obtain, directly or indirectly, from natural ecosystems (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997,
Daily 1997, De Groot et al. 2002, MEA 2005). The ecosystem services provided by
the oceans can be grouped into four main categories: (a) provisioning services such
as food and water, (b) regulating services such as climate mitigation, (c) supporting
services such as seabed sediment formation and nutrient cycling and (d) cultural
services such as recreational, spiritual and other non-material services (MEA 2005).
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (Directive 2008/56/EC) establishes that the economic valuation of offshore projects should follow an ecosystem
services approach. It is expected that the multiple tasks to be conducted in the
platforms (e.g. energy production, aquaculture and platform-related transport and
logistics) will have impacts on marine ecosystem services directly or indirectly. The
expected benefits created by platforms include the provisioning services, regulating
services and cultural services. They include the production of sustainable food and
energy, touristic activities, and several environmental benefits (e.g. improved water
quality near coast, climate change mitigation). On the other hand, there are potential
negative effects on supporting services. They include the risk of affecting the seabed
and the risk to jeopardise populations of fish, mammals and birds in the area. Thus, it
is very important to identify and value the different impacts that the proposed
structures will have on the ecosystem services. This will help to ensure that all the
activities, linked to the design and implementation of the projects, are regulated.
Ultimately, the valuation of the ecosystem services will provide useful information
to policy makers that can be used to decide whether the project is appropriate for the
preservation of a sustainable marine environment and the augmentation of the
overall social welfare (Koundouri et al. 2016).
A choice experiment (CE) was conducted in order to identify tourists’ and
residents’ preferences for two different platform designs, design 1 with only aquaculture facilities and design 2 with aquaculture facilities, renewable energy and
leisure facilities. The CE method is part of the Total Economic Value framework,
which is a standard theoretical approach used for capturing and describing the
benefits derived from the different ecosystem services (Defra, 2007). Stated preference methods use structured questionnaires in order to identify the individuals’
preferences for a given change in a natural resource or environmental attribute
(Champ et al. 2003). Lancaster (1966) explains that any good can be described in
terms of its attributes and their levels. Experimental design theory was used to
generate different profiles of the platforms in terms of its attributes and their levels.
These profiles were then assembled in choice sets and presented to the respondents.
Respondents are asked to state their preferences. In this CE, individuals are assumed
to choose the design that provides them with the highest utility. The utility function
is then used to estimate welfare indicators (willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness
to accept (WTA)) based on the levels of attributes (Bennett and Adamowicz 2001;
Birol and Koundouri 2008). In this case, the welfare indicators can be understood as
the value of changes on the ecosystem services due to the development of the
platform.
The random utility theory is the basis for the CE developed in this document,
where the utility of a given platform alternative for an individual is a function of the
attributes of the platform alternative and of individual socio-economic background
68
W. Chen et al.
Daily 1997, De Groot et al. 2002, MEA 2005). The ecosystem services provided by
the oceans can be grouped into four main categories: (a) provisioning services such
as food and water, (b) regulating services such as climate mitigation, (c) supporting
services such as seabed sediment formation and nutrient cycling and (d) cultural
services such as recreational, spiritual and other non-material services (MEA 2005).
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (Directive 2008/56/EC) establishes that the economic valuation of offshore projects should follow an ecosystem
services approach. It is expected that the multiple tasks to be conducted in the
platforms (e.g. energy production, aquaculture and platform-related transport and
logistics) will have impacts on marine ecosystem services directly or indirectly. The
expected benefits created by platforms include the provisioning services, regulating
services and cultural services. They include the production of sustainable food and
energy, touristic activities, and several environmental benefits (e.g. improved water
quality near coast, climate change mitigation). On the other hand, there are potential
negative effects on supporting services. They include the risk of affecting the seabed
and the risk to jeopardise populations of fish, mammals and birds in the area. Thus, it
is very important to identify and value the different impacts that the proposed
structures will have on the ecosystem services. This will help to ensure that all the
activities, linked to the design and implementation of the projects, are regulated.
Ultimately, the valuation of the ecosystem services will provide useful information
to policy makers that can be used to decide whether the project is appropriate for the
preservation of a sustainable marine environment and the augmentation of the
overall social welfare (Koundouri et al. 2016).
A choice experiment (CE) was conducted in order to identify tourists’ and
residents’ preferences for two different platform designs, design 1 with only aquaculture facilities and design 2 with aquaculture facilities, renewable energy and
leisure facilities. The CE method is part of the Total Economic Value framework,
which is a standard theoretical approach used for capturing and describing the
benefits derived from the different ecosystem services (Defra, 2007). Stated preference methods use structured questionnaires in order to identify the individuals’
preferences for a given change in a natural resource or environmental attribute
(Champ et al. 2003). Lancaster (1966) explains that any good can be described in
terms of its attributes and their levels. Experimental design theory was used to
generate different profiles of the platforms in terms of its attributes and their levels.
These profiles were then assembled in choice sets and presented to the respondents.
Respondents are asked to state their preferences. In this CE, individuals are assumed
to choose the design that provides them with the highest utility. The utility function
is then used to estimate welfare indicators (willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness
to accept (WTA)) based on the levels of attributes (Bennett and Adamowicz 2001;
Birol and Koundouri 2008). In this case, the welfare indicators can be understood as
the value of changes on the ecosystem services due to the development of the
platform.
The random utility theory is the basis for the CE developed in this document,
where the utility of a given platform alternative for an individual is a function of the
attributes of the platform alternative and of individual socio-economic background
68
W. Chen et al.