On the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region: a case study
There is growing interest in air quality and air purification, due to current high pollution levels, their effects on human health, and implications for urban economies. Since the improvement of air quality carries important economic value, air-related benefits have been evaluated monetarily from tw...
- Autores:
-
Suarez , Andres
Ruiz Agudelo, Cesar Augusto
Castro-Escobar, Edisson
Florez Yepes, Gloria Yaneth
Vargas-Marín, Luis A.
- Tipo de recurso:
- Article of journal
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2021
- Institución:
- Corporación Universidad de la Costa
- Repositorio:
- REDICUC - Repositorio CUC
- Idioma:
- eng
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/8863
- Acceso en línea:
- https://hdl.handle.net/11323/8863
https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091274
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/
- Palabra clave:
- Air purification
Deliberation
Forest ecosystems
Economic valuation
Social valuation
- Rights
- openAccess
- License
- CC0 1.0 Universal
| id |
RCUC2_17231c20d3ca0acd3b097220ade6897f |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/8863 |
| network_acronym_str |
RCUC2 |
| network_name_str |
REDICUC - Repositorio CUC |
| repository_id_str |
|
| dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv |
On the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region: a case study |
| title |
On the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region: a case study |
| spellingShingle |
On the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region: a case study Air purification Deliberation Forest ecosystems Economic valuation Social valuation |
| title_short |
On the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region: a case study |
| title_full |
On the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region: a case study |
| title_fullStr |
On the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region: a case study |
| title_full_unstemmed |
On the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region: a case study |
| title_sort |
On the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region: a case study |
| dc.creator.fl_str_mv |
Suarez , Andres Ruiz Agudelo, Cesar Augusto Castro-Escobar, Edisson Florez Yepes, Gloria Yaneth Vargas-Marín, Luis A. |
| dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv |
Suarez , Andres Ruiz Agudelo, Cesar Augusto Castro-Escobar, Edisson Florez Yepes, Gloria Yaneth Vargas-Marín, Luis A. |
| dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv |
Air purification Deliberation Forest ecosystems Economic valuation Social valuation |
| topic |
Air purification Deliberation Forest ecosystems Economic valuation Social valuation |
| description |
There is growing interest in air quality and air purification, due to current high pollution levels, their effects on human health, and implications for urban economies. Since the improvement of air quality carries important economic value, air-related benefits have been evaluated monetarily from two perspectives: the first relates to air quality improvements, while the second values air purification as an ecosystem function. This research opted for the second perspective, given that the study area (two Colombian municipalities) does not suffer from poor air quality conditions, but stakeholders prioritized this function as highly important to them. Contingent valuation methods were applied in order to identify the population’s probability of willingness to maintain the air purification function. Although individuals (n = 245) attribute a yearly monetary value of USD 1.5 million to air purification, it was found that, despite the high level of social importance that respondents assigned to air purification (mean = 4.7/5), this had no correlation with payment values (rho = 0.0134, p = 0.8350); that is, households do not really recognize the monetary value of all the benefits they receive or the benefits they would lose if the service suffers changes. Hence, it is posed that monetary values do not necessarily reflect the social importance that individuals assign to ecosystem services, and attention is called to the need to integrate social and monetary values into decision-making processes, so as to encompass the complexity of ecosystem services and conciliate conflicting valuation language. |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-11-12T23:18:20Z |
| dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-11-12T23:18:20Z |
| dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-09-17 |
| dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv |
Artículo de revista |
| dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1 |
| dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv |
Text |
| dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART |
| dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion |
| format |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| status_str |
acceptedVersion |
| dc.identifier.issn.spa.fl_str_mv |
1999-4907 |
| dc.identifier.uri.spa.fl_str_mv |
https://hdl.handle.net/11323/8863 |
| dc.identifier.doi.spa.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091274 |
| dc.identifier.instname.spa.fl_str_mv |
Corporación Universidad de la Costa |
| dc.identifier.reponame.spa.fl_str_mv |
REDICUC - Repositorio CUC |
| dc.identifier.repourl.spa.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/ |
