Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps Susanne Rewitzer a,⇑ , Robert Huber b , Adrienne Grêt-Regamey c , Jan Barkmann a,d a Environmental and Resource Economics, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany b Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft (WSL), Switzerland c Planning of Landscapes and Urban Systems, ETH Zürich, Switzerland d Risk and Sustainability Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, Hochschule Darmstadt – University of Applied Sciences, Germany article info Article history: Received 23 August 2016 Received in revised form 22 June 2017 Accepted 23 June 2017 Keywords: Cultural ecosystem services Economic valuation Choice experiment Cultural landscape Mountain region abstract Traditionally managed agrarian landscapes provide several cultural ecosystem services (CES). Still, CES are often not adequately considered in decision-making – partly because of challenges in their quantifi- cation and economic valuation. We show that a state-of-the-art application of an economic valuation method to CES can generate meaningful data for supporting real-world, regional decision-making pro- cesses. After qualitative pre-studies (semi-structured interviews, stakeholder workshop) and a pilot study (n = 117), a discrete choice experiment (n = 252 respondents) was administered to a random sam- ple of citizens in the Visp region of the Central Swiss Alps, a site with traditional agrarian landscapes. The design of the choice experiment followed an ecosystem services approach, and uses visualizations to sup- port valuation of aesthetic landscape changes. A response rate of 43% was achieved. Citizen support was expressed for agricultural heritage (P < 0.001) and biodiversity-rich dry grasslands (P < 0.001). Aesthetic impacts of settlement extension (P < 0.001) and of grassland intensification (P < 0.001) reduced the eco- nomic value of development options impacting the Visp landscape. Estimated marginal willingness-to- pay ranged from 410 CHF (1 CHF approx. 0.8 EUR in 2013)/person/year for 60 additional ha of dry grass- land to 833 CHF for the visual impact of settlement expansion (by changes of the tax bill). Ó 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Despite their importance, cultural ecosystem services (CES) have only recently attracted higher levels of scientific attention (e.g. Chan et al., 2012b; Daniel et al., 2012; Schaich et al., 2010; van Berkel and Verburg, 2014). The rigorous analysis of CES and their subsequent inclusion in decision-making remains an interdisci- plinary challenge – particularly if quantitative and/or economic val- uation is concerned (Daniel et al., 2012). With respect to cultural landscapes, critics claim that their idiosyncrasy, the intangibility of their values and their incommensurability with monetary indica- tors of value were fundamental hindrances to any economic valua- tion of typical CES (Schaich et al., 2010; Kirchhoff, 2012). These doubts are in contrast with many valuation studies that assessed economic values of environmental goods that can be regarded either as CES or as providing CES. Many studies concen- trated on aspects of scenic beauty, e.g. in a context of leisure or tourism (e.g., Grêt-Regamey et al., 2007; Yan et al., 2010; Ryffel et al., 2014; van Berkel and Verburg, 2014). Further examples include studies on elements of cultural heritage (e.g., Barkmann et al., 2010; Barrena et al., 2014) although quantitative valuations are less common. The value of certain species or of species conser- vation motivated by non-instrumental/non-use reasons have fre- quently been quantified in economic terms (e.g., Cerda et al., 2014; see also references there). If we accept that these studies successfully assessed the economic value of changes to scenic beauty, cultural heritage and the conservation status of rare or endangered species and habitats, the hindrances to the economic valuation of CES may be less fundamental than proposed (cf. Schaich et al., 2010; Kirchhoff, 2012). Conceptually, our optimism that CES can be incorporated well into standard preferences methods of value elicitation rests on their rather direct contribution to human interests and values (cf. Boyd et al., 2016). Bio-physically, CES and non-CES are provided by concrete ecosystems, their elements, structures, and/or processes 1 . http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.014 2212-0416/Ó 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: susanne.rewitzer@gmail.com (S. Rewitzer). 1 Throughout the paper, we stick to the well-established ecosystem service terminology of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005). The MA defines ecosystem services as benefits that ecological systems provide for human beings. Ecosystem Services 26 (2017) 197–208 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecosystem Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser