integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation of environmental assets

Ecological Economics 37 (2001) 123–138

ANALYSIS

Integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation ofenvironmental assets

Areti Kontogianni a, Mihalis S. Skourtos a, Ian H. Langford b,*,Ian J. Bateman b, Stavros Georgiou b

a Department of En6ironmental Studies, Uni6ersity of the Aegean, Les6os, Greeceb Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global En6ironment, School of En6ironmental Sciences,

Uni6ersity of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

Received 31 May 2000; received in revised form 6 November 2000; accepted 8 November 2000

Abstract

This study employs a mixed methodological approach, using questionnaire surveys of individuals and stakeholderfocus groups to investigate economic values placed on a wetland surrounding Kalloni Bay on the island of Lesvos,Greece. The questionnaire survey of local people and visitors to the area included a rating exercise of four possibledevelopment scenarios, and each individual was then asked their willingness to participate in payment for their chosenscenario, and if they were willing to participate, they were then asked a willingness to pay question. Participants werealso asked a series of attitudinal questions concerning the local environment and issues relevant to the area. Thisinformation was then combined with qualitative information derived from the focus groups, which elicited opinionsfrom important local stakeholders, such as fishermen, elected representatives, constructors and hotel owners abouttheir priorities for both conservation and development. By combining these methodologies, information andconclusions of greater relevance to policy makers can be obtained than using either methodology in isolation. © 2001Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Contingent valuation; Environmental values; Stakeholder groups; Mixed methodology; Wetland conservation

www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

1. Introduction

The drainage, degradation and destruction ofMediterranean wetlands has proceeded at an histor-

ically unprecedented rate during the 20th century.During this period, such losses have included 73%of marshes in Greece, 86% of the most importantwetlands in France, 60% of wetlands in Spain and15% of lakes and marshes in Tunisia (MEDWET,1996). The reasons for drainage have included theprevention of water-born diseases, the developmentof agricultural land and the expansion of cities.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1603-593314; fax: +44-1603-593739.

E-mail address: [email protected] (I.H. Langford).

0921-8009/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0921 -8009 (00 )00270 -6

A. Kontogianni et al. / Ecological Economics 37 (2001) 123–138124

Partly as a result of these losses, fundamentalchanges have occurred in our understanding ofthe functions and values of wetlands, and thesehave prompted many recent international effortsto protect and sustainably use the Mediterraneanwetlands. Today, nearly 100 Mediterranean wet-land sites have been listed as being of interna-tional importance under the Ramsar Convention.Since 1991, these efforts have been coordinatedthrough MEDWET, a partnership between theEuropean Commission, the Ramsar Bureau, thegovernments of France, Greece, Spain, Italy, Por-tugal and several non-governmental organiza-tions. MEDWET is an initiative for concertedaction, joint fundraising and mutual cooperationin wetland conservation policy. It adopts the ‘wiseuse’ imperative of the European Union, but alsotakes explicitly into account a number of factorsconsidered to affect specifically the managementof Mediterranean wetlands, namely:� poverty and economic inequality;� pressure from population growth, immigration

and mass tourism; and� social and cultural conflicts.

The Venice Declaration, detailing MEDWET’sstrategy for the period 1996–2006, states the ne-cessity of increasing knowledge and raising aware-ness of wetland values and functions throughoutthe Mediterranean. For this purpose, MEDWETadvocates collaboration with organizations andinstitutions experienced in the field of identifica-tion, quantification and assessment of the eco-nomic values of wetland functions and benefits,with a view to adapting and applying such tech-niques for Mediterranean wetlands (MEDWET,1998).

The main objective of this case study was theevaluation of alternative scenarios for the futuredevelopment of the Kalloni wetland on the islandof Lesvos, Greece, using both ecological risk anal-ysis and monetary valuation as assessment meth-ods. However, in this paper we focus specificallyon the evaluation of preservation versus develop-ment scenarios estimated via the contingent valua-tion (CV) method (Mitchell and Carson, 1989;Bateman and Turner, 1993; Bateman and Willis,1999), informed by the ecological risk analysiswhich is presented in detail elsewhere (Skourtos et

al., 1999). The CV method uses direct question-ning of individuals, usually administered via asurvey, to obtain values for the assets under inves-tigation. The most common variant of this ap-proach is to elicit respondent’s willingness to pay(WTP) either to ensure some gain in the asset or,as in the current application, to avoid some de-gree of loss. However, this individual-basedmethod is often criticised for failing to accountfor institutional structures and the compartmen-talisation of different social milieu, in this caseinto stakeholder groups, who may have jointgoals which they strive to obtain for their com-mon good. To address this possibility, qualitativeanalysis of focus groups is also applied in order tounderstand stakeholders’ perception of risks anddevelopmental potentials. Information from thefocus group discussions was also used to developthe final questionnaire survey used. In addition, arating exercise was conducted amongst the vari-ous development/preservation scenarios in orderto determine the most preferred of the alternativescenario options using a non-monetary-basedchoice exercise, and to test the consistency of thischoice with the monetary valuation.

This paper describes in detail the analysis of thesocial, environmental and economic impacts offuture development options in Kalloni. The fol-lowing section describes the background to theenvironmental and management issues of Kallonibay, and Section 3 describes the methods of anal-ysis used and their rationale. Section 4 describesthe qualitative analysis of stakeholder focusgroups and Section 5 details the quantitative re-sults from the questionnaire survey. Section 6provides a general discussion of the results ob-tained and reflects on the usefulness of a mixedmethodological approach, using surveys of indi-viduals and stakeholder focus groups, to environ-mental valuation.

2. Background to the case study

Administratively, the Kalloni wetland complexbelongs to the Prefecture of Lesvos, Greece, andextends to the periphery of the communities ofAgra, Parakoila, Keramion, Kalloni, Agia

A. Kontogianni et al. / Ecological Economics 37 (2001) 123–138 125

Paraskeyi, Basilika, Arisvi, Lisvori and Polichni-tos. The drainage basin of the wetland also in-cludes the communities of Anemotia, Dafia,Napi, Pelopi, Stipsi, Ypsilometopon and Kapi.Under new legislation anticipating the integra-tion of small communities into municipalities,the communities of Arisvi, Dafia, Kalloni,Keramion and Parakoila have recently mergedtogether with the municipality of Kalloni.