| identifier_str_mv |
1999-4907 Corporación Universidad de la Costa REDICUC - Repositorio CUC |
| url |
https://hdl.handle.net/11323/8863 https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091274 https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/ |
| dc.language.iso.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
| language |
eng |
| dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv |
1. Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K.; Morling, P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 643–653. [CrossRef] 2. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M.B. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure; Fabis Consulting Ltd.: Nottingham, UK, 2018. 3. Maes, J.; Egoh, B.; Willemen, L.; Liquete, C.; Vihervaara, P.; Schägner, J.P.; Grizzetti, B.; Drakou, E.G.; La Notte, A.; Zulian, G.; et al. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 31–39. [CrossRef] 4. Kandziora, M.; Burkhard, B.; Müller, F. Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators: A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 28, 54–78. [CrossRef] 5. Wallace, K.J. Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139, 235–246. [CrossRef] 6. Charles, M.; Ziv, G.; Bohrer, G.; Bakshi, B.R. Connecting air quality regulating ecosystem services with beneficiaries through quantitative serviceshed analysis. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 41, 101057. [CrossRef] 7. Escobedo, F.J.; Kroeger, T.; Wagner, J.E. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2078–2087. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 8. Higuera, D.; Martín-López, B.; Sánchez-Jabba, A. Social preferences towards ecosystem services provided by cloud forests in the neotropics: Implications for conservation strategies. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2012, 13, 861–872. [CrossRef] 9. Thompson, I.; Mackey, B.; McNulty, S.; Mosseler, A. Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change. A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. In Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; Technical Series No. 43; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2009. 10. Baró, F.; Calderón-Argelich, A.; Langemeyer, J.; Connolly, J.J. Under one canopy? Assessing the distributional environmental justice implications of street tree benefits in Barcelona. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 102, 54–64. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 11. Feng, Z.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, H.; Gao, Y. Assessment of human consumption of ecosystem services in China from 2000 to 2014 based on an ecosystem service footprint model. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 94, 468–481. [CrossRef] 12. Song, C.; Lee, W.K.; Choi, H.A.; Kim, J.; Jeon, S.W.; Kim, J.S. Spatial assessment of ecosystem functions and services for air purification of forests in South Korea. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 63, 27–34. [CrossRef] 13. Baró, F.; Palomo, I.; Zulian, G.; Vizcaino, P.; Haase, D.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. Mapping ecosystem service capacity, flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: A case study in the Barcelona metropolitan region. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 405–417. [CrossRef] 14. Xing, Y.; Brimblecombe, P. Role of vegetation in deposition and dispersion of air pollution in urban parks. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 201, 73–83. [CrossRef] 15. Yang, S.; Zhao, W.; Pereira, P.; Liu, Y. Socio-cultural valuation of rural and urban perception on ecosystem services and human well-being in Yanhe watershed of China. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 251, 109615. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Jeanloz, S.; Lizin, S.; Beenaerts, N.; Brouwer, R.; Van Passel, S.; Witters, N. Towards a more structured selection process for attributes and levels in choice experiments: A study in a Belgian protected area. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 18, 45–57. [CrossRef] 17. Zhang, H.; Pang, Q.; Long, H.; Zhu, H.; Gao, X.; Li, X.; Jiang, X.; Liu, K. Local Residents’ Perceptions for Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Fenghe River Watershed. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3602. [CrossRef] 18. Baró, F.; Haase, D.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Frantzeskaki, N. Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: A quantitative assessment in five European cities. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 55, 146–158. [CrossRef] 19. Kibria, A.S.; Behie, A.; Costanza, R.; Groves, C.; Farrell, T. The value of ecosystem services obtained from the protected forest of Cambodia: The case of Veun Sai-Siem Pang National Park. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 27–36. [CrossRef] 20. Lee, H.J.; Yoo, S.H.; Huh, S.Y. Economic benefits of introducing LNG-fuelled ships for imported flour in South Korea. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 78, 102220. [CrossRef] 21. Shannon, A.K.; Usmani, F.; Pattanayak, S.K.; Jeuland, M. The Price of Purity: Willingness to pay for air and water purification technologies in Rajasthan, India. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2018, 73, 1073–1100. [CrossRef] 22. Li, T.; Gao, X. Ecosystem services valuation of lakeside wetland park beside Chaohu Lake in China. Water 2016, 8, 301. [CrossRef] 23. Pérez-Sánchez, D.; Montes, M.; Cardona-Almeida, C.; Vargas-Marín Luís, A.; Enríquez-Acevedo, T.; Suarez, A. Keeping people in the loop: Socioeconomic valuation of dry forest ecosystem services in the Colombian Caribbean region. J. Arid Environ. 