Using choice experiment to value preferences to support use of nature

based solutions for adaptation for climate change in Prague

Badura T., Lorencova E., Vackaru D., Ferrini S.

envecon 2019, 15th March, The Royal Society, London

http://www.cserge.ac.uk/

• Climate Change (CC) will have a negative impacts on (urban) living• 73% of EU population living in cities (EEA, 2016) • Heat (1980-2013): 0.8% of natural hazards, 5% economic losses, responsible for 67

% of all fatalities (EEA, 2017). • temperature during heatwaves expected to rise significantly in CEE countries (Guerreiro

et al. 2018)

• Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) expected to be exacerbated by CC

• 66% of EU cities have mitigation plans, while (Reckien et al., 2018):• 26% have adaptation plans only • 17% joined mitigation and adaptation plans

• Prague (CZ; population 1.2 milion) Climate Change Adaptation strategy adopted in 2017; action plan currently for 2018-19

• City admin. commissioned this research to support CC adaptation post 2019

• Specific focus on use of Nature Based solutions for CC adaptation

Context

References: • EEA (2017) Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016: An indicator-based report• EEA (2016) Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe 2016: Transforming cities in a changing climate• Guerreiro et al. (2018) Future heat-waves, droughts and floods in 571 European cities• Reckien et al., (2018)How are cities planning to respond to climate change? Assessment of local climate plans from 885 cities in

the EU-28

• Green (and/or blue) interventions that provide ESS• Focus on co-benefits and multi-functionality

• Our focus on climate adaptation related specific urban ESS:• heat attenuation, and

• water management functions

• No previous valuation study focused on a policy focusing on a range of NBS

Nature Based Solutions (NBS)

• No specific focus from the city administrators• No specific intervention(s)

• No scale of the policy (£ / ha)

• Focus on Nature Based Solutions

• Preferences for (policy of) increased use of NBS in public spaces and on public buildings per se

• Focus a range of generic NBS measures• Buildings: green roofs and facades, • Spaces: street trees, rain gardens, permeable

surfaces, infiltration strips

Survey design

• Attributes of choice• Where the NBS would be implemented

• public spaces• public buildings• evenly

• Species composition of NBS• 1 species• few species• high number of species

• Household costs• increased municipality waste charges• EUR 8 – EUR 200

• Web-survey, 550 Prague residents, data collected October 2018• 1) CC perception; 2) 6 generic NBS description; 3) CE; • 4) opinions on NBS; 5) socio-economic Qs

NBS Choice Experiment

Sample CC/NBS perceptions

0102030405060

I feel the heatwaves and don’t feel well

I feel the heatwaves,

but they don’t limit me

I feel theheatwaves and

they havenegative

impact on myhealth

I don’t feel the heatwaves, I

like high temperatures

I like theheatwaves

%

Personal experience with Heat Waves

• The most significant WTP estimated for change from Status Quo, i.e. increased use of NBS in Prague

• Preference for NBS implemented evenly in public spaces and on public buildings, or dominantly in public spaces

• Preference for higher species composition of the NBS, with a decreasing rate

• Some preference heterogeneity• Preferences for changes from Status Quo

• Education and heat experience increases WTP

• public buildings NBS - controversial factor?

CE Key findings Mean Coef. P>z WTPsType 1 0.111 0.172 CZK 86

Type 2 -0.725 0.000 -CZK 557

Species 1 0.768 0.000 CZK 590

Species 2 0.923 0.000 CZK 709

Cost -0.001 0.000

SQ -3.420 0.000 -CZK 2,629

SQ_education-1.523 0.001 -CZK 1,170

SQ_heat -0.822 0.059 -CZK 632

SD

Type 2 1.114 0.000

Cost 0.001 0.000

SQ 3.849 0.000

Mixlogit, interactions corr, 1000

Log likelihood -2324.805

AIC 4677.611

BIC 4778.415

• CHANGE + even + 1 species = £90 / HH

• CHANGE + public spaces + high species = £130/HH

Values / WTPs, examples:

The next steps:

• CBA for Prague public policy purposes

• Heat impact on economic preferences/WTP

• Future: • Location (and intervention) specific valuation

pivoted to respondent(s)

• Combination with climate modelling -> optimal intervention / prioritisation of NBS intereventions

Thank you for your attention

Questions/comments?Badura T., Lorencova E., Vackaru D., Ferrini S.

Badura.t@czechglobe.cz

T.badura@uea.ac.uk

mailto:Badura.t@czechglobe.czmailto:t.badura@uea.ac.ukhttp://www.cserge.ac.uk/