Integrating marine ecosystem conservation and ecosystems services economic valuation: implications for coastal zones governance

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Ecological

Indicators

j ou rn a l h om ep a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e /e c o l i n d

Original

Articles

Integrating

marine

ecosystem

conservation

and

ecosystems

services

economic

valuation:

Implications

for

coastal

zones

governance

Ana

Margarida

Ferreira

a,b,∗

_,

_João

_Carlos

_Marques

b

_,

_Sónia

_Seixas

b,c

a_Environment_Municipal_Company_of_Cascais_(Cascais_Ambiente),_Complexo_{Multiservic¸}_os,_Estrada_de_Manique_no._1830,_2645-550,_Alcabideche,_Portugal b_Marine_and_{Environmental}_Sciences_Centre_(MARE),_Department_of_Life_Sciences,_University_of_Coimbra,_Portugal

c_Universidade_Aberta,_Rua_Escola_{Politécnica,}_no._147,_1269-001,_Portugal

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received14October2016

Receivedinrevisedform26January2017 Accepted29January2017

Keywords:

Marineprotectedareas Coastalzoneconservation Contingentvaluation Willingtopay Voluntarywork

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thispaperpresentsapreliminaryattempttoestimatetheawarenessandvaluethatsocietygivestothe maintenanceandprotectionofmarineprotectedareas,linkingtheecologicalandeconomicvaluescale assignedtothestudy.Toaccomplishthis,wetookasillustrativeexampletheBiophysicalInterestZone ofAvencas(ZIBA),inPortugal.TheZIBAspansoveronehaanditscoastalecosystemspresentavery richbiodiversity,providingseveralsocio-economicopportunitiestosociety.Toestimatethevaluethat societyattributestothisareaweconductedacontingentvaluationexercise,consideringtwodifferent aspects:1)thedirecteconomicvaluethatpeoplestatetoconservetheecosystemand2)thewillingness tocontributethroughtheallocationofhoursofvoluntaryworktoitsconservation.Thevaluesobtained indicatethedependenceandimportanceofthisecosystemtolocalpopulation(willingtopaytoconserve itof60Dperhouseholdperyearandwillingtogive3hofvoluntaryworkperyear).Theproximityofthe localpopulationtotheprotectedareaincreasesthewillingtopayforitsconservation;thiscouldreveala goodlocalindicatorofecosystemvaluation.Thisvaluationexercisehighlightstheimportanceofcoastal ecosystemservicestosocietyanddrawsattentiontothebeneﬁtsthatlocalpopulationsderivefromthose systems.Theseresultshavealsoimplicationsinfuturegovernanceactionsregardingprotectedareas,as wellastojustifyforsustainableinvestmentsincoastalmanagementefforts,tosustaintheﬂowofcoastal ecosystemservicesforcurrentandfuturegenerations.

1. Introduction

Coastalzonesareopenland/seainterfaces,exposedtostrong

environmental gradients that establish high connectivity with

othercoastalecosystems(Thompsonetal.,2002).Thisisanarea

exposedtoseveraldifferentenvironmentalandhumanpressures.

Theanthropogenicpressureiscontinuallyrisingduetothegrowing

humanpopulationconcentrationintheshores,causingpollution

problemsandtheoverexploitationofnaturalresourcesforfood

purposes.It is equallyanareawithgreat richness in biological

diversityandvaluablehabitats,likethecoastalreefs.Particularly

inrockyshores,theexistenceofseveralreefspeciesthatmigrate

betweenrockyreefs(Gladstone2007)isanimportant

characteris-tictothemaintenanceofthecoastalecosystem.

∗ Correspondingauthorat:EnvironmentMunicipalCompanyofCascais (Cas-caisAmbiente),ComplexoMultiservic¸os,EstradadeManiqueno.1830,2645-550, Alcabideche,Portugal.

E-mailaddress:ana.ferreira@cascaisambiente.pt(A.M.Ferreira).

MarineProtectedAreas(MPA)aregood management

instru-mentstomaintainthecoastalzonebiodiversity.InPortugal,the

ﬁrstprotectedareaencompassingmarineterritorywasclassiﬁed

in1981,andinthepresentdaysthereisarecordof16placeswith

someprotectionstatusthatincludemarineterritory.Traditionally

thisclassiﬁcationoccurredwithoutastrongpublicparticipation

andwithmanyconﬂictofinterests,transformingthemanagement

oftheseareasintoachallenge(Ferreiraetal.,2015).

Fromthehumansocietyperspective,thecoastalzonesandMPA

provideaninnumerous rangeofservices.Theyareleisureareas

andanimportantfoodsource,whereseveralindustrialand

touris-ticactivitiestakeplace.Thisintensiveuseofcoastalareascauses

competitionfortheoccupationoftheseregionsandrequiresfor

techniquesandmethodsthatquantifythesocial,ecologicaland

economicbeneﬁtsthathumanstakefromthesesystems.An

ecosys-temtotaleconomicvalue(TEV)consistsofuseandnon-usevalues.

Byusevalueswecanhavedirect(likefood)andindirect(like

recre-ation)values.Thenon-usevaluesareusuallyassociatedwiththe

conservation/preservationoftheecosystemforoptionfutureuses

orbequestvalues(Kriström1990;Batemanetal.,2002).Thereare

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.036

(2)

A.M.Ferreiraetal./EcologicalIndicators77(2017)114–122 115

severalmethodstovalueecosystemservicestosociety,however

thisstudywillfocusonlyinonemethodology(contingent

valua-tion),duetotheimportanceforsocietyofthenon-usevaluesinthis

casestudy:acoastalprotectedareaeasilyaccessibletothe

popu-lationwherenoentrancefeeiscollected.Contingentvaluationis

asurvey-basedtechniqueforstatingthepreferencesofnon-use

values orindirectvalues tosociety,over otheritemsof private

consumption.Itisthemostcommonlyusedapproachtoplacing

amonetaryvalueonnon-useenvironmentalresources(Boyleand

Bishop1988;MitchellandCarson,1989;Batemanetal.,2002).