2021, 188, 104446. [CrossRef] 24. Freeman, R.; Liang, W.; Song, R.; Timmins, C. Willingness to pay for clean air in China. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2019, 94, 188–216. [CrossRef] 25. Pu, S.; Shao, Z.; Yang, L.; Liu, R.; Bi, J.; Ma, Z. How much will the Chinese public pay for air pollution mitigation? A nationwide empirical study based on a willingness-to-pay scenario and air purifier costs. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218, 51–60. [CrossRef] 26. Wang, B.; Hong, G.; Qin, T.; Fan, W.R.; Yuan, X.C. Factors governing the willingness to pay for air pollution treatment: A case study in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1304–1314. [CrossRef] 27. Yao, L.; Deng, J.; Johnston, R.J.; Khan, I.; Zhao, M. Evaluating willingness to pay for the temporal distribution of different air quality improvements: Is China’s clean air target adequate to ensure welfare maximization? Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 67, 215–232. [CrossRef] 28. Ligus, M. Measuring the Willingness to Pay for Improved Air Quality: A Contingent Valuation Survey. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2018, 27, 763–771. [CrossRef] 29. Soo, J.S.T. Valuing Air Quality in Indonesia Using Households’ Locational Choices. Environ. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017, 71, 755–776. 30. Ives, C.D.; Kendal, D. The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 144, 67–72. [CrossRef] 31. Jones, N.A.; Shaw, S.; Ross, H.; Witt, K. Pinner, B. The study of human values in understanding and managing socialecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 15. [CrossRef] 32. Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Dessane, E.B.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26–27, 7–16. [CrossRef] 33. Arias-Arévalo, P.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Martín-López, B.; Pérez-Rincón, M. Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: A taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environ. Values 2018, 27, 29–53. [CrossRef] 34. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Martín-López, B. Ecological economics perspectives on ecosystem services valuation. In Handbook of Ecological Economics; Martínez-Alier, J., Muradian, R., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2019; pp. 260–282. 35. Jacobs, S.; Zafra-Calvo, N.; Gonzalez-Jimenez, D.; Guibrunet, L.; Benessaiah, K.; Berghöfer, A.; Chaves-Chaparro, J.; Díaz, S.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Lele, S.; et al. Use your power for good: Plural valuation of nature—The Oaxaca statement. Glob. Sustain. 2020, 3, e8. [CrossRef] 36. Kenter, J.O. Editorial: Shared, plural and cultural values. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 21, 175–183. [CrossRef] 37. Livia, W.P.; Pérez, J.J. Valoración económica de la calidad de aire y su impacto en registros epoc de Bucaramanga. Aibi Rev. Investig. Adm. Ing. 2014, 2, 13–18. [CrossRef] 38. Vieira, J.; Matos, P.; Mexia, T.; Silva, P.; Lopes, N.; Freitas, C.; Correia, O.; Santos-Reis, M.; Branquinho, C.; Pinho, P. Green spaces are not all the same for the provision of air purification and climate regulation services: The case of urban parks. Environ. Res. 2018, 160, 306–313. [CrossRef] 39. Pascual, U.; Muradian, R.; Brander, L.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Martín-López, B.; Verma, M.; Armsworth, P.; Christie, M.; Cornelissen, H.; Eppink, F.; et al. Chapter 5. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Ecological and Economic Foundations; 2010. Available online: http://africa.teebweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/D0-Chapter-5-The-economics-of-valuing-ecosystem-services-and-biodiversity.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2020). 40. Pearce, D.; Atkinson, G.; Mourato, S. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments; Organisation for Economic CoOperation and Development. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/governance/cost-benefit-analysis-and-the-environment9789264085169-en.htm (accessed on 29 June 2020). 41. Da Motta, R.S.; Ortiz, R.A. Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 147, 333–342. [CrossRef] 42. Chu, X.; Zhan, J.; Wang, C.; Hameeda, S.; Wang, X. Households’ Willingness to Accept Improved Ecosystem Services and Influencing Factors: Application of Contingent Valuation Method in Bashang Plateau, Hebei Province, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 255, 109925. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 43. Abdullah, S.; Jeanty, P.W. Willingness to pay for renewable energy: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey in Kenya. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2974–2983. [CrossRef] 44. SIRAP Eje Cafetero. Clasificación de Ecosistemas Naturales Terrestres del eje Cafetero. 2013. Available online: https://www.wwf. org.co/?213162/Clasificacion-de-Ecosistemas-Naturales-Terrestres-del-Eje-Cafetero (accessed on 12 December 2020). 45. Maskey, B.; Singh, M. Households’ willingness to pay for improved waste collection service in Gorkha municipality of Nepal. Environments 2017, 4, 77. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2076--3298/4/4/77 (accessed on 23 April 2021). [CrossRef] 46. Johnston, R.J.; Boyle, K.J.; Adamowicz, W.; Bennett, J.; Brouwer, R.; Cameron, T.A.; Hanemann, W.M.; Hanley, N.; Ryan, M.; Scarpa, R.; et al. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017, 4, 319–405. [CrossRef] 47. Loomis, J.B. WAEA keynote address: Strategies for overcoming hypothetical bias in stated preference surveys. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2014, 39, 34–46. 48. Martín-López, B.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Del Amo, D.G.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Otero-Rozas, E.; Palacios-Agundez, I.; Willaarts, B.; et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38970. [CrossRef] 49. Kennedy, E. Comparing Valuation Methods for Ecosystem Services in Amstelland. Applying Ecosystem Service Valuation Methods to Evaluate Land-Use Changes. Bachelor’s Thesis, Vrije University Amsterdam, 2014. Available online: https://spinlab.vu.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Comparing_valuation_methods_for_ecosystem_services_in_ Amstelland_BSCThesis_Eric_Kennedy_thesis.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2021). 50. Lo, A.Y.; Jim, C.Y. Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 113–120. [CrossRef] 51. Logar, I.; van den Bergh, J.C. Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation of preventing beach erosion: An analysis with a polychotomous choice question. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 113, 184–193. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 52. Enriquez-Acevedo, T.; Botero, C.M.; Cantero-Rodelo, R.; Pertuz, A.; Suarez, A. Willingness to pay for Beach Ecosystem Services: The case study of three Colombian beaches. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 161, 96–104. [CrossRef] 53. Stephenson, K.; Shabman, L. Does ecosystem valuation contribute to ecosystem decision making? Evidence from hydropower licensing. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 163, 1–8. [CrossRef] 54. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Ruiz-Pérez, M. Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2011, 35, 613–628. [CrossRef] 55. Liu, S.; Costanza, R.; Farber, S.; Troy, A. Valuing ecosystem services. Theory practice, and need for transdisciplinary synthesis. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1185, 54–78. [CrossRef] 56. Arias-Arévalo, P.; Martín-López, B.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 43. [CrossRef] 57. Bretschger, L.; Pittel, K. Twenty Key Challenges in Environmental and Resource. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2020, 77, 725–750. [CrossRef] 58. Polasky, S.C.L.; Kling, S.A.; Levin, S.R.; Carpenter, G.C.; Daily, P.R.; Ehrlich, G.M.; Heal; Lubchenco, J.; Strassheim, H.; Beck, S. Handbook of Behavioural Change and Public Policy; Handbooks of Research on Public Policy Series; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2019. 59. Tadaki, M.; Sinner, J.; Chan, K.M.A. Making sense of environmental values: A typology of concepts. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 7. [CrossRef] 60. Jacobs, S.; Martin-Lopez, B.; Barton, D.N.; Dunford, R.; Harrison, P.A.; Kelemen, E.; Saarikoski, H.; Termansen, M.; GarcíaLlorente, M.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; et al. The means determine the end—Pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 515–528. [CrossRef] 61. Laurans, Y.; Rankovic, A.; Billé, R.; Pirard, R.; Mermet, L. Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 119, 208–219. [CrossRef] 62. Jacobs, S.; Dendoncker, N.; Martin-Lopez, B.; Barton, D.N.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Boeraeve, F.; McGrath, F.L.; Vierikko, K.; Geneletti, D.; Sevecke, K.J.; et al. A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 22, 213–220. [CrossRef] 63. Brei, M.; Pérez-Barahona, A.; Strobl, E. Protecting species through legislation: The case of sea turtles. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2020, 102, 300–328. [CrossRef] 64. Antoci, A.; Borghesi, S.; Russu, P. Don’t feed the bears! Environmental defense expenditures and species-typical behaviour in an optimal growth model. Macroecon. Dyn. 2019, 25, 733–752. [CrossRef] 65. Drupp, M.A. Limits to substitution between ecosystem services and manufactured goods and implications for social discounting. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2018, 69, 135–158. [CrossRef] 66. Enríquez-Acevedo, T.; Pérez-Torres, J.; Ruiz-Agudelo, C.; Suarez, A. Seed dispersal by fruit bats in Colombia generates ecosystem services. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 40, 1–15. [CrossRef] 67. Tengö, M.; Brondizio, E.S.; Elmqvist, T.; Malmer, P.; Spierenburg, M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 2014, 43, 579–591. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 68. Hill, R.; Breslow, S.; Le Buhn, G.; Quezada-Euánn, J.J.; Kwapong, P.; Nates-Parra, G.; Buchori, D.; Howlett, B.; Maués, M.M.; Saeed, S.; et al. Biocultural diversity, pollinators and their socio-cultural values. In The Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production; Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Potts, S.G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L., Ngo, H.T., Eds.; 2016; pp. 276–359. Available online: https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/157539/1/Chapter5 -Pollination-Published.pdf (accessed on 16 September 2021). |
| dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv |
CC0 1.0 Universal |
| dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ |
| dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
CC0 1.0 Universal http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv |
Corporación Universidad de la Costa |
| dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv |
Forests |
| institution |
Corporación Universidad de la Costa |
| dc.source.url.spa.fl_str_mv |
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/12/9/1274 |
| bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/81442c60-29a4-459f-8526-7e795a62b170/download https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/f44c21f1-be54-4cd4-a6b8-643596be68e0/download https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/1a81e256-3f99-4c9c-83ef-56105393f43f/download https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/eeccdad7-3e02-46f0-9ef3-96ad2e28aff2/download https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/3ee1de82-6308-4279-b90b-b88a1b36aebd/download https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/48fa6c3b-d5d6-4e31-8400-424668f820f2/download |
| bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
ae22180e1db94128ec0e0520c7ffee98 42fd4ad1e89814f5e4a476b409eb708c e30e9215131d99561d40d6b0abbe9bad c85f10d0360f4dc9d949b591ace94862 c85f10d0360f4dc9d949b591ace94862 e357980d1fccd20b93eafde86489efb4 |
| bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5 |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositorio de la Universidad de la Costa CUC |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
repdigital@cuc.edu.co |
| _version_ |
1811760746120347648 |
| spelling |
Suarez , AndresRuiz Agudelo, Cesar AugustoCastro-Escobar, EdissonFlorez Yepes, Gloria YanethVargas-Marín, Luis A.2021-11-12T23:18:20Z2021-11-12T23:18:20Z2021-09-171999-4907https://hdl.handle.net/11323/8863https://doi.org/10.3390/f12091274Corporación Universidad de la CostaREDICUC - Repositorio CUChttps://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/There is growing interest in air quality and air purification, due to current high pollution levels, their effects on human health, and implications for urban economies. Since the improvement of air quality carries important economic value, air-related benefits have been evaluated monetarily from two perspectives: the first relates to air quality improvements, while the second values air purification as an ecosystem function. This research opted for the second perspective, given that the study area (two Colombian municipalities) does not suffer from poor air quality conditions, but stakeholders prioritized this function as highly important to them. Contingent valuation methods were applied in order to identify the population’s probability of willingness to maintain the air purification function. Although individuals (n = 245) attribute a yearly monetary value of USD 1.5 million to air purification, it was found that, despite the high level of social importance that respondents assigned to air purification (mean = 4.7/5), this had no correlation with payment values (rho = 0.0134, p = 0.8350); that is, households do not really recognize the monetary value of all the benefits they receive or the benefits they would lose if the service suffers changes. Hence, it is posed that monetary values do not necessarily reflect the social importance that individuals assign to ecosystem services, and attention is called to the need to integrate social and monetary values into decision-making processes, so as to encompass the complexity of ecosystem services and conciliate conflicting valuation language.Suarez, Andres-will be generated-orcid-0000-0001-5517-5009-600Ruiz Agudelo, Cesar Augusto-will be generated-orcid-0000-0002-1380-2884-600Castro-Escobar, EdissonFlorez Yepes, Gloria Yaneth-will be generated-orcid-0000-0003-4185-0178-600Vargas-Marín, Luis A.application/pdfengCorporación Universidad de la CostaCC0 1.0 Universalhttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Forestshttps://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/12/9/1274Air purificationDeliberationForest ecosystemsEconomic valuationSocial valuationOn the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region: a case studyArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion1. Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K.; Morling, P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 643–653. [CrossRef]2. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M.B. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure; Fabis Consulting Ltd.: Nottingham, UK, 2018.3. Maes, J.; Egoh, B.; Willemen, L.; Liquete, C.; Vihervaara, P.; Schägner, J.P.; Grizzetti, B.; Drakou, E.G.; La Notte, A.; Zulian, G.; et al. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 31–39. [CrossRef]4. Kandziora, M.; Burkhard, B.; Müller, F. Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators: A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 28, 54–78. [CrossRef]5. Wallace, K.J. Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139, 235–246. [CrossRef]6. Charles, M.; Ziv, G.; Bohrer, G.; Bakshi, B.R. Connecting air quality regulating ecosystem services with beneficiaries through quantitative serviceshed analysis. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 41, 101057. [CrossRef]7. Escobedo, F.J.; Kroeger, T.; Wagner, J.E. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2078–2087. [CrossRef] [PubMed]8. Higuera, D.; Martín-López, B.; Sánchez-Jabba, A. Social preferences towards ecosystem services provided by cloud forests in the neotropics: Implications for conservation strategies. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2012, 13, 861–872. [CrossRef]9. Thompson, I.; Mackey, B.; McNulty, S.; Mosseler, A. Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change. A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. In Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; Technical Series No. 43; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2009.10. Baró, F.; Calderón-Argelich, A.; Langemeyer, J.; Connolly, J.J. Under one canopy? Assessing the distributional environmental justice implications of street tree benefits in Barcelona. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 102, 54–64. [CrossRef] [PubMed]11. Feng, Z.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, H.; Gao, Y. Assessment of human consumption of ecosystem services in China from 2000 to 2014 based on an ecosystem service footprint model. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 94, 468–481. [CrossRef]12. Song, C.; Lee, W.K.; Choi, H.A.; Kim, J.; Jeon, S.W.; Kim, J.S. Spatial assessment of ecosystem functions and services for air purification of forests in South Korea. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 63, 27–34. [CrossRef]13. Baró, F.; Palomo, I.; Zulian, G.; Vizcaino, P.; Haase, D.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. Mapping ecosystem service capacity, flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: A case study in the Barcelona metropolitan region. Land Use Policy 2016, 57, 405–417. [CrossRef]14. Xing, Y.; Brimblecombe, P. Role of vegetation in deposition and dispersion of air pollution in urban parks. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 201, 73–83. [CrossRef]15. Yang, S.; Zhao, W.; Pereira, P.; Liu, Y. Socio-cultural valuation of rural and urban perception on ecosystem services and human well-being in Yanhe watershed of China. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 251, 109615. [CrossRef] [PubMed]16. Jeanloz, S.; Lizin, S.; Beenaerts, N.; Brouwer, R.; Van Passel, S.; Witters, N. Towards a more structured selection process for attributes and levels in choice experiments: A study in a Belgian protected area. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 18, 45–57. [CrossRef]17. Zhang, H.; Pang, Q.; Long, H.; Zhu, H.; Gao, X.; Li, X.; Jiang, X.; Liu, K. Local Residents’ Perceptions for Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Fenghe River Watershed. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3602. [CrossRef]18. Baró, F.; Haase, D.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Frantzeskaki, N. Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: A quantitative assessment in five European cities. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 55, 146–158. [CrossRef]19. Kibria, A.S.; Behie, A.; Costanza, R.; Groves, C.; Farrell, T. The value of ecosystem services obtained from the protected forest of Cambodia: The case of Veun Sai-Siem Pang National Park. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 27–36. [CrossRef]20. Lee, H.J.; Yoo, S.H.; Huh, S.Y. Economic benefits of introducing LNG-fuelled ships for imported flour in South Korea. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 78, 102220. [CrossRef]21. Shannon, A.K.; Usmani, F.; Pattanayak, S.K.; Jeuland, M. The Price of Purity: Willingness to pay for air and water purification technologies in Rajasthan, India. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2018, 73, 1073–1100. [CrossRef]22. Li, T.; Gao, X. Ecosystem services valuation of lakeside wetland park beside Chaohu Lake in China. Water 2016, 8, 301. [CrossRef]23. Pérez-Sánchez, D.; Montes, M.; Cardona-Almeida, C.; Vargas-Marín Luís, A.; Enríquez-Acevedo, T.; Suarez, A. Keeping people in the loop: Socioeconomic valuation of dry forest ecosystem services in the Colombian Caribbean region. J. Arid Environ. 2021, 188, 104446. [CrossRef]24. Freeman, R.; Liang, W.; Song, R.; Timmins, C. Willingness to pay for clean air in China. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2019, 94, 188–216. [CrossRef]25. Pu, S.; Shao, Z.; Yang, L.; Liu, R.; Bi, J.; Ma, Z. How much will the Chinese public pay for air pollution mitigation? A nationwide empirical study based on a willingness-to-pay scenario and air purifier costs. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218, 51–60. [CrossRef]26. Wang, B.; Hong, G.; Qin, T.; Fan, W.R.; Yuan, X.C. Factors governing the willingness to pay for air pollution treatment: A case study in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1304–1314. [CrossRef]27. Yao, L.; Deng, J.; Johnston, R.J.; Khan, I.; Zhao, M. Evaluating willingness to pay for the temporal distribution of different air quality improvements: Is China’s clean air target adequate to ensure welfare maximization? Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 67, 215–232. [CrossRef]28. Ligus, M. Measuring the Willingness to Pay for Improved Air Quality: A Contingent Valuation Survey. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2018, 27, 763–771. [CrossRef]29. Soo, J.S.T. Valuing Air Quality in Indonesia Using Households’ Locational Choices. Environ. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017, 71, 755–776.30. Ives, C.D.; Kendal, D. The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 144, 67–72. [CrossRef]31. Jones, N.A.; Shaw, S.; Ross, H.; Witt, K. Pinner, B. The study of human values in understanding and managing socialecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 15. [CrossRef]32. Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Dessane, E.B.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26–27, 7–16. [CrossRef]33. Arias-Arévalo, P.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Martín-López, B.; Pérez-Rincón, M. Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: A taxonomy of plural values and valuation methods. Environ. Values 2018, 27, 29–53. [CrossRef]34. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Martín-López, B. Ecological economics perspectives on ecosystem services valuation. In Handbook of Ecological Economics; Martínez-Alier, J., Muradian, R., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2019; pp. 260–282.35. Jacobs, S.; Zafra-Calvo, N.; Gonzalez-Jimenez, D.; Guibrunet, L.; Benessaiah, K.; Berghöfer, A.; Chaves-Chaparro, J.; Díaz, S.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Lele, S.; et al. Use your power for good: Plural valuation of nature—The Oaxaca statement. Glob. Sustain. 2020, 3, e8. [CrossRef]36. Kenter, J.O. Editorial: Shared, plural and cultural values. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 21, 175–183. [CrossRef]37. Livia, W.P.; Pérez, J.J. Valoración económica de la calidad de aire y su impacto en registros epoc de Bucaramanga. Aibi Rev. Investig. Adm. Ing. 2014, 2, 13–18. [CrossRef]38. Vieira, J.; Matos, P.; Mexia, T.; Silva, P.; Lopes, N.; Freitas, C.; Correia, O.; Santos-Reis, M.; Branquinho, C.; Pinho, P. Green spaces are not all the same for the provision of air purification and climate regulation services: The case of urban parks. Environ. Res. 2018, 160, 306–313. [CrossRef]39. Pascual, U.; Muradian, R.; Brander, L.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Martín-López, B.; Verma, M.; Armsworth, P.; Christie, M.; Cornelissen, H.; Eppink, F.; et al. Chapter 5. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Ecological and Economic Foundations; 2010. Available online: http://africa.teebweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/D0-Chapter-5-The-economics-of-valuing-ecosystem-services-and-biodiversity.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2020).40. Pearce, D.; Atkinson, G.; Mourato, S. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments; Organisation for Economic CoOperation and Development. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/governance/cost-benefit-analysis-and-the-environment9789264085169-en.htm (accessed on 29 June 2020).41. Da Motta, R.S.; Ortiz, R.A. Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 147, 333–342. [CrossRef]42. Chu, X.; Zhan, J.; Wang, C.; Hameeda, S.; Wang, X. Households’ Willingness to Accept Improved Ecosystem Services and Influencing Factors: Application of Contingent Valuation Method in Bashang Plateau, Hebei Province, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 255, 109925. [CrossRef] [PubMed]43. Abdullah, S.; Jeanty, P.W. Willingness to pay for renewable energy: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey in Kenya. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2974–2983. [CrossRef]44. SIRAP Eje Cafetero. Clasificación de Ecosistemas Naturales Terrestres del eje Cafetero. 2013. Available online: https://www.wwf. org.co/?213162/Clasificacion-de-Ecosistemas-Naturales-Terrestres-del-Eje-Cafetero (accessed on 12 December 2020).45. Maskey, B.; Singh, M. Households’ willingness to pay for improved waste collection service in Gorkha municipality of Nepal. Environments 2017, 4, 77. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2076--3298/4/4/77 (accessed on 23 April 2021). [CrossRef]46. Johnston, R.J.; Boyle, K.J.; Adamowicz, W.; Bennett, J.; Brouwer, R.; Cameron, T.A.; Hanemann, W.M.; Hanley, N.; Ryan, M.; Scarpa, R.; et al. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017, 4, 319–405. [CrossRef]47. Loomis, J.B. WAEA keynote address: Strategies for overcoming hypothetical bias in stated preference surveys. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2014, 39, 34–46.48. Martín-López, B.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Del Amo, D.G.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Otero-Rozas, E.; Palacios-Agundez, I.; Willaarts, B.; et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38970. [CrossRef]49. Kennedy, E. Comparing Valuation Methods for Ecosystem Services in Amstelland. Applying Ecosystem Service Valuation Methods to Evaluate Land-Use Changes. Bachelor’s Thesis, Vrije University Amsterdam, 2014. Available online: https://spinlab.vu.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Comparing_valuation_methods_for_ecosystem_services_in_ Amstelland_BSCThesis_Eric_Kennedy_thesis.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2021).50. Lo, A.Y.; Jim, C.Y. Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 113–120. [CrossRef]51. Logar, I.; van den Bergh, J.C. Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation of preventing beach erosion: An analysis with a polychotomous choice question. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 113, 184–193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]52. Enriquez-Acevedo, T.; Botero, C.M.; Cantero-Rodelo, R.; Pertuz, A.; Suarez, A. Willingness to pay for Beach Ecosystem Services: The case study of three Colombian beaches. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 161, 96–104. [CrossRef]53. Stephenson, K.; Shabman, L. Does ecosystem valuation contribute to ecosystem decision making? Evidence from hydropower licensing. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 163, 1–8. [CrossRef]54. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Ruiz-Pérez, M. Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2011, 35, 613–628. [CrossRef]55. Liu, S.; Costanza, R.; Farber, S.; Troy, A. Valuing ecosystem services. Theory practice, and need for transdisciplinary synthesis. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1185, 54–78. [CrossRef]56. Arias-Arévalo, P.; Martín-López, B.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 43. [CrossRef]57. Bretschger, L.; Pittel, K. Twenty Key Challenges in Environmental and Resource. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2020, 77, 725–750. [CrossRef]58. Polasky, S.C.L.; Kling, S.A.; Levin, S.R.; Carpenter, G.C.; Daily, P.R.; Ehrlich, G.M.; Heal; Lubchenco, J.; Strassheim, H.; Beck, S. Handbook of Behavioural Change and Public Policy; Handbooks of Research on Public Policy Series; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2019.59. Tadaki, M.; Sinner, J.; Chan, K.M.A. Making sense of environmental values: A typology of concepts. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 7. [CrossRef]60. Jacobs, S.; Martin-Lopez, B.; Barton, D.N.; Dunford, R.; Harrison, P.A.; Kelemen, E.; Saarikoski, H.; Termansen, M.; GarcíaLlorente, M.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; et al. The means determine the end—Pursuing integrated valuation in practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 515–528. [CrossRef]61. Laurans, Y.; Rankovic, A.; Billé, R.; Pirard, R.; Mermet, L. Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 119, 208–219. [CrossRef]62. Jacobs, S.; Dendoncker, N.; Martin-Lopez, B.; Barton, D.N.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Boeraeve, F.; McGrath, F.L.; Vierikko, K.; Geneletti, D.; Sevecke, K.J.; et al. A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 22, 213–220. [CrossRef]63. Brei, M.; Pérez-Barahona, A.; Strobl, E. Protecting species through legislation: The case of sea turtles. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2020, 102, 300–328. [CrossRef]64. Antoci, A.; Borghesi, S.; Russu, P. Don’t feed the bears! Environmental defense expenditures and species-typical behaviour in an optimal growth model. Macroecon. Dyn. 2019, 25, 733–752. [CrossRef]65. Drupp, M.A. Limits to substitution between ecosystem services and manufactured goods and implications for social discounting. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2018, 69, 135–158. [CrossRef]66. Enríquez-Acevedo, T.; Pérez-Torres, J.; Ruiz-Agudelo, C.; Suarez, A. Seed dispersal by fruit bats in Colombia generates ecosystem services. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 40, 1–15. [CrossRef]67. Tengö, M.; Brondizio, E.S.; Elmqvist, T.; Malmer, P.; Spierenburg, M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 2014, 43, 579–591. [CrossRef] [PubMed]68. Hill, R.; Breslow, S.; Le Buhn, G.; Quezada-Euánn, J.J.; Kwapong, P.; Nates-Parra, G.; Buchori, D.; Howlett, B.; Maués, M.M.; Saeed, S.; et al. Biocultural diversity, pollinators and their socio-cultural values. In The Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production; Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Potts, S.G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L., Ngo, H.T., Eds.; 2016; pp. 276–359. Available online: https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/157539/1/Chapter5 -Pollination-Published.pdf (accessed on 16 September 2021).PublicationORIGINALOn the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region. a case study.pdfOn the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region. a case study.pdfapplication/pdf1171051https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/81442c60-29a4-459f-8526-7e795a62b170/downloadae22180e1db94128ec0e0520c7ffee98MD51CC-LICENSElicense_rdflicense_rdfapplication/rdf+xml; charset=utf-8701https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/f44c21f1-be54-4cd4-a6b8-643596be68e0/download42fd4ad1e89814f5e4a476b409eb708cMD52LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-83196https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/1a81e256-3f99-4c9c-83ef-56105393f43f/downloade30e9215131d99561d40d6b0abbe9badMD53THUMBNAILOn the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region. a case study.pdf.jpgOn the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region. a case study.pdf.jpgimage/jpeg73027https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/eeccdad7-3e02-46f0-9ef3-96ad2e28aff2/downloadc85f10d0360f4dc9d949b591ace94862MD54THUMBNAILOn the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region. a case study.pdf.jpgOn the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region. a case study.pdf.jpgimage/jpeg73027https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/3ee1de82-6308-4279-b90b-b88a1b36aebd/downloadc85f10d0360f4dc9d949b591ace94862MD54TEXTOn the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region. a case study.pdf.txtOn the mismatches between the monetary and social values of air purification in the colombian andean region. a case study.pdf.txttext/plain57273https://repositorio.cuc.edu.co/bitstreams/48fa6c3b-d5d6-4e31-8400-424668f820f2/downloade357980d1fccd20b93eafde86489efb4MD5511323/8863oai:repositorio.cuc.edu.co:11323/88632024-09-17 10:56:30.43http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/CC0 1.0 Universalopen.accesshttps://repositorio.cuc.edu.coRepositorio de la Universidad de la Costa CUCrepdigital@cuc.edu.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 |