Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 423, 2022
Ecosystem services and economics
Article Number 16
Number of page(s) 13
Published online 29 July 2022
  • Aizaki H. 2012. Basic functions for supporting an implementation of choice experiments in r. Journal of Statistical Software 50: 1–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Asefaw F, Liuyang Y, Minjuan Z. 2016. Spatial preference heterogeneity for integrated river basin management: The case of the shiyang river basin. Sustainability 8: 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  • Bagstad K, Semmens D, Winthrop R. 2013. Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro river, Arizona. Ecosystem Services 5: 40–50. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Barnaud C, Antona M, Marzin J. 2011. Vers une mise en d bat des incertitudes associées la notion de service écosystémique. Vertigo 11. [Google Scholar]
  • Bergstrom J, Loomis J. 2017. Economic valuation of river restoration: an analysis of the valuation literature and its uses in decision-making. Water Resources Economics 17: 9–19. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Biro Y. 1998. Valuation of environmental impacts of the Kayraktepe dam/hydroelectric project, Turkey: an exercise in contingent valuation. Ambio 27: 224–229. [Google Scholar]
  • Bliem M, Getzner M, Rodiga-Lassnig P. 2012. Temporal stability of invididual preferences for river restoration in austria using a choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Management , 30: 65–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Botelho A, Ferreira P, Lima F, Pinto L, & Sousa S. 2017. Assessment of the environmental impacts associated with hydropower. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70: 896–904. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Botelho A, Lourenco-Gomes L, Pinto L, Sousa P, Sousa S, & Valente M. 2015. Using choice experiments to assess environmental impacts of dams in Portugal. AIMS Energy Journal 3: 316–325. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Boyd J, Ringold P, Krupnick A, Johnston R, Weber M, & Hal K. 2016. Ecosystem services indicators: Improving the linkage between biophysical and economic analyses. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 8: 359–443. [Google Scholar]
  • Brouwer R, Bliem M, Getzner M, Kerekes S, Milton S, Palarie T, Wagtendonk A. 2016. Valuation and transferability of the non-market bene_ts of river restoration in the international danube river basin using a choice experiment. Ecological Engineering 87: 20–29. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Brower R. 2017. The economic value of river restoration. Water Resources and Economics 17: 1–8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Casula M. 2006. L’identité corse : une relation récursive entre identités et territoires vécus Nouvelles perspectives en sciences sociales 2: 9–67. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • CGDD. 2016. Quelle valeur les Français accordent-ils à la préservation de la biodiversité dans les forêts publiques métropolitaines ? (Tech. Rep.). [Google Scholar]
  • Charais J, da Costa P, Malavoi J, Andriamahefa H, & Detry P. 2014. Le label écologique rivières sauvages: un nouvel outil de conservation des cours d’eau d’exception In Naturalité des Eaux et des Forêts. Lavoisier eds. [Google Scholar]
  • Creti A, & Pontoni F. 2014. Cheaper electricity or a better river? estimating fluvial ecosystem value in Southern France. HAL and Cahier n° 2014–15 Département d’économie de l’Ecole Polytechnique. [Google Scholar]
  • EC. 2021. Making sustainable hydropower a reality. Retrieved 25 February 2022, from [Google Scholar]
  • Ehrlich PR, & Mooney HA. 1983. Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services. BioScience 33: 248–254. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, & Montes C. 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69: 1209–1218. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Han S, Kwak S, & Yoo S. 2008. Valuing environmental impacts of large dam construction in Korea: An application of choice experiments. Environmantal Impact Assessment Review 28: 255–266. [Google Scholar]
  • Hanley N, & Barbier E. 2009. Pricing nature: Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar eds. [Google Scholar]
  • Hanley N, Wright R, & Adamowicz V. 1998. Using choice experiments to value the environment: Design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environmental and Resource Economics 11: 413–428. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Honey-Rosés J, Acuña V, Bardina M, Brozović N, Marcé R, Munné A, Schneider D. 2013. Examining the demand for ecosystem services: The value of stream restoration for drinking water treatment managers in the Llobregat river, Spain. Ecological Economics 90: 196–205. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • IPBES. 2008. Report of the ad hoc intergovernmental and multi-stakeholder meeting on an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. UNEP / IPBES / 1 / 6. [Google Scholar]
  • Johnston R, Boyle K, Adamowicz W, Bennett J, Brouwer R, Cameron T, Vossler C. 2017. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4: 319–405. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jones B, Berrens R, Jenkins-Smith H, Silva C, Carlson D, Ripberger J, Carlson N. 2016. Valuation in the anthropocene: exploring options for alternative operations of the Glen Canyon dam. Water Resources Economics 14: 13–30. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kahn J, Vasquez W, & de Rezende C. 2017. Choice modeling of system-wide or large scale environmental change in a developing country context: Lessons from the Paraíba do Sul river. Science of the Total Environment 598: 488–496. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kahneman D, & Knetsch JL. 1992. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22: 57–70. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lancaster K. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economics 84: 132–157. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lazaridou D, & Michailidis A. 2020. Valuing users’ willingness to pay for improved water quality in the context of the water framework directive. The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 27: 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  • Lewis L, Bohlen C, & Wilson S. 2008. Dams, dam removal and river restoration: a hedonic property value analysis. Contemporary Economic Policy 26: 175–186. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lindenia. 2013. Etude pre-opérationnelle à la restauration, l’entretien, la gestion et la mise en valeur du Taravo.(Tech. Rep.). [Google Scholar]
  • Lizin R, Brouwer R, Liekens I, & Broeckx S. 2016. Accounting for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in a labelled choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Management 181: 289–297. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Louviere J, & Hensher D. 1983. Using discrete choice models with experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for a unique cultural event. Journal of Consumer Research 10: 348–361. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Louviere J, & Woodworth G. 1983. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. Journal Marketing Research 20: 350–367. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Perni A, & Martinez-Paz J. 2017. Measuring conicts in the management of anthropized ecosystems: Evidence from a choice experiment in a human-created Mediterranean wetland. Journal of Environmental Management 203: 40–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Provencher B, Sarakinos H, & Meyer T. 2008. Does small dam removal affect local property values? an empirical analysis. Contemporary Economic Policy 26: 187–197. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Reynaud A, Lanzanova D, Liquete C, & Grizzetti B. 2017. Going green? ex-post valuation of a multipurpose water infrastructure in Northern Italy. Ecosystem Services 27: 70–81. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ruckelshaus M, McKenzie E, Tallis H, Guerry A, Daily G, Kareiva P, Bernhardt J. 2015. Notes from the_eld: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecological Economics 115: 11–21. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Shi H, Zhao M, Aregay F, & Zhao K. 2016. Residential environment induced preference heterogeneity for river ecosystem service improvements: A comparison between urban and rural households in the Wei river basin, China. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 2016: 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • Sundqvist T. 2002. Power generation choice in the presence of environmental externalities. Phd Thesis in Economics at Lulea University of Technology, ISSN 1402–1544: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • TEEB. 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan, London and Washington. [Google Scholar]
  • Tu G, Abildtrup J, & Garcia S. 2016. Preferences for urban green spaces and peri-urban forests: An analysis of stated residential choices. Landscape and Urban Planning 148: 120–131. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wattage P, Glenn H, Mardle S, Rensburg TV, Grehan A, & Foley N. 2011. Economic value of conserving deep-sea corals in Irish waters: A choice experiment study on marine protected areas. Fisheries Research 107: 59–67. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhao M, Johnston R, & Schultz E. 2013. What to value and how? Ecological indicator choices in stated preference valuation. Environmental Resource Economics 56. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.