2.1. Ecological significance

The Kalloni wetland is one of the most im-portant wetland sites in the Aegean archipelago.The gulf of Kalloni is located in the southeast-ern part of the island of Lesvos (longitude28°11%–28°13%, latitude 38°12%–39°13%N). Thegulf is a closed, shallow bay (20 km long, 10km wide, average depth 10 m) connected to theopen Aegean sea through a 4 km-long narrowchannel (see Fig. 1). The wetland extends over alarge part (:50%) of the bay (11 000 ha) wherethe well-known salt pans (2630 ha) play an im-portant role. Part of the wetland is also thecoastal area surrounding the bay with a complexof shallow brackish zones, small freshwatermarshes, salt marshes and salt pans. The catch-ment area of the wetland includes olive groves,pine forests and shrub lands. Ecologically, the

Kalloni wetland is considered as an importantBird Area, is classified as a CORINE biotopeand ranks among the very first areas to be in-cluded in the NATURA 2000 network inGreece. The region is extremely important forits variety of birds and wildfowl with 259 birdspecies already registered in the area of which32 are listed in Annex 1 of the EU Directive79/409. The role of the Kalloni wetland here isthree-fold: it functions as a wintering, reproduc-tion and migration station for the birds. Kallonibay is furthermore one of the most importantfishing grounds in Greece, especially for oyster,and a promising site for the development ofaquaculture. Besides its ecological value, Kalloniwetland is a tourist attraction with a prominentbird watching tradition. The sea-part of the wet-land is well known for its richness in benthicorganisms, endemic fish stocks and oysters.

2.2. Social and economic pressures

The Kalloni bay wetland is a prime exampleof a complex, multifunctional environmental as-set under pressure. The wetlands are under pres-sure from increased population requirements,and plans for new housing have gradually stim-ulated the clearance of natural and semi-naturalforested areas. This trend has been exacerbatedby the extension of agricultural projects sub-sidised by the European Union (through the Re-gional Mediterranean Programs), and by therecent push for tourist development in the area.The island economies and ecosystems in theNorthern Aegean face important structuralproblems from the increasing globalisation oftrade and opening up of markets, especiallywithin the borders of the European Union. Thelack of suitable policy measures designed tocounterbalance the fragile economic structure inthe region and take into account the social, en-vironmental and distributional issues inherent inthe marginalisation of their societies are increas-ingly apparent. In fact, the very notion of a‘common market’ can be seen as running coun-ter to the islands’ main feature, i.e. their spatialisolation and compartmentalisation (Spilanis,1998).Fig. 1. Map of study area.


2.3. Institutional pressures and management goals

Amidst a wealth of legal and administrativeprovisions, Greek environmental policy is to agreat extent characterized as being ‘symbolic’rather than effective. For example, Spanou(1998:13) notes that ‘issues are addressed either inan abstract or in a highly technocratic way, withvery few comments on their socio-economicorigins or on existing policies.’ The record ofwetland protection in Greece reveals a significantimplementation gap (Papadimitriou, 1995), andagricultural subsidies and uncontrolled construc-tion activity have led to gradual decline anddegradation of natural ecosystems.

Recent reports, undertaken mainly on behalf ofthe Ministry of the Environment, draw attentionto this fact and propose a conservation strategybased on the development of ecotourism and asuitable zoning of human activities (Kilikidis,1992). However, these were met with suspicionand strong resistance from both local authoritiesand social groups. Constrained economic activityin favour of wetland preservation was a sociallyunacceptable option in the early 1990s, and theonly conceivable policy goal was the regulation offisheries through quotas and seasonal fishing pro-hibitions. However, the situation is slowly chang-ing. A number of factors have contributed to this,such as growing awareness of the ecological andeconomic importance of wetlands, and gradualinstitutional adaptation towards more decentral-ized environmental jurisdictions. These develop-ments have culminated in the establishment of anumber of important conservation principles, in-cluding implementation of the precautionary prin-ciple and the legal right of bringing environmentaldisputes to court (Lazaretou, 1995).

Based on these principles, a specific NationalWetlands Strategy is currently under preparationby the Ministry of the Environment. The strategyaims at operationalising the notion of ‘wise use’ ofwetland resources in Greece, incorporating basicprecautionary principles in other policy areas(transport, agriculture and tourism) and, last butnot least, raising public awareness about the im-portance of conserving wetland resources (Am-phibion, 1998).

According to the EU’s Directive 92/43/COM,the Kalloni region is included in the nationalinventory of sites eligible to be classified as Areasof European Community interest. The Kalloniwetland is also included into the pan-Europeanecological network of protected areas known asNATURA 2000, and is further classified as a‘zone of special conservation’ (Section 4.4). TheGreek environmental framework law 1650/96(section 21.1) also states the necessity of legalprotection of an ecologically important area, andthe appropriateness of specific measures takenshould be documented with the Specific Environ-mental Assessment (SEA). However, in spite ofthese regulations, no specific legal status currentlyexists for the Kalloni wetland, although due tochanges in public attitudes towards the wetland, adistinct administrative and legal framework forthe protection of the Kalloni wetland is slowlyemerging. Therefore, within commissioned studiesfor land use planning in Lesvos (financed by theMinistry of the Environment), proposals havebeen made for the establishment of specific Zonesof Land Use Control for Kalloni bay. Theseinclude specific targets for controlling urban de-velopment, designation of the coastal area of thebay as a ‘most ecologically sensitive area’ andzones where only activities associated with thefunctioning of the saltpans and aquaculture arepermitted. The study detailed here was under-taken in the light of these new managementinitiatives.

3. Data collection and methods

Three main techniques were used to evaluatethe management options for Kalloni bay. First,an ecological analysis was performed to identifyrealistic scenarios and current risks and pressureson the wetlands, followed by the development of aset of management scenarios. Secondly, fourstakeholder focus groups were convened with im-portant interest groups in the area. Thirdly, alarge-scale questionnaire survey of residents andvisitors to the area was undertaken which exam-ined preferences for four different managementscenarios. Descriptions of these three stages of theresearch follow.


3.1. Ecological analysis

Ecological analysis was performed using an‘ecosystem valuation model’, the objective ofwhich was to identify the ecological value oflandscape elements of the Kalloni wetland and itscatchment area. This model focused on the sensi-tivity of the natural habitats of the Kalloni catch-ment to further disturbance by human activities.The areas that have already been heavily dis-turbed, such as area or point settlements andannual cropland, have already lost much of theirbiodiversity and ecosystem function value in com-parison to natural habitats. These would thereforebe minimally affected by more intense humanactivity, at least from an ecological perspective.On the other hand, remnants of natural habitatswould be highly susceptible to degradation byman-caused activities and area reduction. The fulldetails of the ecological analysis are beyond thescope of this study (see Skourtos et al., 1999, forfurther details), but briefly, environmental cartog-raphy using satellite images was combined withecological surveys conducted in the region to con-struct a GIS from which different outcome sce-narios could be generated. These informed thechoice of management scenarios which are pre-sented below.

3.2. De6elopment of management scenarios

The scenarios for future development of theKalloni wetland were designed to refer to thelowland, coastal area of the region and to a timehorizon up to the year 2010. We therefore concen-trated on possible land use changes around thebay for the next decade, assuming that thesemedium-term changes will influence the long-termpattern of development in the watershed of thewetland in such a way that they will be practicallyirreversible. The scenarios used in the study werecomposed of a number of exogenous factors,common for all scenarios, and of a number ofspecific, endogenous provisions, derived from in-formed judgement and current socio-demographicand policy trends. The exogenous factors are:� The rate of population change. We assumed

that the general rise of living standards in the

region, in combination with increasing unem-ployment in major urban centres such asAthens (which historically attract migrantsfrom the North Aegean), will stop the loss ofhuman resources from the island and will con-tribute to a moderate population increase inthe Kalloni bay area.

� The inflow of EU funds for structural invest-ments in the region will continue to play animportant role, based on increasingly reliableframeworks for environmental impactassessment.

� The legal protection of the forested areas. Weassume that areas that have been already char-acterised as forests will continue to be pro-tected as such. Accordingly we exclude forestsfrom the variables included in our scenarios.The endogenous factors included in the differ-

ent scenarios are:� The degree and the kind of support that is

expected for the tourist sector.� The degree and the kind of support for the

protection of the wetlands and the wildfowlpopulation.

� The degree and the kind of support for housingdevelopment in the region.

� The importance of agriculture and livestockraising in the region.Using the information from the ecological anal-

ysis of the Kalloni wetland, land-use changes andtheir impacts on the biodiversity of the regionwere made realistic. Furthermore, we also ensuredthat the scenarios presented answer meaningfuleconomic questions. Four development/conserva-tion scenarios were finally chosen for evaluation,which were explained to respondents in brief de-scriptions of 100–200 words each. These were asfollows (a full technical description being given inSkourtos et al., 1999):

Scenario A: An increase in wetland area andtourist accommodation, with a modest decrease inagricultural land — 12 new species of birds cometo the wetland, bird watching associated tourismincreases.

Scenario B: More than half the wetland isdrained for new housing, hotels and holiday


homes, agricultural land remains unchanged.Consequently, there is a large loss of habitat forbirds in the area, with the loss of 78 species ofbirds. Bird watching possibilities are severely re-duced and the associated tourism practicallyceases.

Scenario C: A modest reduction in agriculturalland is used to more than double the built area.The wetland areas remain the same, though theloss in agricultural land is expected to lead to amodest loss of nine species of birds, and somereduction in associated tourism is also expected.Housing and tourist accommodation increase asthe agricultural land decreases in area.

Scenario SQ: Maintenance of the status quo,which involves reversing the incremental damagecaused to the wetland by rubbish tipping, en-croachment and illegal sand removal, with theestablishment of protected areas. Land use at-tributes were described as staying at their current(1998) levels.

Although fishing is an important activity in theKalloni area, both economically and culturally, itwas not referred to in the scenarios for two mainreasons. First, it is not easy to predict the impacton fishing from different conservation or develop-ment strategies for the wetland, and the area weconcentrated on was situated above sea level,which does not directly impact on fishing activi-ties. Secondly, we were focusing on the provisionof habitat for wildfowl, and fishers do not com-pete for land in the low-lying coastal areas asconstruction and farming activities do.

3.3. Qualitati6e analysis: the stakeholder focusgroups

The stakeholder analysis was designed for iden-tification of conflicting uses of environmental as-sets, the conceptualisation of conflicts on the basisof property rights allocations among socialgroups, regions and nations, and, last but notleast, the understanding of the institutional mech-anisms by which costs and benefits are appropri-ated (Munasinghe, 1992; Brouwer et al., 1999;Langford et al., 1999). The conceptualisation of

the conflicts on the basis of the notion of propertyrights must take into account the fact that prop-erty regimes are often undefined and/or of amixed nature in the Kalloni area. This fact posesa number of questions relating to traditional classdivisions, property ownership by potentially confl-icting social groups, and the real nature of theenvironmental debate in Kalloni bay. Is it simplya forum for expressing dissatisfaction and assert-ing influence over property rights issues?

A number of conflicts in the use of the Kalloniwetland are apparently the result of the uncoordi-nated character of its use. The specificity of themanagement problem of the Kalloni wetland liesin the early and latent nature of the risks for theregion which neither the state nor the local peopleand their organizations seem to be consciousabout. The region sees itself before unavoidablestructural changes that the Greek state and ECRegional Directives try to introduce, while thepopulation aspires to a development path similarto the one taken by most successful Greek islandeconomies.

As a first step towards understanding the stake-holders’ positions on the issue of management ofthe Kalloni wetland, we applied the focus grouptechnique in order to identify the underlyinggoals, risk perceptions and the ranking of alterna-tives by four social groups. The aim was to elicitstakeholders’ perceptions in a number of ways asfollows (Desvouges and Frey, 1989):� in determining the proper order and magnitude

of information presented in the survey;� in targeting respondents who may have

difficulties answering the survey questions;� in identifying the opinions and arenas of con-

cern of different groups;� in identifying the proper extent of the popula-

tion affected, and how different sectors of thepopulation may frame the issues involved;

� in sorting out realistic scenarios which coveredthe range of opinions and issues discovered.The purpose behind the focus groups was there-

fore twofold:1. to aid the development of the questionnaire

survey;2. to gain important insights into the attitudes

and motivations towards the Kalloni wetlandsof important stakeholder groups.


Unfortunately, due to resource implicationsand the timetable of the research, it was notpossible to have a roundtable discussion with allstakeholders involved after the results of the finalsurvey were completed. However, the authors in-tend to further investigate views of differentstakeholder groups in Kalloni in future research.

