Abstract
Identifying which aspects should be considered at risk is very important to preserve the environment and landscape. Although the literature on this issue is currently centered on climate changes, the preservation of landscape appears to be closely connected to property rights and local policies. A wide range of applications focused on landscape evaluation has provided a methodological framework, but the inclusion of the economic point of view appears to be more recent. At this regard, the contribution considers the economic valuation of landscape with the aim of highlighting the role played by risk and uncertainty in individual choices. It reviews the limits of expected utility theory and reclassifies according to the method, over a period of about 20 years, a certain number of experimental studies in relation to their valuation goals. Finally, it shows the various sources of risk that affect landscape in order to encourage future applications in this field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The broader context of ecosystem services can be analyzed from physiological, psychological, and economic perspectives. However, “evaluation” and “valuation” cannot be treated as synonyms. The first constitutes the process of scoring, or rating, the landscape quality, while the second assigns a monetary value to landscape or its attributes (Antrop et al. 2012).
- 2.
The sample is based only on articles published by reviews and journals that are mainly, but not exclusively, indexed by SCOPUS. It intentionally employed a sample with a focus on landscape rather than other forms of environmental services.
- 3.
As is known, the individuals express their willingness to pay (WTP) for a benefit or their willingness to accept (WTA) a damage through a contingent market, where supply and demand are simulated.
- 4.
During the decision-making process, anchoring occurs when individuals use an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgments. This implies a psychological phenomenon according to which the utility of individuals is determined by changes in the level of wellness in relation to an initial state (reference point), rather than in absolute terms. Behavior of this kind is reproduced from a utility function that is termed the value function and a system of weights, which transforms the objective probabilities of the outcomes of the decisions into subjective utility.
References
Antrop M, Sevenant M, Tagliafierro C, Van Eetvelde V, Witlox F (2012) Setting a framework for valuing the multifunctional landscape and its multiple perception. In: Van der Heide CM, Heijman W (eds) The economic value of landscape. Routledge, New York
Arrow K, Fisher A (1974) Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility. Q J Econ 88:312–319
Barker T, Qureshi MS, Köhler J (2006) The costs of greenhouse-gas mitigation with induced technological change: a meta-analysis of estimates in the literature. 4CMR, Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
Brookshire DS, Ives BC, Schulze WD (1976) The valuation of aesthetic preferences. J Environ Econ Manage 3:325–346
European Landscape Convention (2000) http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/Landscape/Publications/Convention-Txt-Ref_en.pdf
Hoyos D (2010) The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol Econ 69:1595–1603
Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Macmillan D, Hanley N, Buckland S (1996) A contingent valuation study of uncertain environmental gains. Scot J Polit Econ 43(5):519–533
McFadden D (1999) Rationality for economists? J Risk Uncertainty 19:5–275
Price C (1978) Landscape economics. Macmillan, London
Price C (2012) Subjectivity and objectivity in landscape evaluation. An old topic revisited. In: Van der Heide CM, Heijman W (eds) The economic value of landscape. Routledge, New York
Rouwendal J, Weijschede-van der Straaten JW (2012) What can hedonic analysis tell us about the value of landscape? In: Van der Heide CM, Heijman W (eds) The economic value of landscape. Routledge, New York
Schaeffer PV (2008) Thoughts concerning the economic valuation of landscapes. J Environ Manag 89:146–154
Stern NH (2007) The economics of climate change: the stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131
Tversky A, Wakker P (1995) Risk attitudes and decision weights. Econometrica 63:1255–1280
Van der Heide CM, Heijman W (2012) Landscape and economics. In: Van der Heide CM, Heijman W (eds) The economic value of landscape. Routledge, New York
Viscusi WK, Zeckhauser R (2006) The perception and valuation of the risks of climate change: a rational and behavioral blend. Clim Change 77:151–177
von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Wright G (1984) Behavioral decision theory. Sage, Beverly Hills
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bravi, M., Gasca, E. (2015). Economic Valuation of Landscape at Risk: A Critical Review. In: Gambino, R., Peano, A. (eds) Nature Policies and Landscape Policies. Urban and Landscape Perspectives, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05410-0_41
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05410-0_41
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-05409-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05410-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)