Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2023, 69(2):68-77 | DOI: 10.17221/298/2022-AGRICECON

A methodological proposal for the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem servicesOriginal Paper

Óscar González-Yebra1,2, José Ángel Aznar-Sánchez1,2, Juan Francisco Velasco-Muñoz1,2, Belén López-Felices1,2
1 Department of Economy and Business, Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, University of Almería, Almería, Spain
2 Research Centre on Mediterranean Intensive Agrosystems and Agrifood Biotechnology, University of Almería, Almería, Spain

In recent years, progress has been made towards incorporating the sociocultural perspective in the assessment of ecosystem services (ES) to identify the relevant services according to the different needs and perceptions of the populations consulted. New sociocultural assessment methods are being explored to respond to this emerging line of research, without a generally accepted alternative being found thus far. Aiming to contribute to this line of research, this article proposes a new methodological approach for the sociocultural assessment of ES. The new methodological approach is based on combining two different measurement procedures: a traditional Likert scale and the Kano model. The case of ES provided by forests will be considered for its development and application. With the application of the proposed methodology, the sensitivity and consistency of sociocultural assessments of ES would be improved, and the development of longitudinal analysis would be facilitated.

Keywords: Kano model; Likert scale; quantitative assessment; questionnaire; stakeholders

Received: September 29, 2022; Accepted: January 23, 2023; Prepublished online: February 13, 2023; Published: February 21, 2023  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
González-Yebra Ó, Ángel Aznar-Sánchez J, Velasco-Muñoz JF, López-Felices B. A methodological proposal for the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2023;69(2):68-77. doi: 10.17221/298/2022-AGRICECON.
Share...
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

    Supplementary files:

    Download file298-2022-AGRICECON_ESM.pdf

    File size: 77.8 kB

    References

    1. Alba-Patiño D., Carabassa V., Castro H., Gutiérrez-Briceño I., García-Llorente M., Giagnocavo C., Castro A.J. (2021): Social indicators of ecosystem restoration for enhancing human wellbeing. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 174: 105782. Go to original source...
    2. Asah S.T., Blahna D.J. (2020): Involving stakeholders' knowledge in co-designing social valuations of biodiversity and ecosystem services: Implications for decision-making. Ecosystems, 23: 324-337. Go to original source...
    3. Berger C., Blauth R.E., Boger D., Bolster C., Burchill G., DuMouchel W., Walden D. (1993): Kano's methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center for Quality Management Journal, 2: 3-36.
    4. Bidegain Í., López-Santiago C.A., González J.A. Martínez-Sastre R., Ravera F., Cerda C. (2020): Social valuation of Mediterranean cultural landscapes: Exploring landscape preferences and ecosystem services perceptions through a visual approach. Land, 9: 390. Go to original source...
    5. Castro A.J., Vaughn C.C., Julian J.P., García-Llorente M. (2016): Social demand for ecosystem services and implications for watershed management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 52: 209-221. Go to original source...
    6. Chen M.S., Ko Y.T., Lee L.H. (2018): The relation between urban riverbank reconstruction and tourism attractiveness shaping - A case study of Love River in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 17: 353-360. Go to original source...
    7. Ciftcioglu G.C. (2020): Using a combination of Q-methodology and survey-based approach for assessing forest ecosystem services of Five Finger Mountains in Northern Cyprus. Sustainability Science, 15: 1789-1805. Go to original source...
    8. Coleman L.B. (2014): The Customer-Driven Organisation: Employing the Kano Model. New York, Productivity Press: 116.
    9. Costanza R., d'Arge R., De Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Van Den Belt M. (1997): The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253-260. Go to original source...
    10. Crivellaro M., Maurizio C., Giacomo C., Marco B., Alessandro P. (2020): A social assessment of forest resource based on stakeholders' perception: An application in three Balkans rural areas. Journal of Forest Research, 25: 308-314. Go to original source...
    11. Cuni-Sánchez A., Ngute A.S.K., Sonké B., Sainge M.N., Burgess N.D., Klein J.A., Marchant R. (2019): The importance of livelihood strategy and ethnicity in forest ecosystem services' perceptions by local communities in north-western Cameroon. Ecosystem Services, 40: 101000. Go to original source...
    12. Dace E., Stibe A., Timma L. (2020): A holistic approach to manage environmental quality by using the Kano model and social cognitive theory. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27: 430-443. Go to original source...
    13. De Meo I., Cantiani M.G., Ferretti F., Paletto A. (2018): Qualitative assessment of forest ecosystem services: The stakeholders' point of view in support of landscape planning. Forests, 9: 465. Go to original source...
    14. Díaz S., Pascual U., Stenseke M., Martín-López B., Watson R.T., Molnár Z., Shirayama Y. (2018): Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science, 359: 270-272. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Do Rosario I.T., Rebelo R., Caser U., Vasconcelos L., Santos-Reis M. (2019): Valuation of ecosystem services by stakeholders operating at different levels: insights from the Portuguese cultural montado landscape. Regional Environmental Change, 19: 2173-2185. Go to original source...
    16. Dominici G., Palumbo F. (2013): How to build an e-learning product: Factors for student/customer satisfaction. Business Horizons, 56: 87-96. Go to original source...
    17. Garrido P., Elbakidze M., Angelstam P., Plieninger T., Pulido F., Moreno G. (2017): Stakeholder perspectives of wood-pasture ecosystem services: A case study from Iberian dehesas. Land Use Policy, 60: 324-333. Go to original source...
    18. González-Yebra Ó., Aguilar M.A., Aguilar F.J., Lucas M. (2018): Evaluation of 3D immersive environments in B-learning implementations. Educación XX1, 21: 417-440. Go to original source...
    19. González-Yebra Ó., Aguilar M.A., Aguilar F.J., Lucas M. (2019): Co-design of a 3D virtual campus for synchronous distance teaching based on student satisfaction: Experience at the University of Almería (Spain). Education Sciences, 9: 21. Go to original source...
    20. Guerrero-Alonso M.A. (2016): Applying Kano model to the analysis of the student satisfaction in online courses [Ph.D. Thesis.]. Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain.
    21. Haines-Young R., Potschin-Young M. (2018): Revision of the common international classification for ecosystem services (CICES V5. 1): A policy brief. One Ecosystem, 3: e27108. Go to original source...
    22. Herzberg F.I. (1996): Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland, World Pub: 203.
    23. Hough M., Pavao-Zuckerman M.A., Scott C.A. (2018): Connecting plant traits and social perceptions in riparian systems: Ecosystem services as indicators of thresholds in social-ecohydrological systems. Journal of Hydrology, 566: 860-871. Go to original source...
    24. Kano N., Seraku N., Takahashi F., Tsuji S. (1984): Attractive quality and must-be quality. The Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14: 39-48.
    25. Li J., Wang Q., Xuan Y., Zhou H. (2021): User demands analysis of Eco-city based on the Kano model - An application to China case study. PLOS One, 16: e0248187. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    26. Lyytimäki J., Pitkänen K. (2020): Perceived wellbeing effects of ecosystems in Finland. Human Ecology, 48: 335-345. Go to original source...
    27. Maestre-Andrés S., Calvet-Mir L., Van Den Bergh J.C. (2016): Sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services to improve protected area management: A multi-method approach applied to Catalonia, Spain. Regional Environmental Change, 16: 717-731. Go to original source...
    28. McDonough K., Hutchinson S., Moore T., Hutchinson J.S. (2017): Analysis of publication trends in ecosystem services research. Ecosystem Services, 25: 82-88. Go to original source...
    29. Meng Q., Dong J. (2018): Future direction and visual analysis of Kano model: A literature review. Journal of Service Science and Management, 11: 399. Go to original source...
    30. Mensah S., Veldtman R., Assogbadjo A.E., Ham C., Kakaï R.G., Seifert T. (2017): Ecosystem service importance and use vary with socio-environmental factors: A study from household-surveys in local communities of South Africa. Ecosystem Services, 23: 1-8. Go to original source...
    31. Meraj G., Singh S.K., Kanga S., Islam M.N. (2022): Modeling on comparison of ecosystem services concepts, tools, methods and their ecological-economic implications: A review. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 8: 15-34. Go to original source...
    32. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Washington, Island Press: 151.
    33. Pastorella F., Giacovelli G., Maesano M., Paletto A., Vivona S., Veltri A., Mugnozza G.S. (2016): Social perception of forest multifunctionality in southern Italy: The case of Calabria Region. Journal of Forest Science, 62: 366-379. Go to original source...
    34. Paudyal K., Baral H., Keenan R.J. (2018): Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics, 90: 67-81. Go to original source...
    35. Rashid M.M. (2010): A review of state-of-art on Kano model for research direction. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 2: 7481-7490.
    36. Rodríguez-Morales B., Roces-Díaz J.V., Kelemen E., Pataki G., Díaz-Varela E. (2020): Perception of ecosystem services and disservices on a peri-urban communal forest: Are landowners' and visitors' perspectives dissimilar? Ecosystem Services, 43: 101089. Go to original source...
    37. Scholte S.S., Van Teeffelen A.J., Verburg P.H. (2015): Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological economics, 114: 67-78. Go to original source...
    38. Shyu J.C., Chang W., Ko H.T. (2013): Comparative analysis of experience-oriented customer needs and manufacturer supplies based on the Kano model. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24: 1272-1287. Go to original source...
    39. Song H. (2018): A critical review of Kano's wording and its impact on attribute classification: a case study of smartphone in Korea. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 29: 1-28. Go to original source...
    40. Suarez A., Ruiz-Agudelo C., Castro-Escobar E., Flórez-Yepes G.Y., Vargas-Marín L.A. (2021): On the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the Colombian andean region: A case study. Forests, 12: 1274. Go to original source...
    41. Tontini G. (2007): Integrating the Kano model and QFD for designing new products. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18: 599-612. Go to original source...
    42. Velasco-Muñoz J.F., Aznar-Sánchez J.A., López-Felices B., Balacco G. (2022): Adopting sustainable water management practices in agriculture based on stakeholder preferences. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 68: 317-326. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial 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