3.4. Quantification of preferences: the contingent6aluation sur6ey

In order to test whether the questionnaire wasadequate, a pilot survey analysis was undertakenprior to the main study, particularly in respect ofthe wording of the questionnaire and valuationscenario. Data collection was carried out by face-to-face interview, with each interview lasting ap-proximately 30–45 min. The survey wasconducted during May, 1998, and the total sam-ple size was 330 people. The results of this pilotsurvey are given in Skourtos et al. (1999).

The main survey questionnaire was based onthe pilot questionnaire and information and feed-back from the focus group discussions with stake-holders. In particular, the following designimprovements were made:� the payment vehicle was discussed, tested and

understood by respondents;� the realism of the scenarios was discussed, and

minor alterations made;� some technical terms were replaced by those

used in everyday language, for example, themore scientific term for wetland(ygrobiotopow) was replaced by the wordygrotopow, which is in common usage in theKalloni area;

� the air photographs edited in Photoshop tovisually represent the scenarios were modifiedto present a more realistic depiction of futuredevelopment possibilities.The main survey consisted of a number of

sections. Respondents were first asked some gen-eral questions on their attitudes concerning themajor problems facing the local area, and howthey viewed environmental issues relative to these.Next, respondents were asked about their famil-iarity with the wetland and their perceptions ofthe issues involved. This included questions about

their use of the area, how long they spent thereand why, and if they knew which areas make upthe Kalloni wetland. Respondents were also askedhow attractive they rated the landscape ofKalloni, how they rated Kalloni Bay as a habitatfor wildlife, and what they considered to be themain risks facing the area.

The valuation section followed, in which therespondents were given information about thepresent day condition of Kalloni Bay. They werethen asked to rate how happy they were with thepresent state of the Bay on a Likert type scalewhich ranged from 0=dreadful (could not getworse) to 100=superb (could not get better).Descriptions were then given of the scenariosA, B, C mentioned above. This included a graphicrepresentation of the scenarios and status quo ona large information board, made up using digitalimaging and manipulation techniques (for exam-ple, in scenario C the urban area was expanded insize).

Respondents were then asked to rate these threescenarios on the same Likert scale as above. Afterpresenting respondents with a summary of theirpreferences (as a consistency check to see thatrespondents had understood what was beingasked), the questionnaire moved onto the mone-tary valuation exercise. Here, the respondentswere asked to value the most favoured scenariofrom the ranking (rating) exercise, i.e. the onewith the highest rating given by them on theLikert scale.

A ‘payment principle’ question was used to firstsee if respondents were, in principle, in favour ofpaying at least some amount in order to financetheir preferred scenario option. Those who werenot in favour of any amount were asked to statetheir reasons for this answer. Those who were infavour were asked to state (as an open–endedamount) the maximum amount of money thatthey would be willing to pay every 3 months forthe next 2 years to finance their preferred sce-nario. They were then asked to state their mainreason for their answer. Respondents were notasked to state willingness to pay values for theirthree less preferred scenarios. Hence, because wehave different populations answering the paymentquestion for each scenario, we cannot calculate a


total economic value for the wetland from thisdata. However, this was not our aim in this study.Here, we are examining the relative values calcu-lated for each scenario, and exploring the ex-planatory factors that determine WTP amount ineach of the four cases. The payment vehicle usedfor each scenario was an increase in water billscollected every 3 months for a period of 2 years,with the resulting fund being administered by thePublic Water and Sewerage Corporation ofKalloni, which would supervise the execution ofthe necessary works required by each scenario(household water bills are issued every 3 monthsin Greece).

Finally, respondents were asked a number ofquestions regarding their socio–economic charac-teristics in order to provide information on repre-sentativeness of the sample, and for thewillingness to pay bid function analysis. A full listof the variables used in the analysis is given inTable 1. The interviews were carried out using arandom selection procedure at a variety of loca-tions in the Kalloni Bay area. The main surveywas again carried out by face-to-face interview,each lasting between 30 and 45 min. The surveywas conducted over the period 10th July until24th September 1998, with a total sample of 914respondents.

4. Stakeholder focus group analysis

Four focus group interviews were undertaken inthe summer of 1998, comprising representatives oflocal fishers, building constructors, hotel ownersand elected representatives of villages in theKalloni Bay area. The discussions were between1.5 and 2.5 hours long, and participants wereinvited by telephone or fax. A series of generalquestions relating to the wetlands was preparedfor each group, and these formed the focus of thegroup discussion. The focus groups were or-ganised in accordance with guidelines given byMorgan (1988); Stewart and Shamdasani (1990)and Morgan and Krueger (1993). Farmers werenot interviewed in a group discussion as they wereidentified as a non-cohesive set of individuals,who did not rely on farming as their only (or

Table 1Explanatory variables used in the quantitative analysis

DescriptionVariable name

Issues consideredimportant

UNEMP UnemploymentHousing problemsHOUSINGProvision of health servicesHEALTH

ENVPROT Protecting the environmentCrimeCRIMETransport problemsTRANSPORTEmigrationEMMIGEconomic recessionRECESSEducationEDUC

Li6ing and employmentLives in Skala Kalloni (the port)LSKALA

LKALLONI Lives in Kalloni (the town)Lives in Agia ParaskeviLAGIAPLives in PolychnitosLPOLYCH

LNOTLESV Does not live on LesvosLMYTIL Lives in Mytilene (the capital of

Lesvos)HOLREC Comes to Kalloni for

holiday/recreationWorks as farmerFARMERWorks as fishermanFISHER

Risk issues for KalloniBUILDING Building/constructionINDWASTE Municipal and industrial waste

Waste waterWASTEWATAQUACULT AquacultureHUNTING Hunting

Miscellaneous 6ariablesATTRACT Finds Kalloni very attractive

Rates bird habitat as veryBIRDSimportant

AWARE Aware of other wetlands inAegean

KALBAD Rates present state of Kalloni asbad

KALGOOD Rates present state of Kalloni asgood

AGEB30 Age less than 30EDU\6 More than 6 years educationFEMALE Female

IncomeINCOMEENVGROUP Member of environmental group

Reasons for positi6eresponse to paymentprinciple question

LOCECON For development of localeconomyIn favour of enhancing naturalNATENVenvironment

GOODCAUSE Likes giving to good causeWETCONS In favour of wetland

conservationHypothetical question, won’tHYPOTHreally pay


often main) source of income, but also worked inhotels and other occupations.

