A Novel Approach to Determining Spatially Explicit Values of Natural Capital

Sagebiel, Julian and Cavallaro, Nino and Quaas, Martin (2025): A Novel Approach to Determining Spatially Explicit Values of Natural Capital.

Abstract

Despite the urgent need to preserve natural capital, little is known about the direct benefits people receive from it. Reliable benefit estimates are required to incorporate the complex values of natural capital in national capital accounting, cost-benefit analyses, project appraisal, and international policy agreements. The study employs a spatial-explicit choice experiment approach, which estimates benefits people receive from changes in natural capital conditional on the current endowment in their places of residence. Studying changes in protected areas and high nature value farmland across Germany, we identify significant use and non-use values of natural capital stocks. We find that the marginal values of natural capital are conditional on the spatial endowment and on whether the type of natural capital is use or non-use related. We use our estimates together with geographic information system data to aggregate and map the distribution of the demand for protected areas and high nature value farmland across Germany. The results are easily transferable to other regions and contexts and allow trading off the benefits and costs of restoring natural capital and biodiversity. Our findings enrich the discussion on the loss of natural capital and biodiversity and can significantly contribute to broader policy discussions in the context of the interlinked climate and biodiversity crises.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Natural Capital Valuation; Discrete Choice Experiment; Biodiversity Values; Spatial Preference Heterogeneity; Benefit Transfer
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation > Q28 - Government Policy; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q50 - General; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q51 - Valuation of Environmental Effects; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q57 - Ecological Economics: Ecosystem Services ; Biodiversity Conservation ; Bioeconomics ; Industrial Ecology; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q58 - Government Policy

References

Addicott, E. T., & Fenichel, E. P. (2019). Spatial aggregation and the value of natural capital. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 95, 118–132.

Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Martinsson, P. (2003). Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation. Economic Issues Journal Articles, 8 (1), 83–110.

Badura, T., Ferrini, S., Burton, M., Binner, A., & Bateman, I. J. (2020). Using individualised choice maps to capture the spatial dimensions of value within choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 75, 297–322.

Börger, T., Glenk, K., Rehdanz, K., & Meyerhoff, J. (2024). Mitigating cost vector effects in stated choice experiments using cheap talk and opt-out reminders. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

Bunch, D. S., Gay, D. M., & Welsch, R. E. (1993). Algorithm 717: Subroutines for maximum likelihood and quasi-likelihood estimation of parameters in nonlinear regression models. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS), 19 (1), 109–130.

Chiesura, A., & De Groot, R. (2003). Critical natural capital: A socio-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics, 44 (2-3), 219–231.

Copernicus Land Monitoring Services. (2019). Corine land cover 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2024, from https://land.copernicus.eu/en/products/corine-land-cover/ clc2018

Costanza, R. (2020). Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101096.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. nature, 387 (6630), 253–260.

Czajkowski, M., Budziński, W., Campbell, D., Giergiczny, M., & Hanley, N. (2017). Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management. Environmental and Resource Economics, 68(3), 705-727.

Dasgupta, S. P. (2021). The economics of biodiversity the dasgupta review abridged version.

European Environment Agency. (2017). High nature value (hnv) farmland. Retrieved November 21, 2024, from https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/datahub/datahubitemview/ 1bd26e8f-8ea0-45e0-b6bf-9ed2baff5d28activeAccordion=1070000

German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. (2021). Schutzgebiete. Retrieved November 21, 2024, from https://gdk.gdi-de.org/geonetwork/srv/api/records/bec888f9-ba0c-42dc-846e-177b8265dafa

Glenk, K., Johnston, R. J., Meyerhoff, J., & Sagebiel, J. (2020). Spatial dimensions of stated preference valuation in environmental and resource economics: Methods, trends and challenges. Environmental and Resource Economics, 75, 215–242.

Guerry, A. D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G. C., Griffin, R., Ruckelshaus, M., Bateman, I. J., Duraiappah, A., Elmqvist, T., et al. (2015). Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences, 112 (24), 7348–7355.

Haghani, M., Bliemer, M. C., Rose, J. M., Oppewal, H., & Lancsar, E. (2021). Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part ii. conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods. Journal of choice modelling, 41, 100322.

Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2015). Applied choice analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Hess, S., & Palma, D. (2019). Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application. Journal of choice modelling, 32, 100170.

Johnston, R. J., Moeltner, K., Peery, S., Ndebele, T., Yao, Z., Crema, S., Wollheim, W. M., & Besedin, E. (2023). Spatial dimensions of water quality value in new england river networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120 (18), e2120255119.

Mariel, P., Hoyos, D., Meyerhoff, J., Czajkowski, M., Dekker, T., Glenk, K., Jacobsen, J. B., Liebe, U., Olsen, S. B., Sagebiel, J., et al. (2021). Environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments: Guidance on design, implementation and data analysis. Springer Nature.

Sagebiel, J., Glenk, K., & Meyerhoff, J. (2017). Spatially explicit demand for afforestation. Forest Policy and Economics, 78, 190–199.

Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. (2025). Zensus 2022. Retrieved June 17, 2025, from https://www.zensus2022.de/EN/Home/ node.html

Toledo-Gallegos, V. M., Long, J., Campbell, D., Börger, T., & Hanley, N. (2021). Spatial clustering of willingness to pay for ecosystem services. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72 (3), 673–697.

Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge university press.

Vossler, C. A., Dolph, C. L., Finlay, J. C., Keiser, D. A., Kling, C. L., & Phaneuf, D. J. (2023). Valuing improvements in the ecological integrity of local and regional waters using the biological condition gradient. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120 (18), e2120251119.

Vossler, C. A., Doyon, M., & Rondeau, D. (2012). Truth in consequentiality: Theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4 (4), 145–171.

Vossler, C. A., Keiser, D. A., Kling, C. L., & Phaneuf, D. J. (2024). Information scripts and the incentive compatibility of discrete choice experiments. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 12(2), 459-492.