Identifying Ecosystem Services Using Multiple Methods: Lessons from the Mangrove Wetlands of Yucatan, Mexico (Kaplowitz, 2000)
Agriculture and Human Values 17: 169–179, 2000.
© 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Identifying ecosystem services using multiple methods: Lessons from the
mangrove wetlands of Yucatan, Mexico
Michael D. Kaplowitz
Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Accepted in revised form October 10, 1999
Abstract. The failure to properly account for the total value of environmental and natural resources results in
socially undesirable overexploitation and degradation of complex ecosystems such as mangrove wetlands. How-
ever, most ecosystem valuation research too often focuses on the question of “what is the value” and not enough
on “what people value.” Nonmarket valuation practitioners have used qualitative approaches in their work for
some time. Yet, the relative strengths and weaknesses of different qualitative methods have been more the subject
of speculation than systematic research. The statistical examination of focus group and individual interview data
on ecosystem services illustrates that the two methods generate important but different ecosystem service data.
Further, the data show that the use of multiple data collection methods offers a more robust understanding of what
people value.
Key words: Focus groups, Interviews, Nonmarket valuation, Qualitative methods, Statistical analysis
Michael D. Kaplowitz is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Resource Development at Michigan State
University. This paper is based on original research made possible, in part, by support by the Inter-American
Foundation and the Organization of American States.
Introduction that are not well-captured in markets (Aylward and
Barbier, 1992; Barbier et al., 1997; Carson, 1998;
The failure to properly account for the total value Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). In particular, the
of environmental and natural resources results in value of wetland ecosystems may be especially great
socially undesirable overexploitation and degradation in developing countries where efficient markets for
of complex ecosystems such as mangrove wetlands wetland services do not exist (Aylward and Barbier,
(Clark, 1996; Farnsworth and Ellison, 1997; Hamilton 1992; Barbier et al., 1997; Carson, 1998). However,
et al., 1989; Spaninks and van Beukering, 1997). the availability of valuation methods for estimating
Complex environmental and natural resources, such as wetland economic values does not necessarily mean
the Yucatán’s mangrove wetlands, represent substan- that the pertinent resources services are identified and
tial sources of cultural, intergenerational, environ- included in wetland ecosystem valuation studies and
mental, and economic wealth (Aylward and Barbier, policy decisions.
1992; Bann, 1997; Barbier, 1994; Barbier et al., The reported research examines two relatively
1997; Carson, 1998; Perrings, 1995). However, most inexpensive research methods for helping researchers
ecosystem valuation research is “too focused on the identify relevant ecosystem services associated with a
question of ‘what is the value’ and not enough on mangrove wetland. Using focus groups and individual
what, in particular, people value” (Swallow et al., interviews, the researcher explored what local resource
1998). There is a need for resource valuation research beneficiaries associate with the mangrove wetland of
to identify the range and relative importance of the Chelém Lagoon. The study identifies the particular
components of ecosystem value rather than merely mangrove wetland services important and relevant to
estimate some value for a particular ecosystem service. the inhabitants of two communities along the coastal
Despite this need for understanding the com- fringe west of Progresso, Mexico. The study demon-
ponents of ecosystem value, it is prohibitively strates that the use of both focus groups and in-
expensive and unrealistic to conduct detailed empirical depth individual interviews can lead to a more robust
nonmarket valuation studies of each ecosystem. The understanding of what people value about a shared
need for ecosystem valuation information is especially ecosystem. Furthermore, the study addresses a gap in
great for those public good services of ecosystems the resource valuation literature by using an empirical
170 MICHAEL D. KAPLOWITZ
method to compare the outcomes of group discus- 1993). Examples of natural resource use values include
sions with individual interviews concerning ecosystem camping, hunting, wood collection, fishing, farming,
services (Chilton and Hutchinson, 1999). as well as such things as breathing clean air. Values
First, the paper reviews some of the natural independent of in situ activities have been called
resource services attributed to mangrove ecosystems. passive use or nonuse values. Examples of nonuse
Next, the paper describes how valuation research values include the value of knowing the resource
has used qualitative research methods in some valu- simply exists, the value some people attribute to
ation studies of natural resources. The paper then some potential use of the resource, and the value
describes the research design and method that was of knowing that future generations will have the
used to test the hypothesis that focus groups and indi- resource (Freeman, 1993). In order to properly account
vidual interviews help researchers identify substan- for the total value of ecosystems in their decision-
tially similar ecosystem services associated with a making, policymakers should understand the extent
mangrove wetland. The research results are presented and magnitude of use and nonuse values associated
before discussing the implications of the findings on with the resource.
the usefulness of multiple methods, ways to improve
valuation studies, and the ability of statistical analysis Qualitative methods and valuation studies
to shed light on the significance of qualitative data.