4.1. Representati6es of local fishers

Three representatives of local fishers were in-vited to the group discussion. However, only twoattended, one from Kalloni (male, over 50-years-old) and one from Parakoila (male, about 30-years-old), a sub-division of Kalloni, who wasparticularly interested in shellfish. The representa-tive from the village of Polychnitos refused toattend due to potential conflicts of interest withfishers in Kalloni.

The representatives had a perception of KalloniBay as being the centre of the island, and that thesea was very rich and there was a responsibility topreserve this richness. In association with thisperception of value was a negative view of out-siders (i.e. non-local fishers), from other islandsand from Italy, who would come and exploit avery local resource. The representatives believedthat they had a responsibility towards the bay,but also rights over use of the bay.

Discussion was focused around the value of thebay, and issues surrounding it such as thedevelopment of aquaculture and the problem ofpollution from agricultural practices. The repre-sentatives acknowledged that bad fishing practiceshad led to depletion of fishing stock in the past,and accepted that the state had passed laws tomake fishing more sustainable. However, they feltthere was also a need to address the problems ofchemical pollution of the bay arising from overuseof agricultural fertilisers and pesticides — theyagain emphasised that noted changes in the qual-ity of the bay, in their opinion, were largelyattributable to farming practices. Aquaculturewas also perceived as a negative developmentleading to further pollution of the bay.

Their perceptions of the wetlands were framedin terms of it being a natural habitat for fish andshellfish, which, like the rest of the bay, is underthreat from pollution. However, they felt it wasnot their responsibility to talk to the farmers, butthat of local government officials. The youngerrepresentative from Parakoila believed that manyof the problems of the past, involving conflict and

division between different groups of local fisher-men, could be resolved by the younger peopleworking together towards a common aim.

4.2. Hotel owners

The hotel owners’ focus group comprised sixpeople, five of whom owned hotels in the area(four males and one female) and one male whowas president of a local development company.The president was not invited to the focus group,but came of his own accord. This group providedthe most vivid discussion, mostly about the poten-tial for the development of tourism and the prob-lems of waste disposal regarding the wetlands andthe bay. Some of the group members were farmersas well as hotel owners, but did not acknowledgethat the pollution problems of the bay were linkedto use of agrochemicals. Overall, the group per-ceived the problems of the Kalloni area in termsof development potential, and in some respectshad a negative perception of the wetlands as thiswas land that was unsuitable for building, andthat high water levels may threaten existingbuildings.

The group stated categorically that they had noresponsibility for improvements in the naturalhabitat of the area, and problems such as highwater levels were not their fault, but simply natu-ral phenomena that they had to accept. However,they also commented that high water levels were‘a curse’ and wanted more land to be drained.They later acknowledged that their perceptions ofthe wetland were changing — in previous yearsthey had seen the wetlands as ‘useless land’, butwere now beginning to see the potential of thewetlands for attracting tourists.

Concern was expressed about the conflicts be-tween ‘eco-tourism’ and mass tourist activities.The group was against the building of large hotelsand favoured the development of smaller units,and a mixture of activities for tourists, such asbuilding of a marina. One group member whocame from Crete suggested the building of self-contained tourist villages, as they have in Crete.In contrast to the fishermen, who did not mentionthe possibility of building a new airport for the


area, there was significant discussion about thisissue, and disagreement about the consequencesof building a new airport. Some group membersthought it was a good idea as tourists wouldarrive in greater numbers, and gain easier accessto the area. However, other members pointed outthat the building of the airport could harm thewetlands, and the birds would leave, having nega-tive consequences for tourism in the longer term.

4.3. Local elected representati6es

The group of elected representatives (subse-quently referred to as ‘mayors’) of local villagescomprised four individuals, all males over 50-years-old from the municipalities of Kalloni, AgiaParaskevi, Polychnitos and Basilika. The mayorof Kalloni was particularly dynamic in his ap-proach, and provided a number of interesting, ifspeculative, ideas concerning future developmentof the Kalloni area, and insisted that the newairport need not affect the wetlands. The othermayors tended to focus on very local problems,such as scarcity of water resources, poor roadaccess, and limited development opportunities.They all favoured development of the new airportto move the focus of the island towards its centre,around Kalloni, and away from Mytilene, thecapital city of Lesvos.

About a third of the discussion focused on theproblems of pollution and waste management,such as agrochemicals and waste treatment — awaste treatment plant had been constructed, butwas not in use, as funds were not available for itsoperation. The wetlands were seen as an impor-tant local resource, and the mayors accepted thatthey had a responsibility for preserving the wet-lands as a natural asset, but framed this in termsof future economic development. The mayor ofKalloni stated that the wetlands were pleasant,but should be restricted to certain areas, similar toparks, so they could be enjoyed but not interferewith future building developments. Hence, thewetlands were perceived as one of a number ofimportant land uses, which should have definedboundaries, and should certainly not be expandedat the expense of other important land uses. Themayors also discussed the problems of property

rights, as ownership of some areas of wetland isuncertain, and commented that this issue neededresolving in some way.

4.4. Building constructors

This group comprised four individuals (threemales and one female) between 40- and 50-years-old. They were mostly concerned about wastesbeing generated by development and polluting thebay. They extract sand from the bay, and realisedthis was a destructive activity and damaged thewetland, but would not acknowledge it was theirfault — they had to extract sand as part of theirlegitimate commercial activities. Responsibilitywas also accepted for the lowering of groundwater levels, as more people were coming to thearea and using water as a result of building con-struction. Again, this was not seen as a source ofblame — it was simply an inevitable consequenceof a natural desire for development and the resultof legitimate economic processes. The group wasin favour of further development, but unsurewhat direction this development should take.They were concerned that both tourism and agri-culture should be considered in future plans, andthere were trade-offs to be made between the two.

4.5. Discussion

It is important to set the focus group discussionin the context of the social processes operating inthe Kalloni Bay area. Soon after the researchersstarted making phone calls to invite participantsto the focus groups, almost everyone living in thelocality knew about the research project and wasdiscussing it. The participants therefore had pre-pared themselves to face the researchers from theUniversity department in Mytilene, and indeed asnoted, one participant arrived uninvited, as com-mented on earlier. Participants therefore stressedtheir interest in environmental issues, and thehotel owners in particular wanted to show howmuch they cared about the wetlands and the birdsthat visited there; for example, it was pointed outthat local people had helped in a recent bookwritten about the bird life on the wetlands.


