Acta Oeconomica Pragensia 2013, 21(5):64-81 | DOI: 10.18267/j.aop.416

Economic Value of Cultural Landscape, Non-Production Services of a Territory, and Non-Market Valuation Methods. A Survey Focused on Determining which Landscape Functions are Valuated Most Frequently and which Methods are Used

Hana Švejdarová, Eva Cudlínová
Jihočeská univerzita v Českých Budějovicích, Ekonomická fakulta (hana.svejdarova@gmail.com, evacu@centrum.cz).

Almost every landscape fulfils various important functions for human society. Nevertheless, planning does not always allocate individual functions the significance that they ought to receive in comparison with others. A typical example is undervaluing landscape services that cannot be expressed in market terms. However, there are means to correct this imbalance. A landscape's non-market services can be expressed using non-market evaluation methods. As a basis for assessing the importance of multi-functional land use, a systematic overview of the various functions of a landscape is presented here. Furthermore, there is a brief description of the non-market evaluation methods that are suitable for evaluating important non-production landscape functions. The core of this work is a search in three flagship periodicals in the field of environmental economics. There is a review of papers applying non-market valuation methods to landscape services, which gives a firmly based picture of the possibilities for evaluating the non-market services of a landscape, the means most commonly used for this evaluation, the intensity of the work that went into developing them, and the increasing importance and prestige of these methods.

Keywords: non-market valuation, landscape services, environmental economics, non-production value, function of an area, value of an ecosystem
JEL classification: Q51, Q57