Social scientists in diverse fields of study regularly use
qualitative methods as comprehensive research tools
and as important components in designing and imple-
Background
menting reliable research studies (Krueger, 1994;
Morgan, 1997; Schwarz, 1997; Sudman et al., 1996;
Mangrove wetland values
Weiss, 1994). Studies for estimating the economic
The term mangrove refers to a number of tree species value of environmental and natural resources range
capable of living in saltwater or salty soils. Mangroves from market or behavior-based methods to direct
methods such as contingent valuation (CV) studies.1
and their ecosystems are found in intertidal areas
of sheltered coastlines called lagoons and estuaries. For some time, resource valuation researchers have
Ecologically, mangrove wetlands maintain high levels been advised to consider using focus group interviews
of biological productivity; export nutrients to outside as well as individual interviews for questionnaire
waters; and provide habitat for valuable plant and pretesting and development (Mitchell and Carson,
animal species (Clark, 1996). Mangrove ecosystems 1989). Despite some initial skepticism of the utility
are also important to the subsistence livelihood of of qualitative methods for designing nonmarket valu-
tropical coastal communities (Hamilton et al., 1989; ation studies (e.g., Arrow et al., 1993), focus groups
Hamilton and Snedaker, 1984). Mangrove ecosys- have been increasingly recognized and relied upon as
tems potentially provide an array of important indirect important aspects of resource valuation questionnaire
services – prevention of storm damage, flood and design and evaluation (Carson and Mitchell, 1993;
water control, support of fisheries, waste absorption, Schkade and Payne, 1994; Chilton and Hutchinson,
recreation, and transport (Barbier, 1994; Barbier et 1999; Hutchinson et al., 1995). Individual interviews
al., 1997). Mangrove ecosystems may be directly have also been reported to provide efficient means for
exploited by extracting goods such as fish, agricul- collecting information on beneficiaries’ use and under-
ture, wildlife, wood, and fresh water (Bann, 1997; standing of mangrove ecosystems at the local level
Bennet and Reynolds, 1993; Farnsworth and Ellison, (Kovacs, 1999).
1997; Hirsch and Mauser, 1992; Kunstadter et al., Work by cognitive psychologists and survey
1985; Ruitenbeek, 1992). Additionally, mangrove method researchers underscore the value of quali-
wetlands have also been said to be significant sources tative research methods for questionnaire design
of nonuse benefits that do not flow from direct use of (Schwarz, 1997; Sudman et al., 1996). These same
the ecosystem (Aylward and Barbier, 1992; Barbier, researchers point out that one qualitative research
1994; Barbier et al., 1997). method alone may be insufficient to learn about
Mangrove ecosystems, like other complex environ- respondents’ resource use and understanding. Some
mental and natural resources, are potential sources of researchers suggest that focus groups and individual
an array of use and nonuse values (Barbier, 1994; interviews may lead to the discovery of different infor-
Barbier et al., 1997; Carson, 1998; Hamilton et mation (De Jong and Schellens, 1998; Kitzinger,
al., 1989). While not dependant upon entry directly 1994a, 1994b). Other researchers assert that focus
into markets, use values require that some in situ group research should be combined with other types of
activity takes place that benefits individuals (Freeman, research, including individual interviews, to triangu-
171
IDENTIFYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
late or corroborate research findings (Bryman, 1988; Design and procedure
Morgan, 1996). Multiple qualitative methods such as
The research design allowed for examination of
focus groups and one-on-one interviews may be useful
the collected data across interview type, gender,
for revealing a wide range of local beneficiaries’ ideas
and community (see Figure 1). Research assistants
about and conception of complex environmental and
canvassed randomly selected sections of the target
natural resources (e.g., Carson et al., 1994; Chilton
communities at staggered times of day to recruit partic-
et al., 1998; Hutchinson et al., 1995). Thus there is a
ipants. The focus groups were comprised of between
need for research that compares the outcomes of focus
four and seven individuals of the same gender from the
group and individual interviews regarding the respond-
same village. No respondent or their family members
ents’ understanding of complex ecosystems (Chilton
participated in more than one focus group or inter-
and Hutchinson, 1999).
view. The focus groups and individual interviews were
designed and implemented following the generally
accepted practices of Morgan4 (1996, 1997, 1998)
Research design and method
and Weiss5 (1994) respectively. A Mexican profes-
sional moderator using a specially prepared discussion
Research question
guide conducted the focus groups and individual inter-
The relative strength and weakness of particular quali- views. All focus group and individual interviews were
tative research methods “has been more the subject tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed.
of speculation than systematic research” (Morgan,
1997: 13). A few researchers have explored differ- Qualitative analysis
ences in focus group and individual interview infor-
The qualitative data analysis allowed the researchers
mation (De Jong and Schellens, 1998; Kitzinger,
to (1) discover themes, (2) consider the choice and
1994a, 1994b). Qualitative methods may be used
meanings of words, (3) consider the context(s) of
successfully to learn from local beneficiaries how they
data collection, and (4) consider the consistency of
use, perceive, and value environmental and natural
responses (Krueger, 1994). Although work remains
resources (Mandondo, 1997). Studies also show that
in developing uniform guidelines and rules for the
resource beneficiaries’ ideas about natural resources
qualitative coding and analysis process (Fredricks and
may differ from those of scientists and so-called
Miller, 1997), the researcher attempted to systemat-
experts (Talawar and Rhoades, 1998). This reported
ically reveal elements of respondents’ experience and
research examines the research hypothesis that focus
perceptions. The qualitative analysis did not produce
groups and individual interviews, all else being equal,
simple counts of things, but rather “fractured” the
reveal similar sets of information about a shared
data and rearrange it into categories that facilitated
mangrove ecosystem.
understanding the data and comparing the data within
and between categories (Maxwell, 1996; Strauss and
Participants
Corbin, 1990). After the transcripts were read, the
The communities of Chelém and Chuburná, Mexico analyst used memos (researcher’s notes and observa-
are located along a 15-kilometer stretch of coastal tions), categorizing strategies (coding and thematic
fringe that borders the Gulf of Mexico on one side analysis), and contextualizing strategies (narrative
and Chelém Lagoon on the other. These villages are analysis and individual case studies).
comprised of families that have traditionally relied The 12 focus group and 19 individual interview
upon the natural resources of the region, including transcripts resulted in more than 500 pages of text.
the mangrove wetland, for their subsistence and live- An iterative, grounded theory approach (Strauss and
lihood. Focus group interviews and individual in- Corbin, 1990) was used to code the transcripts. First,
depth interviews were conducted with residents of almost every word of a randomly selected subset
these communities as part of a study evaluating the of transcripts was coded (open coding). Next a set
importance of mangrove wetlands in Yucatán, Mexico. of thematic or summary codes was developed (axial
Chelém and Chuburná share similar socio-economic coding). When no new open codes were necessary to
characteristics and have roughly 475 and 215 house- code additional transcripts, all of the study’s transcripts
holds respectively (Instituto Nacional de Estadística were axial coded. The final iteration of coding the text,
Geografía e Informática (INEGI), 1992). A total of 97 selective coding, focused on organizing the data into
year-round residents from the two communities were 36 categories relevant to respondents’ resource use,
interviewed in one of 12 focus groups2 or 19 individual value, understanding, perception, and control of the
in-depth interviews.3 ecosystem. The reported research is one means for
172 MICHAEL D. KAPLOWITZ
Figure 1. Research design.
trying to understand the significance of what the quali- concerning resource beneficiaries’ social conflicts and
tative research revealed about local beneficiaries’ use, discussion of socially sensitive topics may be found
perception, and understanding of Chelém Lagoon. elsewhere (Kaplowitz, 1998, 1999; Kaplowitz and
Hoehn, 1998).