Nevertheless, the focus groups revealed impor-tant differences in the social constructions madeby different stakeholders on the wetlands andtheir place in the culture and economy of theKalloni area. The issue of local people havingrights over local resources was an importanttheme, and participants thought that problemsand conflicts should be resolved locally. However,different stakeholders were reluctant to enter intodiscussions with each other — for example, therefusal of the fishermen’s representative fromPolychnitos to participate in the focus group.There was, in general, a belief that all the differentactivities involving the wetlands such as tourism,agriculture and fishing could co-exist — manylocal people combine occupations such as beingfarmers and hotel owners. However, the linksbetween the consequences of different activitieswere not always accepted, for example, farmersrefused to make the connection between use offertilisers and pesticides on their fields and pollu-tion of the bay. The uncertainty over propertyrights and responsibility was also a major area ofconcern, and inappropriate uses of land on oneproperty were acknowledged as having detrimen-tal effects on adjacent properties. Farmers in AgiaParaskevi owned a lot of the land around Kalloni,and there were important differences in the socialperceptions of people coming from Kalloni andAgia Paraskevi. People in Kalloni were seen asbeing rather carefree, and interested in having agood time, while those in Agia Paraskevi wereseen as hard working and industrious. Landaround Kalloni has been acquired by people inAgia Paraskevi by purchase or through marriage,and hence it may be that people from the twovillages have different motivations behind theirperceptions of the wetland.

5. Results and discussion from quantitativeanalysis of the main survey

For the main survey, 52% of the sample wereresidents in the Kalloni area, and 38% were visi-tors either on day trips or holidays. 40.8% ofthose interviewed rated the current landscape as‘very attractive’, with only 3.2% making a nega-

tive judgement. The most important risks toKalloni bay and surrounding wetlands werethought to come from waste water (mentioned by58% of respondents) and industrial waste (52%).Municipal waste (41%), aquaculture (32%) andhunting (29%) were also mentioned as posingrisks.

5.1. Rating of scenarios

The respondents were asked to rate the fouroptions discussed in Section 3 (scenarios A, B, Cand SQ) on a scale of 1–100 in desirability. Table2 gives summary statistics for the rating of eachscenario, showing that on average scenario A wasrated most highly, followed by the status quo,scenario C and finally scenario B.

We cannot directly analyse the rating scoresgiven, as respondents may interpret the scale indifferent ways, i.e. a score of thirty given by oneperson may mean something different to a scoreof thirty given by another person (Cox et al., inpress). However, we can compare whether oneoption is preferred above another in a qualitativesense, so for each respondent we have six pieces ofinformation on their preference for: A versus SQ,B versus SQ, C versus SQ, A versus B, A versus Cand B versus C. In addition, there may be ties,where the respondent shows indifference betweentwo scenarios. Hence, we used a nominal logisticregression analysis for each piece of information,where we simultaneously model, for example, thepreference for A compared to SQ and also theindifference between A and SQ compared tochoosing SQ as the preferred scenario. However,here we only report the results where a definitepreference between scenarios was shown.

Table 2Summary statistics from the scenario rating exercise

Scenario Mean rating (95% Median ratingconfidence intervals)

Status quo 54.0 (52.8–55.2) 50A 8072.18 (70.8–73.6)

23.33 (21.9–24.7) 20B5045.6 (44.0–47.1)C


Table 3Multiple logistic regression analysis for preference between scenariosa

B versus SQ C versus SQ A versus BA versus SQ A versus CVariable B versus C

ENVPROT + −+LNOTLESB−−ATTRACT

BIRDS −−+++ +++ ++++++ ++++++KALBAD

KALGOOD −−−+FEMALE ++++

+WASTEWATEDUC\6 − − +++

−−INCOME −−−−BUILD

+++AQUACULT −−AWARE −−−

a +/−=PB0.05; ++/−−=PB0.01; +++/−−−=PB0.001.

Table 3 gives the results of the multiple logisticregression analyses, with the logit of the prefer-ence for one scenario over another as the responsevariable in each case. The symbols in the tablerefer to the significance of each explanatory vari-able, with a plus sign indicating a positive associa-tion, and a minus sign, a negative association.

Comparing A with SQ: The multiple regressionshows that the ecologically friendly scenario A islikely to be chosen by those who believe in theimportance of environmental protection and havean interest in birds, but a negative perception ofthe current state of the environment. Hence, theseperceptions reflect a stated need for change. Visi-tors from outside the island are more likely tofavour scenario A, perhaps because their reasonfor visiting Kalloni is likely to be linked to attrac-tiveness of the environment. Females are morelikely to prefer scenario A over the status quo,perhaps because the male population is morelikely to be concerned with economic outcomes.Belief that Kalloni is already an attractive envi-ronment is associated with a preference for thestatus quo over scenario A.

Comparing B to SQ: Scenario B describes anincrease in development at the expense of thewetlands compared to the status quo scenario,which maintains wetlands at their current level. A

concern over waste water as a risk to the area waspositively associated with choice of scenario B,reflecting the concerns of pro-development focusgroups with stakeholders such as hotel ownersand the construction industry (see Section 4).However, a concern over the impacts of aquacul-ture on the area was negatively associated withchoice of scenario B over the status quo. Therewas a strong negative association with interest inbird life of the wetlands, and relationships withincome and education were also negative. How-ever, a strong positive association with believingthe environment was currently poor was found,again suggesting a desire for change, but fordifferent reasons than for choosing scenario A(see Section 5). Basically, choosing option B overstatus quo reflects the motivations of some localpeople with low education and income for theeconomic development of the Kalloni bay area,suggesting that the poorest sector of the popula-tion are more concerned with economic develop-ment than conservation.

