Which cultural ecosystem services is more important? A best-worst scaling approach

ABSTRACT Identifying relatively important ecosystem services beforehand is essential for efficient and effective assessment. Using a best-worst scaling (BWS) method, we investigated the relative importance of cultural ecosystem services (CES) in Japan, where the second phase of national ecosystem service assessment is under consideration. Classifying CES into seven distinct categories (i.e. spiritual and religious values, recreation and tourism, aesthetic values, education and inspiration, social cohesion and sense of place, cultural diversity, and existence and bequest values), we administered a questionnaire survey at the nation-wide scale and collected 28,854 valid BWS responses from 4122 individuals. As a result, BWS successfully elicited the Japanese preferences for CES with completely distinguishable orders, which the conventional rating approach was unable to achieve. Our analysis proposed that future CES assessments in Japan should put more emphasis on aesthetic values as well as existence and bequest values. As we could not find large differences in preferences for these two services across individuals, groups and regions in relative terms, such prioritization could gain broader understanding and supports from wider audiences.

[1]  Kenneth E. Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[2]  Christina C. Hicks,et al.  Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef ecosystem services , 2013 .

[3]  T. Plieninger,et al.  An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators , 2013 .

[4]  R. D. Groot,et al.  A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services , 2002 .

[5]  M. Pérez-Soba,et al.  Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU , 2014 .

[6]  K. Chan,et al.  Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values , 2012 .

[7]  P. Boxall,et al.  Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach , 2002 .

[8]  M. Rodríguez-Entrena,et al.  The role of ancillary benefits on the value of agricultural soils carbon sequestration programmes: Evidence from a latent class approach to Andalusian olive groves , 2014 .

[9]  S. Jaeger,et al.  Best–worst scaling: An introduction and initial comparison with monadic rating for preference elicitation with food products , 2008 .

[10]  Z. Lindo,et al.  Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: Implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values , 2015 .

[11]  V. Reyes‐García,et al.  Beyond food production : home gardens as biocultural conservation agents : a case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, northeastern Spain , 2012 .

[12]  T. Flynn.  Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling , 2010, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[13]  Tyron J. Venn,et al.  Applying Q-methodology to select and define attributes for non-market valuation: A case study from Northwest Wyoming, United States , 2014 .

[14]  N. Hanley,et al.  Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management , 2017 .

[15]  Fiona L. Gibson,et al.  What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best–worst scaling survey , 2016 .

[16]  Xiangzheng Deng,et al.  Identifying Drivers of Land Use Change in China: A Spatial Multinomial Logit Model Analysis , 2013, Land Economics.

[17]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Measuring values using best‐worst scaling: The LOV example , 2007 .

[18]  O. Saito,et al.  Mapping and characterizing ecosystem services of social–ecological production landscapes: case study of Noto, Japan , 2015, Sustainability Science.

[19]  Carlos Montes,et al.  Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network , 2014, Regional Environmental Change.

[20]  A. Daly,et al.  Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data , 1994 .

[21]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models , 2008 .

[22]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  A latent segmentation approach to a Kuhn–Tucker model: An application to recreation demand , 2010 .

[23]  S. Polasky,et al.  Assessing nature's contributions to people , 2018, Science.

[24]  K. Winkler.  More than wine : cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes , 2016 .

[25]  J. Louviere,et al.  Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food Safety , 1992 .

[26]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences , 2005, Land Economics.

[27]  Sarah C. Klain,et al.  Navigating Coastal Values: Participatory Mapping of Ecosystem Services for Spatial Planning , 2012 .

[28]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  An introduction to the application of (case 1) best–worst scaling in marketing research , 2013 .

[29]  R. Cowling,et al.  An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  Priya Raghubir,et al.  Are consumers aware of top-bottom but not of left-right inferences? Implications for shelf space positions. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[31]  J. Gonzalez,et al.  Uncovering Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social Preferences , 2012, PloS one.

[32]  J. Hanspach,et al.  Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research , 2013 .

[33]  J. Walter Milon,et al.  Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration , 2006 .

[34]  B. Bryan,et al.  Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services , 2009 .

[35]  C. Bhat.  Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model , 2001 .

[36]  E. Oteros‐Rozas,et al.  Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level , 2013 .

[37]  Damian C. Adams,et al.  Consumer demand for urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: Examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-worst scaling , 2018 .

[38]  Damian C. Adams,et al.  Landowner attitudes and willingness to accept compensation from forest carbon offsets: Application of best–worst choice modeling in Florida USA , 2016 .

[39]  Zhuang Fengqing,et al.  Patients’ Responsibilities in Medical Ethics , 2016 .

[40]  T. Peters,et al.  Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. , 2007, Journal of health economics.

[41]  Stefan Hajkowicz,et al.  Multi-attributed environmental index construction , 2006 .

[42]  Nora Fagerholm,et al.  Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments – Mapping indicators for landscape services , 2012 .

[43]  A. Juutinen,et al.  Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application , 2011 .

[44]  Phoebe Koundouri,et al.  Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece , 2006 .

[45]  B. Bryan,et al.  Quantifying and Exploring Strategic Regional Priorities for Managing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services Given Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives , 2010, Ecosystems.

[46]  Danny Campbell,et al.  Position Bias in Best‐Worst Scaling Surveys: A Case Study on Trust in Institutions , 2015 .