Thecontributiontonatureconservationinformofvolunteer

workcouldbeafamilyactivityincreasinglyvaluedbythe

popula-tionasapracticeofteachingvaluesandbondingwiththefuture

generations.Thewillingtospendtimeinactivitieslikebeachclean

ups,invasivespecies eradicationor nativespecies plantation,is

consideredaformofleisurewilecontributingtonature

conser-vation,especiallyinurbannucleuswerenatureactivitiesarenot

normallyavailable.García-Llorenteetal.(2015)propose

willing-nesstogiveuptimeincontingentvaluationstudies,asauseful

non-monetarytechnique,particularlyinareaswitheconomic

lim-itations.

Withthecurrentscenarioofeconomiccrisis,governmentshave

cutbacksintheirannualbudgets.Investmentismostlyinsocial

servicesandlocaleconomicempowerment,withthemain

objec-tiveofdecreasingtheunemploymentrateandpoverty.Therefore,

althoughnatureandcoastalzoneecosystemservicesremain

indis-pensabletothepopulation,duringaﬁnancialandeconomiccrisis

thereisariskofthatbeingrelegatedtothebottomofthe

polit-icalagendapriorities.Communicationoftheimportanceofthese

ecosystemservicestothepolicymakers,inasimpleway,could

increasetheimportanceallocatedtoitsconservation.

Whenconductingamultipleindicatorstudytocommunicate

similarecologicaloutcomes,Zhaoetal.(2013)demonstratedthat

invaluationstudies,whentheecologicalindicatorofecosystem

servicesareequivalent,thecorrespondentvaluationmeasureused,

isrobusttotheuseofalternativeecologicalindicatorswithinthe

surveyscenarios.Thisapproachcanbebeneﬁciarywhen

communi-catingwithmanagersandpolicymakersoncecontingentvaluation

studiesareamajortooltojustifyinvestmentsinnature

conserva-tion,namelyinthecoastalzones,becausetheyquantifyinmoney

(inthiscaseeuros),justhowmuchtheservicesprovidedbythis

ecosystemarevaluedbythepopulation.Withthistypeof

infor-mation,coastalzonemanagerscandevelopacostbeneﬁt-analysis,

prioritizinginvestmentsinitsterritory,likeaspeciﬁcbudgetto

erosionproblemsintheshore,investmentsinenvironmental

edu-cation,andinvestmentsinpollutionemergencyplans,ornature

restorationinitiatives.Theycanalsocomparethebeneﬁtsof

dif-ferentprojectsorprograms,maximizingthepublicwellbeingwith

theinvestmentsmade.

InChile,Gelcichetal.(2013)reporteda97%rateofrespondents

willingtopay(WTP)fortheﬁnancingofamarineprotectedarea

withthechargeofanentrancefee,covering10–13%oftheMPA

run-ningcosts.ThesametendencywasreportedinCroatia,over80%of

theintervieweeswereWTPfortheirholidayinsupportofmarine

conservation(Batelaetal.,2014).Fromthetouristperspectivethe

availabilitytopayanextraamountwhilevisitingaparticulararea

for natureconservation is wellrecorded: sun-sea-sand tourists

reportamedianWTPofUS$3.77,whilenaturebasedtouristsstate

ahigherWTPvalueofUS$4.38(Gelcichetal.,2013)fornature

conservation.InKentuckyitwasrecordedaWTPvaluebetween

US$6andUS$13fora“WetlandPreservationFund”(Whitehead

1990),andinSpain,theresultsshowedthatthemeanWTPforan

improvementinwaterqualitywasaboutD33perhouseholdper

year(Ramajo-HernandezandSaz-Salazar2012).

This type of studies can never alone provide the deﬁnitive

answertoanymajorpolicyquestion;theyhelptoprovide

man-agersamorecompletepackageofinformation,allowingthemto

makechoicesconcerningtheprovisionoftheparticular

environ-mentalamenityinaforward-lookingmanner(Carson1998).

Theobjectiveofthisworkistodeterminethevaluationofa

pro-tectedareainadistancedecayperspectiveandthepopulation’s

(usersandnon-usersofthearea)willingtopayortogivetimefor

marineecosystemconservationoftheareaanditsculturalservices,

fromamanagementperspective.Theuseofanon-monetary

tech-nicasthewillingtogiveuptimeinnature’sconservationisnot

commonlyusedincontingentvaluationstudies,andintendstobe

aninnovativeperspectiveforthemanagementofcoastalprotected

areas.

Morespeciﬁcally,thisstudywasaimedto:

1.Determineifthesocio-economiccharacteristics,distancetothe

areaandusageofthepopulation,inﬂuencesthewillingtopay

ortogivetimeforcoastalzoneconservation;

2.Determinethevaluethatpeoplearewillingtopayforcostal

zonesconservationinDandvoluntaryworkasaproxyto

tradi-tionalwillingtopay;and

3.Determinethereasonforthatwillingtopayforcoastalzones

conservation.

2. Methods

2.1. Study-sitedescription

TheBiophysicalInterestZoneofAvencas(ZIBA),locatedin

Cas-caismunicipality(Portugal)(Fig.1),ischaracterizedbyextended

calcareousrockyplatformswithasmallsandybeachinthe

mid-dle(Avencasbeach)shelteredfromthedominantnorthwinds.This

beachisatypeIIIbeach(semi-naturalbeach)withacarrying

capac-ityof156peopleintotal(consideringthateachpersonoccupies

12m2_of_sand_while_at_the_beach)₍_POOC,₁₉₉₈_).

ZIBAwasclassiﬁedasaBiophysicalInterestZonein1998by

theNationalCoastalManagementPlan(Cidadela–SãoJuliãoda

Barra)(POOC,1998)becauseofitsintertidalbiodiversityrichness

andgeologicalparticularities.Activitiesasﬁshingormotorboat

sailingareprohibitedasafunctionofthestatuteofprotectedarea.

