Comparing individual and collective valuation of ecosystem service tradeoffs: A case study from montane forests in southern California, USA

IF 6.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Ecosystem Services Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101648
Haotian Cheng , Francisco J. Escobedo , Alyssa S. Thomas , Jesus Felix De Los Reyes , José R. Soto
{"title":"Comparing individual and collective valuation of ecosystem service tradeoffs: A case study from montane forests in southern California, USA","authors":"Haotian Cheng ,&nbsp;Francisco J. Escobedo ,&nbsp;Alyssa S. Thomas ,&nbsp;Jesus Felix De Los Reyes ,&nbsp;José R. Soto","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101648","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Accounting for the tradeoffs and importance urban, disadvantaged communities place on ecosystem services has implications for the management of nearby forests. Although stated preference valuation approaches are often used, they are based on an individual’s perspective and rarely account for collective or societal values. Thus, alternative methods are needed to capture this dichotomy from urban communities who may not even be aware of these benefits to themselves or society at-large. We explored individual and collective importance of, and tradeoffs for, ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (ED) by urban residents living near montane forests in greater Los Angeles, California, USA. Using an online panel survey, individual (<em>I-</em>rationality) versus collective (<em>We-</em>rationality) scenarios, best-worst scaling (BWS) choice experiments, and latent class analyses, we ranked the importance and tradeoffs among ES-ED attributes to<!--> <!-->nearby residents based on the frequency of visits to montane forests as well as Hispanic ethnicity. Results show statistically significant tradeoffs and differences in importance rankings between individual versus collective valuation scenarios. Under the individual valuation scenario, non-Hispanics highly ranked the high forest density indicator, which has implications for wildfire EDs to montane forests and communities. Gender and income were more influential sociodemographic factors affecting importance for water and recreation-related ES than was education. Our BWS and econometric methods, attributes, and importance rankings can facilitate participatory processes with diverse urban communities and designing more effective policies and management guidelines. This approach can<!--> <!-->also more inclusively, and equitably, account for the tradeoffs and values that nearby urban communities place on ES/ED from Wildland-Urban Interface forests.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":"69 ","pages":"Article 101648"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221204162400055X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accounting for the tradeoffs and importance urban, disadvantaged communities place on ecosystem services has implications for the management of nearby forests. Although stated preference valuation approaches are often used, they are based on an individual’s perspective and rarely account for collective or societal values. Thus, alternative methods are needed to capture this dichotomy from urban communities who may not even be aware of these benefits to themselves or society at-large. We explored individual and collective importance of, and tradeoffs for, ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (ED) by urban residents living near montane forests in greater Los Angeles, California, USA. Using an online panel survey, individual (I-rationality) versus collective (We-rationality) scenarios, best-worst scaling (BWS) choice experiments, and latent class analyses, we ranked the importance and tradeoffs among ES-ED attributes to nearby residents based on the frequency of visits to montane forests as well as Hispanic ethnicity. Results show statistically significant tradeoffs and differences in importance rankings between individual versus collective valuation scenarios. Under the individual valuation scenario, non-Hispanics highly ranked the high forest density indicator, which has implications for wildfire EDs to montane forests and communities. Gender and income were more influential sociodemographic factors affecting importance for water and recreation-related ES than was education. Our BWS and econometric methods, attributes, and importance rankings can facilitate participatory processes with diverse urban communities and designing more effective policies and management guidelines. This approach can also more inclusively, and equitably, account for the tradeoffs and values that nearby urban communities place on ES/ED from Wildland-Urban Interface forests.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较生态系统服务权衡的个人估值和集体估值:美国加利福尼亚州南部山地森林案例研究
考虑城市弱势社区对生态系统服务的权衡和重视程度对附近森林的管理具有影响。虽然陈述偏好估值方法经常被使用,但它们基于个人视角,很少考虑集体或社会价值。因此,需要采用其他方法来捕捉城市社区的这种两极分化现象,因为城市社区可能根本没有意识到这些服务对其自身或整个社会的益处。我们探讨了居住在美国加利福尼亚州大洛杉矶地区山地森林附近的城市居民对生态系统服务 (ES) 和生态系统不利服务 (ED) 的个人和集体重要性及权衡。通过在线小组调查、个人(理性)与集体(理性)情景、最佳-最差比例(BWS)选择实验以及潜类分析,我们根据居民访问山地森林的频率以及西班牙裔的情况,对其生态系统服务(ES)-生态系统服务(ED)属性的重要性和权衡进行了排序。结果表明,在个人估值与集体估值情景之间,重要程度的权衡和排序差异在统计学上具有重要意义。在个人估价情景下,非西班牙裔人对森林密度高指标的排序很高,这对山地森林和社区的野火应急教育有影响。与教育程度相比,性别和收入是影响水和娱乐相关 ES 重要性的更重要的社会人口因素。我们的 BWS 和计量经济学方法、属性和重要性排名可以促进不同城市社区的参与进程,并设计出更有效的政策和管理指南。这种方法可以更全面、更公平地考虑附近城市社区对荒地-城市结合部森林的 ES/ED 的取舍和价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem Services ECOLOGYENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES&-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
14.90
自引率
7.90%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly. Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.
期刊最新文献
Ecosystem service supply and (in)equality archetypes Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews Ecosystem services and cost-effective benefits from the reclamation of saline sodic land under different paddy field systems Cultural ecosystem services and disservices in protected areas: Hotspots and influencing factors based on tourists’ digital footprints Valuation of ecosystem services in marine protected areas: A comprehensive review of methods and needed developments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1