Vol. 86 (2025)
Original Articles - Urban, Land, Environmental Appraisal and Economics

Valuing cultural ecosystem services: an application to forest areas in Marche Region, Italy

PDF
  • Danilo Gambelli,
  • Alice Dappozzo,
  • Andrea Cameli,
  • Carlo Urbinati,
  • Alessandro Vitali
Danilo Gambelli
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Italy
Alice Dappozzo
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Italy
Andrea Cameli
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Italy
Carlo Urbinati
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Italy
Alessandro Vitali
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Italy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/aestim-16391

Published 2025-08-07

Keywords

  • cultural ecosystem services,
  • contingent valuation,
  • importance-performance analysis

Copyright (c) 2025 Danilo Gambelli, Alice Dappozzo, Andrea Cameli, Carlo Urbinati, Alessandro Vitali

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Funding data

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

This article investigates the perceived relevance of cultural ecosystem services (ES) in two forest areas in the Marche region (Italy) and how users, tourists and locals value them economically. Two surveys were used to collect data from visitors to the two areas. Through Importance Performance Analysis (IPA), we assessed visitors’ satisfaction with cultural ES in the two areas under investigation. The economic appraisal of the ecosystem services in the two forest areas was based on a contingent valuation method (CVM) using a double-bounded approach to estimate visitors’ willingness to pay (WTP). This type of research, merging qualitative and monetary evaluation of ES can contribute to defining policy management by identifying aspects and activities in natural areas that require specific intervention. Evidence for the economic value delivered by a broader range of ES may support the definition of more effective policy measures for forest areas and create the basis for the definition of payment schemes for ES.