Severalschoolsanduniversitiesusethisareatoperformtheir

ﬁeldtripsallyearround(Ferreiraetal.,2015).Tidepoolingand

swimmingareimportantactivitiesinthesummer.Thisrockyshore

hasalsoanhistoricalandtherapeuticinterestduetoitsrenowned

healthbeneﬁtsintreatingbonediseasewithnaturallimestone.

Avencas beach users are constantly exceeding the carrying

capacity oftheplace. Tramplingof therockyshore,along with

illegalﬁshingandhumandisturbanceatthereproductiontimeof

localmarinespecies(springandsummer)arethemainpressures

identiﬁedforthisprotectedarea(Ferreiraetal.,2015).

2.2. Questionnaireimplementation

Weconductedapre-testbeforethesurveys,inMay2014,to

ensurethatrespondentsunderstoodcorrectlythesurveyquestions

andscenariosandtotestiftheclassesincludedinthepayment

cardwereadequate.Thefullsurveywasimplementedduringthe

2014summerseason(between1stofJuneand30thofSeptember),

comprehending 300 face-to-face surveys (100 surveys at each

municipality) at three different coastalmunicipalities with the

sametouristiccharacteristicinthesummer,beingvisitedduring

thisseasonfortheirbeaches.Cascaisisthemunicipalityofthe

pro-tectedarea(distance=0km),Almadaisthemunicipalitylocated

toadistanceof40kmandAveiroisthemostdistantmunicipality,

locatedtoadistanceof250km.(Fig.1).Wehavechosenthisperiod

(3)

ques-Fig.1. LocationofCascais,AlmadaandAveiroMunicipalitiesinPortugal.TheBiophysicalInterestZoneofAvencas(ZIBA)ishighlightedinredatCascaisMunicipality.(For interpretationofthereferencestocolourinthisﬁgurelegend,thereaderisreferredtothewebversionofthisarticle.)

tionnairesconsistedofbothusers(localpopulation)andnon-users

(tourists)ofthesystem.Thesurveyswereconductedbytheauthors

andbyvolunteerstrainedforthis purposeandwereperformed

independently.Werandomlyselectedtherespondentsfrom

(4)

thespaceandalwaysensuringthatrespondentswereolderthan

18years-old.

2.2.1. Questionnairestructureandscenarios

Thequestionnairesconsistedofthreesectionsofquestionsto

assessthepopulationWTPfornatureconservationinalocalmarine

protectedarea,theZIBAinCascais.Theﬁrstsectionaimedto

char-acterizethepopulationusageofcoastalzones,aimingtogetthe

respondentthinkingaboutthestudyareaandthemainbeneﬁts

theyobtainedwithit.Thesecondsectionanalyzedthepopulation

knowledge about ZIBA and its ecosystem services. In this

sec-tion,weintroducedthevaluationquestionaimingatdetermining

thepopulationwillingtopayforthemaintenanceofitsnon-use

beneﬁts.Finally, thelast section inferred about the population

socioeconomiccharacteristics.

We presentedtwo scenariostorespondentstoanalyse their

preferences towards the ZIBAs marine ecosystem conservation

andmaintenance.Themainattributesconsideredinthescenarios

developmentwereincreasein:a)thelimitsoftheprotectedarea;

b)biodiversity;environmentaleducationactivities;c)leisure

activ-ities;d)environmentalpatrolling;ande)information spotsand

visitationpathways.Wepresentedandexplainedthesescenarios

tothesurveyedpopulation,alwayscomparingittothestatus-quo

situation,toestimatetheirwillingtopay.

We consideredtwotypesof contributions:amonetaryWTP

and/oravoluntarytimecontribution,subsequentlyconvertingthe

lastintomonetaryvaluesbycalculatingtheaverageincomeofan

individualinPortugalin2014(5_D/h)(INE,2011).

Inthesurveys,apaymentcard(withvaluesrangingbetween0

and>45D)wasadoptedastheelicitationformatandthepayment

vehicleconsideredwasanincreaseinthemonthlywaterbillas

ataxation.Thesurveycontainedtwopreferenceelicitation

ques-tions:1)a‘yesorno’responsetothetaxincreaseproposal;and2)an

open-endedquestionthataskedthemaximumtaxthatthe

respon-dentwouldbewillingtopay.Weconsideredthefollowingtext

toestimatethemonetaryvaluegivenbyrespondents:‘Howmuch

wouldyoubewillingtoaddtoyourmonthlywaterbill,astaxation,so

thatZIBAcouldbeimproved?Thismonthlycontributionwould

guar-anteetheinstallationofinformationspots,environmentaleducation

tothescholarpublic,environmentaloutreachtothegeneralpublic?’

Weaddressedaquestiontoinferabouttheirabilitytogivetime

(asvoluntarywork)andhelptoconservethesystem(withvalues

between0and36hperyear,assumingthateachvolunteering

activ-itytakesabout3hinaverage).Afterthequestions,weconducteda

debrieﬁngsectiontogaininsightintothereasonsfortheresponse

tothepreferencequestions.Respondentswereaskedtostatethe

reasonsunderlyingtheirwillingtopayforcoastalzones

conser-vation,thoughtheuseofaﬁve-pointLikertscale(Likert1932),

rangingfrom“fullyagree”to“totallydisagree”(Figs.2–5).

2.2.2. Sensitivitytoscale

For this analysis, and aiming to infer the Avencas

socio-ecologicalimportance,adistance-decayexercisewasconsidered.

Movingfromthestudysiteitself,threelocationswereconsidered:

Cascais,Almada,andAveiro.CascaisMunicipalityislocatedinthe

LisbonMetropolitanArea(Portugal).Inthe2011census,ithada

totalpopulationof206,479inhabitants(INE,2011).Almada

Munic-ipalityisalsolocatedintheLisbonMetropolitanAreabeinga40km

drivefromCascais,withapopulationof174,030inhabitants(INE,

2011).AveiroMunicipalityislocatedfarthernorth(about250kmof

distancefromCascais)andpresentedatotalof78,450inhabitantsin

2011(INE,2011).Thesethreelocationswereselectedbecausethey

presentsomesimilaritiesonhowpopulationsusecoastalsystems,

typicallymainlyfortouristicusages.Therefore,itwasassumedthat

thelocalpopulationhadthesamecharacteristicafﬁnitytowards

thesea,beingtheonlydifferentialfactoritsdistancetothe

pro-tectedarea.

