Details
| Titel in Übersetzung | Welche Ökosystemleistungsinformationsformate sind am effektivsten für die Kommunikation mit der breiten Öffentlichkeit? What ecosystem service information format is most effective for communicating with the general public? Erkenntnisse aus einer repräsentativen Umfrage mit integriertem Choice-Experiment. |
|---|---|
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
| Seitenumfang | 33 |
| Publikationsstatus | Elektronisch veröffentlicht (E-Pub) - 28 Feb. 2022 |
Abstract
Mit einer repräsentativen Online-Befragung (n = 2100), einschließlich eines Choice-Experiments (CE), untersuchten wir, wie unterschiedliche Informationsformate zu Ökosystemleistungen (ESIFs) die Präferenzen für die Menge an eingebrachtem Totholz (LWa) in einem Flussabschnitt beeinflussen. Wir teilten die Befragten in drei CE-Gruppen ein. Jede Gruppe erhielt entsprechende Informationen über zwei verschiedene Ökosystemleistungen in nur einer der drei ESIFs: ordinal skalierte (qualitative), (kardinal skalierte) quantifizierte und monetäre (ökonomische) Ökosystemleistungsinformationen.
Jede Gruppe bevorzugte das Vorhandensein von LW gegenüber dem Status quo (keine LW). Allerdings waren die Präferenzen in den Gruppen mit quantifizierten und monetären ESIF deutlich geringer als in den Gruppen mit ordinalen Informationen. Wir stellten Unterschiede im Entscheidungsverhalten bestimmter Gruppen fest, z. B. reagierten jüngere Personen und Frauen positiv auf ordinale, aber negativer auf monetäre ES-Informationen. Die Hochwassererfahrungen der Befragten wirkten sich negativ auf die Präferenzen für LWa aus, aber monetäre ESIF eliminierten diesen Effekt. Während die Befragten in allen Gruppen ES-Informationen zur Wasserqualität als sehr entscheidungsrelevant einstuften, war der Zustand der lokalen Fischpopulation nur bei ordinalen Informationen relevant.
Wir empfehlen, ordinal skalierte Informationen als Standard ESIF beizubehalten, um ES Bedingungen und Vorteile zu kommunizieren. Dies kann fallspezifisch mit anderen Formaten kombiniert werden. Quantifizierte und insbesondere monetäre ESIF sollten nur dann eingesetzt werden, wenn sie wirtschaftlich relevant sind oder um abweisende Personen anzusprechen. Quantifizierte Informationen können die Transparenz und Glaubwürdigkeit erhöhen, und monetäre Informationen können zu einer neutraleren und konstruktiveren Haltung der Projektgegner beitragen.
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete
- Umweltwissenschaften (insg.)
- Natur- und Landschaftsschutz
Fachgebiet (basierend auf ÖFOS 2012)
- SOZIALWISSENSCHAFTEN
- Humangeographie, Regionale Geographie, Raumplanung
- Humangeographie, Regionale Geographie, Raumplanung
- Landschaftsplanung
Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung
Zitieren
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTex
- RIS
2022.
Publikation: Arbeitspapier/Preprint › Preprint
}
TY - UNPB
T1 - What ecosystem service information format is most effective for communicating with the general public? Insights from a representative survey with integrated choice experiment.
AU - Gapinski, Cedric
AU - Hermes, Johannes
AU - von Haaren, Christina
N1 - The "Wilde Mulde"project is jointly funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) with funds also from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and NuclearSafety (BMU) in Germany (funding code: 16LC1322F).The BMBF is funding this project as an Initiative for Sustainable Development (FONA): www.fona.de.
PY - 2022/2/28
Y1 - 2022/2/28
N2 - The ecosystem service (ES) concept is considered a powerful communication tool to illustrate the benefits of ecosystems to stakeholders, decision-makers and the general public. Knowledge is lacking on how best to communicate the benefits of ES, and the added value of primarily monetary ES information is scarcely studied. We contribute to this ongoing discus-sion by focusing on the general public in Germany. With a representative online survey (n = 2100), including a choice experiment (CE), we investigated how different ecosystem service information formats (ESIFs) influence the preferences for the amount of added large wood (LWa) to a river section. We divided re-spondents into three CE groups, and each group obtained associated information on two dif-ferent ES in only one of these three ESIFs: ordinally scaled (qualitative), (cardinally scaled) quantified, and monetary (economic) ES information. Each group preferred the presence of LW to the status quo (no LW). However, pref-erences were significantly lower in the groups with quantified and monetary ESIF than those with ordinal information. We detected differences in decision behavior for certain groups, e.g. younger individuals and women responded positively to ordinal, but more negatively to mone-tized ES information. Respondent’s flood experiences negatively affected the preferences for LWa, but monetary ESIF eliminated this effect. While respondents in all groups rated ES in-formation on water quality as highly relevant to decisions, the state of the local fish population was only relevant with ordinal information. We recommend keeping ordinally scaled information as the default ESIF to communi-cate ES conditions and benefits. This can be case-specifically combined with other formats. Quantified, and especially monetary ESIF, should only be applied if they are economically relevant or to address rejecting people. Quantified information can increase transparency and credibility, and monetary information may contribute to a more neutral and constructive atti-tude of project opponents.
AB - The ecosystem service (ES) concept is considered a powerful communication tool to illustrate the benefits of ecosystems to stakeholders, decision-makers and the general public. Knowledge is lacking on how best to communicate the benefits of ES, and the added value of primarily monetary ES information is scarcely studied. We contribute to this ongoing discus-sion by focusing on the general public in Germany. With a representative online survey (n = 2100), including a choice experiment (CE), we investigated how different ecosystem service information formats (ESIFs) influence the preferences for the amount of added large wood (LWa) to a river section. We divided re-spondents into three CE groups, and each group obtained associated information on two dif-ferent ES in only one of these three ESIFs: ordinally scaled (qualitative), (cardinally scaled) quantified, and monetary (economic) ES information. Each group preferred the presence of LW to the status quo (no LW). However, pref-erences were significantly lower in the groups with quantified and monetary ESIF than those with ordinal information. We detected differences in decision behavior for certain groups, e.g. younger individuals and women responded positively to ordinal, but more negatively to mone-tized ES information. Respondent’s flood experiences negatively affected the preferences for LWa, but monetary ESIF eliminated this effect. While respondents in all groups rated ES in-formation on water quality as highly relevant to decisions, the state of the local fish population was only relevant with ordinal information. We recommend keeping ordinally scaled information as the default ESIF to communi-cate ES conditions and benefits. This can be case-specifically combined with other formats. Quantified, and especially monetary ESIF, should only be applied if they are economically relevant or to address rejecting people. Quantified information can increase transparency and credibility, and monetary information may contribute to a more neutral and constructive atti-tude of project opponents.
UR - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359082637_What_ecosystem_service_information_format_is_most_effective_for_communicating_with_the_general_public_Insights_from_a_representative_survey_with_integrated_choice_experiment
M3 - Preprint
BT - What ecosystem service information format is most effective for communicating with the general public? Insights from a representative survey with integrated choice experiment.
ER -