firms' expectations about financial and non-financial cost-benefits of investing in a water fund PES scheme and to conserve ecosystem services are somewhat overlooked (Sell et al 2006, Sell et al 2007, Koellner et al 2008, Goldman-Benner et al 2012. Therefore, understanding of firm's behaviors to invest in PES schemes is vital to incorporate the costs and benefits of investing in ecosystem services into the production function of firms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking the economy to the ecosystems: land use change and ecosystem services valuation at basin level

Mulatu¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services from tropical forestry projects – The choice of international market actors

Cited by 19 publications

References 46 publications

Firms’ willingness to invest in a water fund to improve water-related ecosystem services in the Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya

Firms’ willingness to invest in a water fund to improve water-related ecosystem services in the Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya

Measuring preferences on environmental damages in LCIA. Part 2: choice and allocation questions in panel methods

Linking the economy to the ecosystems: land use change and ecosystem services valuation at basin level

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About