2.3. Statisticalanalysis

The survey respondents were organized into two different

groupsin ordertodetermineifthesocio-economic

characteris-ticsofthepopulationinﬂuencesthewillingtopayforcoastalzone

conservation.Weexpectedthatpopulations’willingnessto

con-tributetonatureconservationincreasedasthehouseholdbudget

alsoincreased.Theﬁrstgroup(hereafterGroup1)consistedofall

individuals’ sampled– individuals olderthan18 years-old.The

secondgroup(hereafterGroup2)consistedofalltheindividuals

sampledolderthan18years-old,excepttheonesthatwere

unem-ployed,studentsordidnothaveafullemploymentoccupation–

individualsolderthan18years-oldwithanincome.

Throughthesurveysimplementationitwaspossiblecalculate

thepercentageofpeoplethatwerewillingtopayforcostalzones

conservationintheformofataxaddedtotheirwaterbill(measured

ineuros),andthepercentageofpeoplethatwerewillingtoallocate

timetoconductvoluntaryworkincoastalconservation(measured

inhours).Themaximumannualvaluewascalculatedforeachof

theclassesgiveninthesurvey,usingthemid-pointestimates.

Additionally, Spearman correlation analyses were also

per-formedtoinferthemainreasonsinﬂuencingtherespondents’WTP

ortogivetime.Thenullhypothesisbeingtestedistheinexistence

ofcorrelationbetweenWTPortogivetimeandthedifferent

rea-sonspresentedforapositiveoranegativeanswer.Protestswere

alsoidentiﬁedthroughfollow-upquestions.Althoughthereisnota

speciﬁcmethodologytoidentifyprotestanswers,thesecanbe

dis-tinguishedfromtruezeroanswersthroughde-brieﬁngquestions,

whererespondentsenumeratethemainreasonsfortheirrefusalto

contribute.

Spearmancorrelationswerealsoperformedtoidentifythemain

usesofthepopulationregardingthecoastalzoneanditsrelation

toWTP.Thenullhypothesisbeingtestedistheinexistenceof

cor-relationbetweenWTPandthedifferentusagesofthecoastalzone

consideredinthequestionnaire.

TheSpearmancorrelationanalyseswereconducted,usingthe

SPSSsoftware(IBMSPSSStatisticsV21).

3. Results

3.1. Descriptivestatisticsofthesurveyedsample

Threehundredinpersonsurveyswereconducted.Fromthese,

fourweredeletedduetomissinginformationandinconsistenciesin

theanswers.Fromthe296useablesurveys,100werefromCascais,

97fromAlmadaandﬁnally99fromAveiro.

Descriptive statistics of the respondents’ characteristics of

Group1 are reportedin Table1. Therepresentativeness of the

respondents surveyed was determined by comparing the

dif-ferentsocio-economicparametersfromtherespondentssample

with the national average values (2011 demographic census;

INE, 2011). Small variances were found between mean ages

(national=41.16,consideredmunicipalities=40.18),mean

house-holdsize(national=2.60andconsideredmunicipalities=2.86)and

gender(femalepercentages:national=52.20%,considered

munic-ipalities=61.25%)forthenationalandregionalsamples.Following

thesamepattern,thepercentageofpeoplewithauniversitylevelof

educationinthesamplewashigherthantheonerecordedforthe

entirecountry:48and15%,respectively(Table1).Consequently,

theaveragemonthlyincomeperhouseholdisalsohigherforthe

surveyedpopulationcomparedwiththenationalaverage(most

(5)

Fig.2. Motivesthatjustifyapositiveanswerinthewillingtopayfornature’sconservationintheBiophysicalInterestZoneofAvencas(ZIBA).Thebarsrepresenttheﬁve levelsoftheLikertscaleinpercentagevalues.

Fig.3.Motivesthatjustifyanegativeanswerinthewillingtopayfornature’sconservationintheBiophysicalInterestZoneofAvencas.Thebarsrepresenttheﬁvelevelsof theLikertscaleinpercentagevalues.

(6)

Fig.4. Motivesthatjustifyapositiveanswerinthewillingnesstogivetimeinformofvolunteerworkinnature’sconservationintheBiophysicalInterestZoneofAvencas. ThebarsrepresenttheﬁvelevelsoftheLikertscaleinpercentagevalues.

Fig.5. Motivesthatjustifyanegativeanswerinthewillingnesstogivetimeinformofvolunteerworkinnature’sconservationintheBiophysicalInterestZoneofAvencas. ThebarsrepresenttheﬁvelevelsoftheLikertscaleinpercentagevalues.

class1_while_the_national_average_income_class_ranged_between₅₀₀

and1000D)(Table1).

Regardingthepossibledifferencesinageofindividualsfromthe

differentgroupsanalyzed,itwasrecordedanaverageageof40.18

years-oldinGroup1and44.38yearsoldinGroup2,thereforethis

differentcharacteristicsofthetwogroupsdidn’tinﬂuenceitsage

homogeneity.

3.2. Valueassignedforcostalzonesconservationinmonetary

valuesandvoluntaryworkandrelationwithitsusages

Inbothgroupsexamined,theanalysesofTable2revealedthat

thepredispositionoftherespondentstopayforanextrataxintheir

1_About_one_third_of_the_respondents_did_not_report_their_household_income._The

averagehouseholdincomeclassof1001–2000Dassumedinthisstudyiscalculated forthoserespondentswhostatedtheirmonthlyhouseholdincome.

waterbill(tocontributetonatureconservationattheBiophysical

InterestZoneofAvencas)decreaseswithdistance.Themaximum

percentageoftheindividualswillingtopayanextrawerelocatedin

Cascais,butthisnumberdecreasesinAlmadaandisnullinAveiro.

Themajordifferenceinmediumsalary’sisveriﬁedbetweenCascais

andAlmada(111Ddifferent)(Pordata,2013).However,thesewere

notthemunicipalitiesrecordingthegreaterdifferencesinWTP

val-ues.ThelargestdifferenceinWTPwasrecordedbetweenCascais

andAveiro,thereforethedistancefactorovercomestheavailability

ofincomeperhousehold.

InGroup1,32.87%oftherespondentswerewillingtopaysome

monetarycontributiontomaintainandconservetheZIBAsystem

(Table2).Fromthose,81%havechosentheminimumpossibility

(5D permonth,correspondingto60D peryear)(Table3).

Inthesamegroup,63%oftherespondentswouldalsobe

avail-able toconduct somevolunteer work in nature’s conservation.

Fromtheserespondents,44%ofthepeoplethatchosetogivetime

(7)

avail-Table1

Socioeconomicparametersforalltheindividualssampledover18yearsold(Group1)inthethreemunicipalitiestested,andfortheentirePortuguesepopulationanalyzed inthe2011census(INE,2011).

Total Cascais Almada Aveiro Portugal

n 289 93 97 99

Age(meanyears) 40.18 44.18 39.13 37.44 41.16

Gender(%) Woman 61.25 65.59 60.82 57.58 52.2 Men 38.75 34.41 39.18 42.42 47.8 Educationlevel(%) Elementaryschool 6.92 11.83 7.22 2.02 24.60 Middleschool 8.30 7.53 15.46 2.02 32.40 Highschool 35.99 30.11 30.93 46.46 18.50 Universityormore 48.10 48.39 46.39 49.49 15.00

Household(averagenumber) 2.86 2.39 3.00 2.91 2.60

Householdmonthlyincome(%)

1–500D 5.88 11.83 6.19 0.00 14.66 500–1000D 17.65 17.20 19.59 16.16 37.37 1001–2000D 22.15 32.26 25.77 9.09 14.45 2001–3000D 6.23 13.98 5.15 0.00 14.00 >3001D 2.77 8.60 0.00 0.00 0.003 Table2

Resultsfromthesurveybyalltheindividualsover18yearsold(Group1)andbyalltheindividualsexcepttheonesthatwereunemployed,studentsordidnotdeclareany formofincome(Group2).

Total Cascais Almada Aveiro

Group1(%)

Willingtopay(D) 32.87 67.74 32.99 0.00

Notwillingtopay(D) 67.13 32.26 67.01 100

Willingtopay(hr) 62.98 74.19 61.86 53.54

Notwillingtopay(hr) 7.27 11.83 10.31 0.00

Group2(%)

Willingtopay(D) 50.75 69.86 42.50 0.00

Notwillingtopay(D) 49.25 30.14 57.50 100

Willingtopay(hr) 66.42 73.97 62.50 47.62

Notwillingtopay(hr) 11.94 10.96 20.00 0.00

Table3

Maximumannualvaluethatpeoplewerewillingtopay(WTP)fornature conserva-tionattheBiophysicalInterestZoneofAvencas.

WTP(D) % 60 81.05 120 10.53 180 2.11 240 0.00 >300 3.16 Table4

Maximumannualnumberofhoursallocatedtovolunteerworkinnature’s con-servationattheBiophysicalInterestZoneofAvencasinsamplespercentage.The willingtopay(WTP)estimationwascalculatedbasedontheaverageincomeofan individualinPortugal(5D/hour).

Maximumannualvaluefor volunteering(hr)

% WTP(D)

3 43.81 15

18 36.19 90

36 20.00 180

able(Table4).Thispeoplewouldgiveamorningorafternoonper

yeartonature’sconservation.Thecorrespondencewiththeaverage

incomeofanindividualinPortugal,wouldrevealacontributionof

15Dperyear.

Interestingly,analyzingTable2wecanperceiveadecreasing

trendas we movefromtheprotected areain therespondent’s

willingnesstocontributewithtimefornatureconservation,this

tendencyisnotasmarkedasitwaswiththemonetarywillingness

tocontribute.InGroup1,about74%oftheindividualsinCascais

werewillingtogivetheirtimeandefforttovolunteerwork.In

Almadathispercentagedecreasesto62%andAveirorecords54%

oftheindividualswillingtogivetheirtimetovolunteerwork.

ComparingtheresultsobtainedforGroup1and2(Table2),it

ispossibletoverifythatingeneral,therearemorepeoplefrom

Group2willingtopayforanextrataxinthewaterbillfornature’s

conservation,about50%.Theseresultsareaccordingwithexpected,

oncethereisagreateravailabilityofthefamilybudgetfornature’s

conservation.Thesenumbersarenotasexpressivewhenitcomes

tovolunteerwork.

InGroup1,67.13%oftherespondentsstatedazerowillingto

paytoconservetheZIBA(Table2).Givensuchhighnumber of

zeroanswersbecomesessentialtodeterminethetruezeroanswers

fromtheprotestanswers.Furtherscrutinytothereasonsforthese

answersisconductedinsection3.3.

Thereweretendifferentusagesquantiﬁedintheinquiriesfor

thecoastalzonesincludingseveralleisureactivities,ﬁshing,

boat-ing,dogwalking,natureexperiences,sports,etc.Themajorityof

thepopulationselectedswimmingatthebeach(63%)andoutdoor

walking(42%)asthetwomainactivitieswhilevisitingthecoast,

indicatingthattheleisureactivitiesaretheprincipalusageforthe

costalzonesinthestudyarea.

Regardingthecorrelationwiththepeoplewillingtopayforthe

coastalzoneconservationinGroup1andtheirusageofthecoastal

zones,theywereveriﬁedfor:non-motornavigation(rs=0.158),

swimming(rs=−0.269),sportﬁshing(rs=0.232)andnature

expe-riences(rs=−0.016).Onthecontrary,inGroup2(populationwith

(8)

3.3. Reasonsunderlyingrespondents’willingtopayforcoastal

zonesconservation

Wheninferringpopulationregarding theunderlyingreasons

thatmadethembewillingtocontributeforthesystem

preserva-tionispossibletoperceivethatitwasrelatedtobequestreasons.