Comparing C to SQ: Scenario C comprised aless radical development option than scenario Bwith the wetlands remaining the same, but someagricultural land and hence bird species being lostto urban expansion. The main predictors forchoosing scenario C over the status quo was againa belief that the present environment aroundKalloni was poor, and choosing the status quo


Table 4Summary of Payment Principle and WTP responses

Scenario

A BStatus quo C

77.6Payment principle (% ‘Yes’) 41.953.8 57616610 0416054Mean WTP Greek Drsa (95% confidence intervals) 9630

(8511–11 571)(3367–8741) (5690–13 571)(−793–13 127)5000Median WTP 10003000 3000

643 43 13691Sample size considering each scenariob

a At the time of the survey, 1 Euro=approximately 350 Greek drachmas.b From the sample considering each scenario, only those giving a ‘yes’ answer to the payment principle question were asked for

a willingness to pay amount.

scenario was associated with belief that environ-ment is already good. Interest in birds was not animportant issue in this choice. Interestingly, beliefthat building and construction were importantissues in the area was negatively associated withchoice of scenario C, perhaps reflecting the oppo-sition of some people to the loss of agriculturalland to urban development.

Comparing A to B: These two scenarios werethe most contrasting, with scenario A describingecologically friendly expansion of the wetlands,and scenario B describing an increase in develop-ment at the expense of the wetlands. The mainpredictors for choice of scenario A in the multipleregressions were interest in birds, being edu-cated and being female, plus an interest in aqua-culture which may be seen as a less environmen-tally threatening economic activity than masstourism.

Comparing A to C: Interest in environ-mental protection and birds and being femalewere associated with preference for scenario Aover C.

Comparing B to C: Interest in environmentalprotection predicted preference for scenario Cover the development scenario B, as did higherincome, awareness of environmental issues, and alack of interest in transport and aquaculture. Thisagain suggests that poorer people, with concernsover economic matters, are less likely to be inter-ested in the environment, and more likely tochoose option B.

5.2. Analysis of the payment principle questionfor preferred scenario

Respondents were asked a payment principlequestion asking whether or not they would beprepared, in principle, to pay some amount fortheir preferred scenario. Those answering in theaffirmative were then presented with a willingnessto pay question. Summary results of the responsesare given in Table 4.

As can be seen, a majority of respondents is infavour of an increase in water bills for achievingthe preferred option in all cases except scenario B.x2 analysis indicated that there was a significantrelationship between payment principle responseand the scenario being considered (Pearson x2=57.2, three degrees of freedom, PB0.0001).

Table 5Multiple logistic regression analysis for willingness to pay inprinciple responsesa

Variable Scenario CScenario A Scenario SQ

ENVPROT +++ +BIRDS+FEMALE+++EDU\6 +

AGEB30 ++ ++ENVGROUP +UNEMP +AWARE ++

a +/−=PB0.05; ++/−−=PB0.01; +++/−−−=PB0.001.


Table 6Multiple regression analysis for WTP amountsa

Scenario B Scenario CVariable Scenario SQScenario A

ENVPROT +−−BIRDS

KALBAD −KALGOOD +

+EDU\6INCOME +++

−LOCECON+WETCONS + +

++NATENV−−−HOLREC

LSKALA ++++LKALLONI−RECESS

a +/−=PB0.05; ++/−−=PB0.01; +++/−−−=PB0.001.

Payment principle questions were analysed us-ing logistic regression analyses, and the results aregiven in Table 5, in the same format as Table 3.Considering the results, we can draw the follow-ing conclusions:

Payment principle for A: Belief that environ-mental protection was an important issue for theKalloni area predicted a willingness to participatein payment, as did an interest in birds. Younger,more educated people were more likely to pay, aswere females and members of environmentalgroups.

Payment principle for B: No significant predic-tor variables (note that there were only 43 peoplewho chose scenario B as their most preferred).

Payment principle for C: Positive responses werewith a belief that unemployment was an impor-tant issue for the Kalloni area — scenario Cincludes urban expansion at the expense of agri-cultural land, which could lead to improved eco-nomic opportunities. An interest in birds and ahigher education were also associated with in-creased willingness to pay in principle for thisscenario.

Payment principle for SQ: For those who chosethe status quo as the most preferred scenario,belief in the importance of environmental protec-tion predicted a willingness to participate. It must

be remembered that scenario SQ is not a ‘donothing’ scenario, but involves reversal of thecurrent decline in the status of the wetlands tomaintain them at their current standard, by wasteremoval, and prevention of sand extraction andencroachment. Interestingly, younger people un-der 30-years-old were also more willing to pay forthis scenario if they had chosen it as their mostfavoured.

5.3. Willingness to pay amounts for mostpreferred scenario

Participants who answered positively to thepayment principle question for their most fa-voured scenario were then asked what extraamount they would be willing to pay every 3months for the next 5 years. Table 4 shows meanWTP amounts. Highest individual WTP was forscenario A. An ANOVA found that we could notreject the null hypothesis that the four scenariospopulation means are equal. However, theKruskal–Wallis non-parametric test indicatedthat we could reject the null hypothesis of identi-cal population medians (x2=16.3 with three de-grees of freedom, P=0.001).

The natural logarithms of these bid amountswere then used as response variables in Normalregression models for each scenario, the resultsbeing shown in Table 6. A logarithmic transfor-


mation was used to make the WTP amounts lessskewed in distribution, and prevent the predictionof negative WTP amounts, which were not al-lowed in the survey.

Willingness to pay for A: Respondents weremore likely to pay higher amounts for scenario Aif they were more educated, of higher income andinterested in wetland conservation. However, in-terest in the local economy was negatively associ-ated with willingness to pay amounts for thisscenario, as was visiting the area for recreation orholidays. Hence, it seems that of the majority ofrespondents who chose scenario A, the more edu-cated, higher income people living in the Kalloniarea are most likely to express their support viawillingness to pay: perhaps these are the peoplewho can most afford and are most committed toconservation because of their geographical prox-imity and higher socio-economic status.

Willingness to pay for B: Only 15 people re-sponded positively as being willing to participatein the funding of scenario B, so the results mustinterpreted with caution. Belief that the environ-ment around Kalloni was poor at present wasassociated with higher amounts, but surprisinglyso was pledging the money for wetland conserva-tion. This could be interpreted as a self-interestedmotivation in preserving some wetlands fortourism.

Willingness to pay for C: Belief in the impor-tance of economic recession as an issue in the areawas associated with lower willingness to payamounts. However, those living in Kalloni villageor the port of Kalloni (Skala Kalloni) were willingto pay higher amounts, perhaps because this sce-nario directly benefited them via urban expansion.Belief that the environment of the area was basi-cally good, and pledging the money for wetlandconservation were also associated with higheramounts.