PDF

References

  1. Alberini, A., & Kahn, J. R. (2006). Handbook on Contingent Valuation. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845427917
  2. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of The NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 4601–4614.
  3. Barbier, E. B., Hacker, S. D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E. W., Stier, A. C., & Silliman, B. R. (2011). The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs, 81, 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1510.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1510.1
  4. Bateman, I. J., & Turner, R. K. (1992). Evaluation of the environment: the contingent valuation method (working paper GEC 92-18). Norwich, UK, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment.
  5. Bateman, I., Willis, K., & Garrod, G. (1994). Consistency between contingent valuation estimates: a comparison of two studies of UK National Parks. Regional Studies, 28, 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409412331348396 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409412331348396
  6. Bateman, I., & Willis, K. G. (2001). Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. New York, Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199248915.001.0001
  7. Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized Environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 616–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
  8. Boley, B. B., McGehee, N. G., & Tom Hammett, A. L. (2017). Importance-performance analysis (IPA) of sustainable tourism initiatives: the resident perspective. Tourism Management, 58, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TOURMAN.2016.10.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.002
  9. Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., & Meade, N. F. (2001). Contingent Valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 173–210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011128332243 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011128332243
  10. Carson, R. T., Mitchell, R. C., Hanemann, M., Kopp, R. J., Presser, S., & Ruud, P. A. (2003). Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental and Resource Economics, 25, 257–286. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024486702104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024486702104
  11. Carson, R. T., & Hanemann, W. M. (2005). Contingent Valuation. In Mler, K.G., & Vincent, J. R. (Eds). Handbook of Environmental Economics. Vol. 2, pp. 821–936. Amsterdam, Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0099(05)02017-6
  12. Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent Valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren’t available. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27–42. doi: 10.1257/jep.26.4.27 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.27
  13. Chatterjee, N. (2019). Valuation of forestry in selected dryland areas of West Bengal: a contingent valuation approach. Economic Affairs (New Delhi), 64(1), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.30954/0424-2513.1.2019.21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30954/0424-2513.1.2019.21
  14. Chen, H. C., Tseng, T. P., Cheng, K., Sriarkarin, S., Xu, W., Ferdin, A. E., Nguyen, V. V., Zong, C., & Lee, C. H. (2021). Conducting an evaluation framework of importance-performance analysis for sustainable forest management in a rural area. Forests, 12(10), 1357. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12101357 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f12101357
  15. Deng, W. (2007). Using a revised importance-performance analysis approach: the case of Taiwanese hot springs tourism. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1274–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.010
  16. Di Franco, C. P., Lima, G., Schimmenti, E., & Asciuto, A. (2021). Methodological approaches to the valuation of forest ecosystem services: an overview of recent international research trends. Journal of Forest Science, 67(7), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.17221/13/2021-JFS DOI: https://doi.org/10.17221/13/2021-JFS
  17. Dimopoulos, V., Tourkolias, C., & Mirasgedis, S. (2022). Valuing natural ecosystems: the case of National Park Kotychi-Strofilia in Peloponnese, Greece. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1123, 012090. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1123/1/012090 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1123/1/012090
  18. Fan, Y., Wu, H., Jin, H., Lu, L., Zhao, Y., & Wang, Y. (2023). Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services in mountain-type scenic areas: an importance-performance analysis of the Road of Tang Poetry in Eastern Zhejiang, China. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 23(5), 1735–1755. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2023.2270031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2023.2270031
  19. Gambelli, D., Solfanelli, F., Orsini, S., & Zanoli, R. (2021). Measuring the economic performance of small ruminant farms using balanced scorecard and importance-performance analysis: a European case study. Sustainability, 13(6) 3321, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063321 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063321
  20. Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosystem Ecology: a new synthesis, 1, 110–139. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007
  21. Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2018). Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the application of the revised structure. Available at: www.cices.eu (accessed 19 November 2024). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108
  22. Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double‐bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(4), 1255–1263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453
  23. Hanemann, W. M. (1991). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ?. The American Economic Review, 81(3), 635–647. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006525
  24. Hanemann, W. M. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 19–43. doi: 10.1257/jep.8.4.19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.19
  25. Lopez-Feldman, A. (2012). Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata. MRPA. Paper No. 41018. Available at: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/41018 (accessed 19 November 2024).
  26. Mammuccini, M. G. (2004). Multifunzionalità del bosco: nuovi scenari per la ricerca e l’innovazione. L’Italia Forestale e Montana, 59(3), 189–212.
  27. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297704100112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297704100112
  28. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
  29. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future. New York, RFF press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315060569 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315060569
  30. Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., & May, P. H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1202–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2009.11.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006
  31. Oh, H. (2001). Revisiting importance-performance analysis. Tourism Management, 22(6), 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00036-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00036-X
  32. Paletto, A., Geitner, C., Grilli, G., Hastik, R., Pastorella, F., & Garcìa, L. R. (2015). Mapping the value of ecosystem services: a case study from the Austrian Alps. Annals of Forest Research, 58(1), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2015.335 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2015.335
  33. Portney, P. R. (1994). The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.3
  34. Riccioli, F., Fratini, R., Fagarazzi, C., Cozzi, M., Viccaro, M., Romano, S., Rocchini, D., Espinosa Diaz, S., & Tattoni, C. (2020). Mapping the recreational value of coppices’ management systems in Tuscany. Sustainability, 12(19), 8039. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198039
  35. Sajise, A. J., Samson, J. N., Quiao, L., Sibal, J., Raitzer, D. A., & Harder, D. (2021). Contingent valuation of nonmarket benefits in project economic analysis: a guide to good practice. Asian Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.22617/TCS210514-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22617/TCS210514-2
  36. Sever, I. (2015). Importance-performance analysis: a valid management tool? Tourism Management, 48, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.022
  37. Silva, F. H., & Fernandes, P. O. (2011). Importance-performance analysis as a tool in evaluating higher education service quality: the empirical results of ESTiG (IPB). In The 17th International Business Information Management Association Conference, University of Pavia. Milan, Italy, 306–315. http://hdl.handle.net/10198/7120
  38. Sgroi, F., Foderà, M., Dana, L. P., Mangiapane, G., Tudisca, S., Di Trapani, A. M., & Testa, R. (2016). Evaluation of payment for ecosystem services in Mediterranean forest: an empirical survey. Ecological Engineering, 90, 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.02.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.02.004
  39. Suryawan, I. W. K., & Lee, C. H. (2024). Importance-performance dynamics and willingness to pay in coastal areas for climate-adaptive Marine Debris Management. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 77, 103596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2024.103596 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2024.103596
  40. TEEB (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. New York, Routledge.
  41. Tuati, H., Farida, N., & Manuain, D. W. (2022). Analysis of the Economic Value of Tourism Tablolong Contingent Valuation Method Approach in West Kupang. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Science and Technology on Social Science 2021 (ICAST-SS 2021), 647, 833–839. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220301.137 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220301.137
  42. Turner, R. K., Pearce, D. W., & Bateman, I. (1993). Environmental economics: an elementary introduction. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
  43. Vallecillo, S., La Notte, A., Ferrini, S., & Maes, J. (2019). How ecosystem services are changing: an accounting application at the EU level. Ecosystem Services, 40, 101044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101044
  44. Wu, S. T., Hsieh, Y. T., Huang, S. C., Wei, C. H., Chen, C. T., & Chen, J. C. (2021). Perceptions of tourists of the resources, ecological service functions and recreation value of the Guanwu National Forest Recreation Area. Plos one, 16(9), e0257835. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257835 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257835
  45. Whittington, D. (2002). Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 22, 323–367. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015575517927 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015575517927
  46. Wunder, S., Brouwer, R., Engel, S., Ezzine-De-Blas, D., Muradian, R., Pascual, U., & Pinto, R. (2018). From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nature Sustainability, 1(3), 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x