Therespondentswereconcernedinconservingthegoodecological

qualityofZIBAforfuturegenerations(Fig.2).Thisiscorroborated

by thehigh Spearmancorrelation registered tothese variables

(rs=−0.979)comparativelytotheotherﬁveoptions.

Themainreasonthatjustiﬁesanegativeanswerinthe

will-ingtopayforZIBA’sconservationistherespondents’beliefthatit

shouldbetheMunicipalitytosupporttheenvironmentalquality

improvements(Fig.3).ThisiscorroboratedbytheSpearman

cor-relationcalculatedtothesevariables(rs=0.881),onceitwasthe

highestrecordforthissetofcorrelations.

Thejustiﬁcationsforapositiveanswerinthewillingnesstogive

timeinformofvolunteerworkforZIBA’sconservationcanbe

ana-lyzedinFig.4.Themotivethatassemblesthegreaterconsensusis

thatpeoplewanttocontributetotheaquaticenvironment

protec-tionandforthepreservationoftheaquaticanimalsandplants.This

wasalsocorroboratedbytheSpearmancorrelation(rs=−0.571)for

thesetwovariables.

Ontheotherhand,themainmotivethatwouldjustifyanegative

answerwouldbethelackoftimeforvolunteeringwork(Fig.5).The

highestSpearmancorrelationcorroboratedthesegraphical

analy-ses(rs=0.975).

AveiroMunicipalityrespondentsrecorded0%ofWTP,therefore

itwasnecessarytodetermineiftheseweretruezeroanswersor

protestanswers,fromthejustiﬁcation optionsprovided bythis

particulargroup.Themainreasonspresentedforthisanswerby

therespondentsfromAveiro,pointtotruezeroanswers:theﬁrst

reasonstatedwasthe“payer’spolluter”reason(98%ofthe

respon-dents completely agree with this justiﬁcation) and the second

reasonthedistancefactor,while90%oftherespondentscompletely

agreewiththeMunicipalitysupportingthecostsofthe

environ-mentalqualityimprovements.

4. Discussionandconclusions

Thereisagreatsocietalvalorizationofcoastalzones,and

conse-quentlyoftheservicesprovidedbytheseareasandseveralmethods

havebeenproposedtoquantifythisvalue.However,duetothe

inherentcomplexityofthesesystems,thisremainsachallenging

task.Economistshavelongmeasuredthevalueofgoodsthatare

routinelyboughtandsoldinthemarkets,butordinarymarketsdo

notexistforallnaturegoodsorecosystemsservices(Kahnemanand

Knetsch1992;Carson1998),soalternativemethodologieshaveto

beconsideredfortheseitems.

Withtightbudgets,coastalmanagersfaceachallengeandevery

investmentdecisionhastobewelldiscussedandanalyzed,nature

orcoastalzoneconservationcanbedowngradedintheprioritylist

ofapublicﬁnancialplan,wherethewellbeingofthepopulation

mustbemaximized.Theimportanceassignedbythepopulation

totheprotectedareaisessentialwhenevaluatingthepriorityof

investmentsatanationalscale.Thedistancedecayanalysisofthis

studyconﬁrmedtheexpectedgreaterafﬁnityof thepopulation

closertotheareabeingvalued,duetoitsusageandproximity(Pate

andLoomis1997;Atkinsetal.,2007).Peoplesurveyedinthe

coun-ciloftheprotectedarea(Cascais)weretheoneswiththehighest

recordsofWTPhowever,40KmawayfromZIBA,respondentsthat

arenotregularusersofthearea,arestillwillingtopayanextra

taxfornaturesconservationofthisplace,revealingitsimportance

intheLisbonMetropolitanArea.Thesmallsizeofthisparticular

protectedareaanditsecologicalimportanceinalocallevel,

down-gradesitsimportanceatanationalscale,thereforeconservation

fundingforthistypeofprotectedareashouldbeassignedinlocal

managementbudgetslikeMunicipalitiesorregionalfunding.

Thevaluationofthisprotectedareacouldalsoberecognisable

inthetimepeoplearewillingtogiveforcoastalzoneconservation,

66.42%werewillingtogiveonemorningayear.Thecontactwith

natureinurbanareascanbedifﬁcult,andpublicparksorpublic

beachesprovideecosystemservicesgreatlyvaluedbythe

popu-lation,namelytheleisureserviceprovidedbytheseplaces,were

onecanavoidthedailystress.Themainreasonspresentedbythe

respondentsindicateastrongengagementwithcoastalzone

con-servationandmostlythelackoftimeisanobstacletogivetimefor

thisactivity.TheseresultsareaccordanttoGarcía-Llorenteetal.

(2015)werethesatisfactionofconservingspeciesisthemain

rea-son inengaging publicsupportfor conservation,particularlyin

urbanareas.Thisisalsoaninterestingresultforlocalmanagers;

voluntaryactivitiesinvolvingnature’sconservationinthecoastal

zonearenotveryexpensiveandcouldgiveagreatfulﬁllmentto

localpopulations,beinganaffordablewaytoachievebothsocial

andecologicalobjectives.Themaintenanceofthebeachcleanness

andtheimprovementofsocialactivitiesisreferredinTurkey(Birdir

etal.,2013)asthemainreasonforWTPforconservationofthe

coastalzone.WhileinGreece,thepreviousrespondents’

participa-tioninenvironmentalprotectionprogramsbypayinganamount

wasthemain causepresented by therespondents(Halkosand

Matsiori2012).However,thesereasonsarenotalwaysenoughto

engageinnatureconservation,inSpainthepopulationwasnot

pre-paredtopayincreasedtaxestoachieveabetterqualityoftheurban

coastofCadiz(Alvesetal.,2014).