Published: August 1, 2013  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Švejdarová, H., & Cudlínová, E. (2013). Economic Value of Cultural Landscape, Non-Production Services of a Territory, and Non-Market Valuation Methods. A Survey Focused on Determining which Landscape Functions are Valuated Most Frequently and which Methods are Used. Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, 21(5), 64-81. doi: 10.18267/j.aop.416
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. BLAMFORD, A.; BRUNER, A.; COOPER, P; CONSTANZA, R.; FABER, S.; GREEN, R.; JENKINS, M.; JEFFERISS, P; JESSAMAY V.; MADDEN, J.; MUNRO, K.; MYERS, N.; NAEEM, S.; PAAVOLA, J.; RAYMENT, M.; ROSENDO, S.; ROUGHGARDEN, J.; TRUMPER, K.; TURNER, R. K. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science. 2002, vol. 297, s. 950-953. Go to original source...
    2. BLASCHKE, T. The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006, vol. 75, no. 3/4, s. 198-226. Go to original source...
    3. BOCKSTAEL, N. E.; FREEMAN III, M. A. Welfare Theory and Valuation. In MÁLER, K. G.; VINCENT, J. R. (ed.). Handbook of Environmental Economics. Elsevier B. V., 2005, vol. 2, s. 518-556.
    4. BROUWER, R. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecological Economics. 2000, vol. 32, no. 1, s. 137-152. Go to original source...
    5. BRYAN, B. A.; CROSSMAN, N. D.; KING, D.; MEYER, W. S. Landscape futures analysis: Assessing the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial policy options and future scenarios. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2011, vol. 26, no. 1, s. 83-91. Go to original source...
    6. CAP (Common Agricultural Policy). http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/capexplained/cap_cs.pdf.
    7. CARSON, R. T. Contingent Valuation: A User's Guide. 1999. http://ideas.repec.org/pZcdl/ucsdec/99-26.html.
    8. COSTANZA, R.; D'ARGE, R.; DE GROOT, R. S.; FARBER S.; GRASSO, M.; HANNON, B. The value of the world's ecosystem.services and natural capital. Nature. 1997, vol. 387, s. 253-260. Go to original source...
    9. CROMPTON, J. The Impact of Parks and Open Spaces on Property Taxes. In DE BRUN, C. (ed.). The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation. San Francisco : Trust for Public Land, 2007.
    10. DE GROOT, R. S.; WILSON, M. A.; BOUMANS, R. M. J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics. 2002, vol. 41, s. 393-408. Go to original source...
    11. EVROPSKÁ ÚMLUVA O KRAJINĚ. (European Landscape Convention CETS No. 176). 2000. www.kul-turnikrajina.cz/download/CETS-no176-cze.pdf, s. 4.
    12. GONZÁLEZ, M.; LEÓN, C. J. Consumption process and multiple valuation of landscape attributes. Ecological Economics. 2003, vol. 45, s. 159-169. Go to original source...
    13. HNILIČKA, P Sídelní kaše: Otázky k suburbánní výstavbě kolonií rodinných domů. Brno : ERA, 2005. ISBN 8073660288.
    14. CHESHIRE, P; SHEPPARD, S. The welfare economics of land use planning. Journal of Urban Economics. 2002, vol. 52, s. 242-269. Go to original source...
    15. JACKSON, J. Urban Sprawl. Urbanismus a územní rozvoj. 2002, vol. 5, no. 6. s. 21-28.
    16. KAREIVA, P; WATTS, S., McDONALD, R.; BOUCHER, T. Domesticated nature: Shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science. 2007, vol. 316, s. 1866-1869. Go to original source...
    17. KOTÍKOVÁ, E. Ochrana životního prostředí v ekonomické teorii. Politická ekonomie. 2006, roč. 54, č. 2, s. 261-273. Go to original source...
    18. KUMINOFF N. V.; PARMETER, C. F; POPE, J. C. Which hedonic models can we trust to recover the marginal willingness to pay for environmental amenities? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2010, vol. 60, no. 3, s. 145-160. Go to original source...
    19. LAPKA, M.; CUDLÍNOVÁ, E. The emerging role of post-classical approaches in agriculture and their possible application: Case from Nové Hrady, Czech Republic. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2007, vol. 119, no. 3/4, s. 373-382. Go to original source...
    20. LAPKA, M.; CUDLÍNOVÁ, E.; KINDLMANN, P; DOBIÁŠOVÁ, B. Perception of contemporary rural landscape by its future managers: Czech and Japanese students of landscape planning. Ekológia (Bratislava). 2008, roč. 27, č. 2, s. 196-211.
    21. MARKVART, J. Suburbanizace, pěší pohyb a krajina: příklad města Brna. Urbanismus a územní rozvoj. 2002, roč. 5, č. 6, s. 28- 34.
    22. McCONNEL, K. E.; BOCKSTAEL, N. E. Valuing the Environment as a Factor of Production. In MÁLER, K. G; VINCENT, J. R. (eds.). Handbook of Environmental Economics. Elsevier B. V., 2005, vol. 2, s. 622-661.