Willingness to pay for SQ: An interest in envi-ronmental protection and being in favour of en-hancing the environment were associated withhigher willingness to pay amounts. As expected,interest in birds was negatively associated withsize of payment — the status quo scenario in-

cluded the loss of nine species of birds due tourban expansion onto agricultural land.

6. General discussion and conclusions

We believe that our study contains some impor-tant information for the economic analysis ofvalue of wetland areas. First, it is clear that thelocal population is capable of expressing prefer-ences for extension or reduction of the wetland interms of economic values, which can be capturedby contingent valuation. However, different indi-viduals chose different preferred scenarios, andthe stakeholder groups discussed different arenasof importance value and presented different port-folios for the future based on their needs, hopesand fears as particular interest groups, whichinformed the development of the scenarios andthe choice of payment vehicle. By using thesescenarios, and from the focus group discussionswith relevant stakeholders, we found a rich diver-sity in the motivations of different individuals andgroups. For economic information elicited to berelevant, it is vital that this complexity is investi-gated thoroughly. However, this does not meanthat it is useless to attempt an economic analysisof value of the Kalloni wetland. It was clearlyapparent from the focus groups and interviewsthat the great majority of people were quite will-ing and able to express economic preferences thatwere based on sound logic — after all, localpeople have been exploiting the economic poten-tial of the wetland for centuries. However, whenattempting to place an economic value on thewetland, competing motivations and needs mustbe explored. For example, the local mayors val-ued the wetlands as a tourist potential that shouldbe managed as a ‘park’, with strictly definedboundaries and distinct uses. For the buildingconstructors, the wetland was a nuisance, buteven they could profit from increased exploitationof the wetland for tourism, and, as mentionedearlier, many people had not one but a combina-tion of occupations.

Beyond this, we would also postulate from ourstudy that local people are quite capable of func-tioning, in terms of ‘utility’, as both citizens and


consumers (Sagoff, 1988). As citizens, they do feelresponsibility for their environment, though this isoften expressed in very different ways, as thestakeholder focus groups demonstrated. However,these responsibilities are also to themselves asconsumers of the wetland’s economic potential.This again does not mitigate against an economicanalysis, but calls for a more detailed and pro-found analysis than simply asking for a statedwillingness to pay amount for a simple predeter-mined choice between alternatives. Different sce-narios need to be considered, and disputes overproperty rights, conflicting interests of differentvillages and user groups, and the tension betweenlocal and more global needs are all real andapparent in our study.

Through the use of a mixed methodology, wehave gone some way to uncovering some of thesecomplexities, and collected information on thepreferences of individuals and focus groups whichwe believe are of genuine use to policy makers.The results from this study have been accepted bythe Ministry of Environment, Urban Planningand Public Works in Greece as input to theplanning of zoning activities regarding NATURA2000 sites — policy makers are obviously inter-ested in monetary valuation of economic values,but we have stressed that public consultation andinvolvement, including discussions with local peo-ple about environmental and economic outcomesis an important part of the planning process. TheKalloni Bay study demonstrates that economicvalues can be elicited, but these are only usefulwhen set in the context of social, economic andenvironmental pressures and the responses of dif-ferent individuals and stakeholder groups to thesepressures.

References

Bateman, I.J., Turner, R.K., 1993. Valuation of the environ-ment, methods and techniques: the contingent valuationmethod. In: Turner, R.K. (Ed.), Sustainable Environmen-tal Economics and Management: Principles and Practice.Bellhaven Press, London.

Bateman, I.J., Willis, K.G., 1999. Valuing EnvironmentalPreferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valua-tion Method in the US, EC and Developing Countries.Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Brouwer, R., Powe, N., Turner, R.K., Bateman, I.J., Lang-ford, I.H., 1999. Public attitudes to contingent valuationand public consultation. Environmental Values 8, 325–347.

Desvouges, W.H., Frey, J.H., 1989. Integrating focus groupsand surveys: examples from environmental risk studies.Journal of Official Statistics 5, 349–363.

Kilikidis, S., 1992. The Wetland of Kalloni Bay (LesvosIsland). Commissioned by YPEXODE, University of Thes-salonika, Greece.

Langford, I.H., Georgiou, S., Day, R.J., Bateman, I.J., 1999.Comparing perceptions of risk and quality with willingnessto pay: a mixed methodological study of public preferencesfor reducing health risks from polluted coastal bathingwaters. Risk, Decision and Policy 4.3, 201–220.

Lazaretou, Th., 1995. The legal protection of wetlands inGreece, Papazisis Editions, Athens.

MEDWET, 1996. Mediterranean Wetland Strategy 1996–2006, at: http://www.iucn.org/.

MEDWET, 1998. A Strategy for Mediterranean Wetlands,Thessalonika.

Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., 1989. Using surveys to valuepublic goods: the contingent valuation method. Resourcesfor the Future, Washington, DC.

Morgan, D.L., 1988. Focus groups as qualitative research. In:University Series on Qualitative Research Methods, vol. 1.Sage, Beverley Hills.

Morgan, D.L., Krueger, R.A., 1993. When to use focus groupsand why. In: Morgan, D.L. (Ed.), Successful FocusGroups: advancing the state of the art. Sage, NewburyPark.

Munasinghe, M., 1992. Biodiversity protection policy: envi-ronmental valuation and distribution issues. AMBIO, XXI3, 227–236.

Papadimitriou, G., 1995. Directive 92/43/COM in Greek Leg-islation. Its Importance for Conservation of Natural Habi-tats and Wild Flora and Fauna. In: WWF, Natura 2000,The Application of European Directive 92/43/COM inGreece, Proceedings, Athens, Greece.

Sagoff, M., 1988. The Economy of the Earth. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Skourtos, M.S., Troumbis, A.I., Kontogianni, A., Akriotis,T.h., Simeonidis, M., 1999. ECOWET Project: Functions,Values and Dynamics, Final Report, Greek Case Study,University of the Aegean, Mytilini, Lesvos, Greece.

Spilanis, J., 1998. Specificity and Development Potential of theGreek Island Space, Report to the Ministry of Finance,Mytilini, Lesvos, Greece.

Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, P., 1990. Focus groups: theoryand practice. Sage, Newbury Park.

.

integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation of environmental assets

Documents