Inthisstudy,themainmotivation,forapositivewillingtopay

intheconservationoftheBiophysicalInterestZoneofAvencasis

thegoodinvestmentforgenerationstocome,revealingtheusage

proximityoftherespondents.Infact,sportﬁshersweretheones

assigningagreaterwillingtopayforZIBAsconservationprobably

becauseinPortugalthisparticulartypeofuseralreadypaysafee

toﬁsh,andhaveeveryinterestinmaintainingthemarine

ecosys-temforcontinuationofthispractice.Apercentageof50.75%ofthe

respondentswerewillingtopayanextrataxinthewaterbillfor

theconservationofZIBA.Themajorityoftheserespondentswere

availabletogive5D amonthperhousehold(60Dannually)mainly

becausetheyconsiderthatthisisagoodinvestmentforgenerations

tocome,expressingtheimportanceassignedtotheexistenceofthe

area(non-usevalue).Theseresultsareconsistentwiththevalues

determinedbyotherstudiesforthecoastalzones(e.g.

Ramajo-HernandezandSaz-Salazar2012),howevertodetermineanexact

amountisverychallenging.

Most commonly,economic and ecological literatures do not

appearcoupled,andthegreattestremainsincommunicating

eco-logicalchangesinstatedpreferencessurveys,werethevaluation

vehicleiseconomic.Theselectionofindicatorsinthesurveydesign

hastobetransparentintheecologicaloutcomesthatrespondents

arebeingaskedtovalueandwaysinwhichtheserelatetothe

eco-logicalinformationpresented(Zhaoetal.,2013).Biasinducedby

scopeinsensitivity,complexpolicyinformation,timeconstraints

onarespondentsvaluationdecisionandstrategiceffectsthatarise

asa respondentattempts toinﬂuencepolicyoutcomes(Hoehn,

1987)especiallyinaneconomiccrisisscenario,canalsoinﬂuence

theobtainedresults.Nevertheless,astudyconductedwithactual

payments onthe willingtopayfor preservation of species did

notindicatethatchoiceexperimentssufferfromoverstatementin

hypotheticalwillingtopay(Navrud1992).

Incontingentvaluationstudies,thewillingtopayisa

methodol-ogygreatlyapplied;however,theresultscanbegreatlyinﬂuenced

bythelowfamilybudget.Inmanyempiricalcontingentvaluation

studies,householdsize,i.e.thenumberof householdmembers,

(9)

payforthemaintenanceofenvironmentalprojects(Ahlheimand Schneider2013).Thewillingtogiveuptimeasanalternativeto

traditionallywillingtopaystudieswithamonetarycontribution,

canbeagoodalternativewhenfacingsuchscenariosofpopulations

withincomelimitations(García-Llorenteetal.,2015)particularly

becausetheavailabilitytopayforcoastalzoneconservationisnot

proportionaltotheavailablebudgetperhousehold.

InPortugalthepublicaccesstothebeachortoaprotectedarea,

asaNaturalParkcannotbeconstrainbypayment,although

accord-ingtothemunicipalexperienceitwouldbewellacceptedbythe

touristsanentrancefeetosomeprotectedareas.Thehypothetical

paymentvehicleadopted,informofataxinthewaterbill,wasa

goodalternativeforthiscontingentvaluationstudyofthecoastal

zone.Theresultsofthisstudyhighlighttheimportanceassigned

bythepopulationtotheecosystemsservicesofacoastalprotected

areaanditsconservation.Theinvestmentmadebythegovernment

willhavealocalandregionalimpactinthelivingconditionsofthe

population,thereforetheseconsiderationsshouldbetakeninto

accountwhenconductingcostbeneﬁtanalysis,forallocating

pub-licfundstoinvestmentsinthecoastalconservation.Thewilling

togivetimeasanon-monetarytechniquerevealedtobeuseful

andcoherentwiththewillingtopayresultsinthiscasestudy.The

implicationsoftheseresultsforthegovernanceofthecoastalzones,

revealedthepublicsupportinvoluntaryconservationactionsas

wellasitsvaluationbythepopulation.

Thescientiﬁc community is currently communicating

inefﬁ-cientlytopolicymakersandthepublicwhatisthelinkbetween

biodiversity changes and human wellbeing (Adamowicz 2004;

Ressurreic¸ãoetal.,2012),andamorecompletedialoguebetween

allstakeholdersmustbeundertaken inorder tobettermanage

protectedareasandpromotecoastalzoneconservation.

Inthiscontext,thenextchallengewouldbetransposing this

typeofstudiestopolicymakersandcoastalstakeholders,theuseof

comprehensivenumericallanguagewouldbenecessarytoinclude

inannualbudgetsmanagedbythegovernmentsinalarger

tempo-ralscaletoachieveasustainablemanagement.

Acknowledgments

ThisstudywassupportedbyFundac¸ãoparaaCiênciaea

Tec-nologia(FCT)throughthestrategicprojectUID/MAR/04292/2013

grantedtoMARE.TheauthorsaregratefulforthehelpofÂngela

Gandarinho,MarianaVelez,PatriciaValentim,TiagoPolicarpoand

InêsD.inthequestionnairesimplementation.Theauthorsarealso

gratefulforthevaluablecommentsandrevisionsbyDra_Rute_Pinto.

References

Adamowicz,W.L.,2004.What’sitworth?Anexaminationofhistoricaltrendsand futuredirectionsinenvironmentalvaluation.Aust.J.Agric.Resour.Econ.48, 419–443,http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2004.00258.x.

Ahlheim,M.,Schneider,F.,2013.Consideringhouseholdsizeincontingent valuationstudies.Environ.Econ.4,112–123http://businessperspectives.org/ journalsfree/ee/2013/ee201301Ahlheim.pdf.

Alves,B.,Benavente,J.,Ó,Ferreira,2014.Beachusers’proﬁle,perceptionsand willingnesstopayinCadiz(SWSpain).J.Coast.Res.70,521–526,http://dx.doi. org/10.2112/SI70-088.1.

Atkins,J.P.,Burdon,D.,Allen,J.H.,2007.Anapplicationofcontingentvaluationand decisiontreeanalysistowaterqualityimprovements.Mar.Pollut.Bull.55, 591–602,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.09.018.

Batela,A.,Bastab,J.,Mackelworth,P.,2014.Valuingvisitorwillingnesstopayfor marineconservation–thecaseoftheproposedCres-LoˇsinjMarineProtected Area.CroatiaOceanCoast.Manage.95,72–80,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2014.03.025.

Bateman,I.J.,Carson,R.T.,Day,B.,Hanemann,M.,Hanley,N.,Hett,T.,Jones-Lee,M., Loomes,G.,Maurato,S.,Ozdemiroglu,E.,Pearce,D.W.,Sugden,R.,Swanson,J., 2002.EconomicValuationwithStatedPreferenceTechniques:AManual. EdwardElgarCheltenham,UK.

Birdir,S.,Ünal,O.,Birdir,K.,Williams,A.,2013.Willingnesstopayasaneconomic instrumentforcoastaltourismmanagement:casesfromMersin,Turkey.Tour. Manag.36,279–283,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.020. Boyle,K.J.,Bishop,R.C.,1988.Welfaremeasurementsusingcontingentvaluation:a

comparisonoftechniques.Am.J.Agric.Econ.70(1),20–28.

Carson,R.T.,1998.Valuationoftropicalrainforests:philosophicalandpractical issuesintheuseofcontingentvaluation.Ecol.Econ.24,15–29.

Ferreira,A.,Seixas,S.,Marques,J.C.,2015.Bottom-upmanagementapproachto coastalmarineprotectedareasinPortugalOcean.Coast.Manag.(B)118, 275–281,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.008.

García-Llorente,M.,Castro,A.J.,Quintas-Soriano,C.,López,I.,Castro,H.,Montes,C., Martin-López,B.,2015.Thevalueoftimeinbiologicalconservationand suppliedecosystemservices:awillingnesstogiveuptimeexercise.J.Arid Environ.124,13–21,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.07.004. Gelcich,S.,Amar,F.,Valdebenito,A.,Castilla,J.C.,Fernandez,M.,Godoy,C.,Biggs,

D.,2013.Financingmarineprotectedareasthroughvisitorfees:insightsfrom touristswillingnesstopayinChile.Ambio42(8),975–984,http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s13280-013-0453-z.

Gladstone,G.,2007.Requirementsformarineprotectedareastoconservethe biodiversityofrockyreefﬁshes.Aquat.Conserv.Mar.Freshw.Ecosyst.17, 71–87,http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.759.

Halkos,G.,Matsiori,S.,2012.Determinantsofwillingnesstopayforcoastalzone qualityimprovement.J.Socio-Econ.41,391–399,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. socec.2012.04.010.

Hoehn,J.P.,1987.Contingentvaluationinﬁsheriesmanagement:thedesignof satisfactorycontingentvaluationformats.Trans.Am.Fish.Soc.116(3), 412–419,10.1577/1548-8659(1987)116<412:CVIFM>2.0.CO;2.

INE,(2011).InstitutoNacionaldeEstatistica/StatisticsNationalInstitute. http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=inemain.(Accessed30 January2015).

Kahneman,D.,Knetsch,J.L.,1992.Valuingpublicgoods:thepurchaseofmoral satisfaction.J.Environ.Econ.Manag.22,57–70,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0095-0696(92)90019-s.

Kriström,B.,1990.Valuingenvironmentalbeneﬁtsusingthecontingentvaluation method−aneconometricAnalysis.UmeaEcon.Stud.219,196,UMEAhttp:// www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:728650/FULLTEXT02.pdf.

Likert,R.,1932.Atechniqueforthemeasurementofattitudes.Arch.Psychol.22,53

http://www.voteview.com/pdf/Likert1932.pdf.

Mitchell,R.C.,Carson,R.T.,1989.UsingSurveystoValuePublicGoods:The ContingentValuationMethod.JohnHopkinsUniversityPress,Washington,D.C.

Navrud,S.,1992.Willingnesstopayforpreservationofspecies–anexperiment withactualpayments.In:PricingtheEuropeanEnvironment.Oxford UniversityPress,Inc,Oxford.

POOC,(1998).PlanodeOrdenamentodaOrlaCosteiraCidadela–SãoJuliãoda Barra/CoastalZoneManagementPlanCidadela–SãoJuliãodaBarra http://www.apambiente.pt/index.php?ref=x130.(Accessed30January2015). Pate,J.,Loomis,J.,1997.Theeffectofdistanceonwillingnesstopayvalues:acase studyofwetlandsandsalmoninCalifornia.Ecol.Econ.20(3),199–207,http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(96)00080-8.

Pordata,2013.BasedeDadosdePortugalContemporâneo(Accessed10January 2017)http://www.pordata.pt/Municipios/.

Ramajo-Hernandez,J.,Saz-Salazar,S.,2012.Estimatingthenon-marketbeneﬁtsof waterqualityimprovementforacasestudyinSpain:acontingentvaluation approach.Environ.Sci.Policy22,47–59,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci. 2012.05.006.

Ressurreic¸ão,A.,Zarzycki,T.,Kaiser,M.,Edwards-Jones,G.,PonceDentinho,T., Santos,R.S.,Gibbons,J.,2012.Towardsanecosystemapproachfor understandingpublicvaluesconcerningmarinebiodiversityloss.Mar.Ecol. Prog.Ser.467,15–28,http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps09967.

Thompson,R.C.,Crowe,T.P.,Hawkins,S.J.,2002.Rockyintertidalcommunities: pastenvironmentalchanges,presentstatusandpredictionsforthenext25 years.J.Environ.Conserv.29(2),168–191,http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ s0376892902000115.

Whitehead,J.C.,1990.Measuringwillingness-to-payforwetlandspreservation withthecontingentvaluationmethod.Wetlands10,187–201,http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/BF03160832.

Zhao,M.,Johnston,R.J.,Schultz,E.T.,2013.Whattovalueandhow?Ecological indicatorchoicesinstatedpreferencevaluation.Environ.Resour.Econ.56, 3–25,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9636-0.