    23. MELICHAR, J.; ŠČASNÝ, M.; URBAN, J. Hodnocení smrtelných rizik na trhu práce: studie hédonické mzdy v českých zemích. Politická ekonomie. 2010, roč. 58, č. 5, s. 657-674. Go to original source...
    24. MELICHAR, J.; URBAN, J. Measuring the recreation values of urban forests: An application of travel cost model. In HAVRÁNEK, M. (ed.). ConAccount 2008: Urban metabolism: measuring the ecological city: Book of Proceedings. 1. vyd. Praha : Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Centrum pro otázky životního prostředí, 2009.
    25. MELICHAR, J.; VOJÁČEK, O.; RIEGER, P; JEDLIČKA, K. Measuring the Value of Urban Forest using the Hedonic Price Approach. Regionální studia / Czech regional studies. 2009, roč. 2009, č. 2, s. 13-20.
    26. MÍCHAL, I. Ekologická stabilita. Hostětín : Veronica 1994. ISBN 80-85368-22-6.
    27. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. www.millenniumassessment.org,www.maweb.org.
    28. MILUnet 2007. Practitioners Guide. Výstupy projektu: Multi Functional Land Use Network financovaného programem Interreg IIIC. www.milu.net.
    29. MINISTERSTVO VNITRA ČR. Nařízení vlády č. 505/2000 Sb., o podpoře mimoprodukčních funkcí zemědělství.
    30. MORANCHO, A. B. A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2003, vol. 66, s. 35-41. Go to original source...
    31. MYERS, N.; KENT, J. Perverse Subsidies: How Tax Dollars Harm the Environment and the Economy. Island Press, 2001. ISBN 1-55963-835-4.
    32. NUPPENAU, E. A. How Multi-functionality can Translate into Non-Trade Concerns in the WTO: On Price Transmission and Competition between Constituencies. Journal of Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology. 2005, vol. 4, no. 3/4, s. 306-326. Go to original source...
    33. POLASKY S.; COSTELLO, C.; SOLOW, A. The Economics of Biodiversity. In MÁLER, K. G.; VINCENT, J. R. (ed.). Handbook of Environmental Economics. Vol. 3. Elsevier B. V., 2005, s. 1518-1552.
    34. POLASKY, S.; NELSON, E.; CAMM, J.; CSUTI, B.; FACKLER, P; LONSDORF, E.; MONTGOMERY, C.; WHITE, D.; ARTHUR, J.; GARBER-YONTS, B.; HAIGHT, R.; KAGAN, J.; STARFIELD, A.; TOBAL-SKE, C. Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biological Conservation. 2008, vol. 141, s. 1505-1524. Go to original source...
    35. PRATO, T Evaluating land use plans under uncertainty. Land Use Policy. 2007, vol. 24, s. 165-174. Go to original source...
    36. RYDVALOVÁ, P; ŽIŽKA, M. Ekonomické souvislosti revitalizace brownfields. Politická ekonomie. 2006, roč. 54, č. 5, s. 632-645. Go to original source...
    37. SEJÁK, J.; DEJMAL, I. a kol. Hodnocení a oceňování biotopů ČR. Praha : Český ekologický ústav, 2003. ISBN 8085087545.
    38. SUGDEN, R. Market simulation and the provision of public goods: A non-paternalistic response to anomalies in environmental evaluation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2009, vol. 57, no. 1, s. 87-103. Go to original source...
    39. ŠAUER, P; DVOŘÁK, A.; MILDEOVÁ, S.; MOKRIŠOVÁ, J. Vyjádření užitku přírodního statku metodou podmíněného hodnocení: případ snížení rizika záplav. Politická ekonomie. 1998, roč. 46, č. 3, s. 772-787. Go to original source...
    40. ŠVEJDAROVÁ, H. Krajina se oceňuje hůř než cement: Postoj veřejnosti k stavbě cementárny a k ochraně životního prostředí na Berounsku. Vesmír. 1998, roč. 77, č. 6, s. 327-332.
    41. ŠVEJDAROVÁ, H.; MIŠOVIČ, J. Oceňování kvality životního prostředí - porovnání stanovených a odhalených preferencí. Politická ekonomie. 2001, roč. 49, č. 4, s. 559-567. Go to original source...
    42. TURNER, M. A. Landscape preferences and patterns of residential development. Journal of Urban Economics. 2005, vol. 57, s. 19-54. Go to original source...
    43. TURNER, R. K.; PAAVOLA, J.; COOPER, P; FARBER, S.; JESSAMY, V.; GEORGIOU, S. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics. 2003, vol. 46, s. 493-510. Go to original source...
    44. VOJÁČEK, O. K pojetí preferencí v ekonomickém myšlení. Politická ekonomie. 2011, roč. 59, č 3, s. 345-358. Go to original source...
    45. WHITEHEAD, T; SIMMONDS, D.; PRESTON, J. The effect of urban quality improvements on economic activity. Journal of Environmental Management. 2006, vol. 80, s. 1-12. Go to original source...
    46. WINPENNY, J. Values for the environment: a guide to economic appraisal. London : HMSO for the Overseas Development Institute, 1991. ISBN 0115802576.
    47. ZANDER, P; MEYER, B.; MICHEL, B.; KARPINSKI, I.; ROSSING, W.; GROOT, J.; JOSIEN, E.; RAMBO-NILANZA, T; MADUREIRA, L. Knowlege, Models, Techniques and tools that Help to Explain and Forecast Multifunctionality of Agriculture. Comparative Report, MultiAgri/WP3, Bruxelles, 2005.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content