How Experts’ Opinions and Knowledge Affect Their Willingness to Pay for and Ranking of Hydrological Ecosystem Services

• Main Authors: Li-Chun Peng, Wan-Yu Lien, Yu-Pin Lin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2020-12-01
• Series: Sustainability
• Subjects: ecosystem services; willingness to pay; expert knowledge; prioritization
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/10055

To ensure that ecosystem services are included in decision-making processes, many studies have relied on expert opinions and knowledge to identify, rank, and assess willingness to pay. In this study, expert opinions according to their expertise in hydrology, ecology, and sociology were surveyed and compared in terms of (1) recognition and ranking of hydrological ecosystem services (HESs) and (2) willingness to pay for HESs. The decision-making process was also investigated, specifically the rankings of factors in experts’ plans for climate change adaptation. The experts’ recognition of and opinions concerning HESs were positively correlated at various levels with intention to pay (i.e., whether respondents were willing to pay for HESs). Most experts recognized the importance of HESs and allocated high average scores of 9.15, 8.17, and 8.41 to water yield, sediment export, and nutrient export, respectively, using a scale from 1 (<i>least important</i>) to 10 (<i>most important</i>). The percentage of sociologists (100%) exhibited greater intention to pay than those of hydrologists (70%) and ecologists (93%), respectively. Experts prioritized environmental impact over economic cost in policy decision-making, and they differed significantly by field in terms of their rankings of the functional, economic, environmental, and social considerations of decision-making. The results revealed significant differences among experts in their decision-making preferences according to their fields of knowledge. The experts of a specific study field may be more willing to pay for that than for another. Greater intellectual exchange and analysis among experts should be implemented and diverse expert opinions should be solicited in policy decision-making.