Operationalizing hypothesis test While for some qualitative researchers, summary
discursive reports of their findings (e.g., consumer
If focus groups and individual interviews concerning preferences among brands of a product) are sufficient,
respondents’ relationships with a local mangrove other researchers rigorously test their research hypoth-
ecosystem yield similar data on beneficiaries’ percep- eses with a statistical analysis of collected qualitative
tions and appreciation of ecosystem services, one data (e.g., De Jong and Schellens, 1998; Krippen-
would expect, all else being equal, that transcripts dorff, 1980). The statistical analysis of qualitative data
of those sessions would evidence a similar set of has been found to be both possible and helpful (De
data on such services. That is, it would be reason- Jong and Schellens, 1998; Krippendorff, 1980; Weber,
able to expect that a uniform process of coding the 1990). Differences in focus group and individual inter-
focus group and individual interview transcripts would view data of text evaluation exercises have been tested
result in similar distributions of codes that capture using code frequencies, t-tests, and analysis of vari-
use and nonuse services associated with the mangrove ance (De Jong and Schellens, 1998). Similarly, the
ecosystem. Likewise, if there were particular use analysis of manifest attributes of text and accompany-
and nonuse services of importance to resource bene- ing inferential attributes has been performed using
ficiaries, one might expect that systematic analysis of various counts, percentages, and statistical measures
the focus group and individual interview data would (Gray and Denstein, 1998). In their recent analysis of
evidence a higher frequency of such codes. This paper focus group data collected in anticipation of a contin-
focuses on testing the hypothesis that focus groups and gent valuation studies, Chilton and Hutchinson (1999)
individual interviews reveal substantially similar infor- “quasi-quantified” qualitative data to test divergence of
mation concerning resource services associated with a respondent and researchers definitions of goods.
mangrove ecosystem. Presentation of research findings
173
IDENTIFYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Table 1. Ecosystem service variables.
Topic variable Example % sessions rasing topic
Focus groups Individual
interviews
Beauty Wetland is beautiful; a pretty place to see; enjoy the views 100 11
Chivita Melongena melongena; small shellfish collected; as food and in 100 95
commerce
Crab Collected as bait; frozen for use during 2 month octopus season 92 42
Lagoon fishing We fish in lagoon; people come to fish in wetland; there are nets 92 90
day and night at lagoon entrance
Salt extraction Used to be salt here; salt ponds once lucrative; construction 92 37
destroyed salt business
Shrimp Seawater brings shrimp; when shrimp here, all fish for them; 75 16
not as many shrimp as in past
Nongame species Flamingoes; crocodiles; heron; turtles; seagulls 67 42
Ducks Ducks sometimes here; few locals benefit; need permit to hunt 42 42
ducks
Recreation Take guests for ride there; sometimes picnic there; celebrate 42 32
Mass there annually
Storm protection Can protect boats from storm; helps if water rises; 42 16
Wood Some collect wood for fires; not much wood collection lately 17 5
The research reported here created and used by respondents during the focus groups and indi-
discrete variables grounded in economic theory that vidual interviews. Table 1 illustrates the 11 ecosystem
were derived from the iterative reading, analysis, and service variables that resulted from the coding and
coding of the transcripts. These discrete variables variable transformation process of the focus group
recorded those instances that focus group discussions and individual interview data. Table 1 also presents
and individual interviews raised topics concerning some examples of representative references and the
wetland ecosystem services associated with Chelém percentage of focus group and individual interview
Lagoon. For example, the variable Lagoon fishing, sessions that raised each topic. As can be seen, most
recorded discussion of fishing for corvina, mullet, or of the services discussed by participants are extractive
other species in the lagoon. Such variables accom- or consumptive use services (e.g., crab, shrimp, and
modated wide-ranges of discussion topics as well as wood collection). Some of the services discussed are
allowed the coded transcript data to be subsequently nonconsumptive uses (e.g., recreation, storm protec-
analyzed using statistical software. The research tion). A few ecosystem discussed by participants
question was operationalized to statistically test the appear to be noncunsumptive uses but arguably may
null hypothesis that respondents’ discussions of the evidence some nonuse value (e.g., beauty, nongame
wetland ecosystem raised the same wetland services species).
equally during focus groups and individual interview Table 2 illustrates the relative ranking of frequen-
sessions. cies for the ecosystem services variables for the focus
group and individual interview data. It illustrates, for
example, that wetland beauty was raised during every
Results focus group discussion (rank 1), but was only the
seventh most frequent service topic raised during indi-
The focus group and individual interview transcript vidual interviews (rank 7). While perhaps a similar
data were transformed into 12 summary variables to range of ecosystem services were discussed in the
test the research hypothesis. One summary variable, focus groups and in the individual interviews, not
Interview type, records the type of interview (e.g., every individual interview or focus group raised the
focus group or individual interview) associated with entire range of mangrove services. However, apparent
each case of coded data. The other 11 summary vari- differences in aggregate frequencies alone however are
ables capture those wetland ecosystem services raised insufficient to support or reject the null hypothesis.
174 MICHAEL D. KAPLOWITZ
Table 2. Rank of service frequencies. Table 3. Focus group and individual interview data asso-
ciations.
Rank Focus groups Individual interview
Interview type χ 2
Topic P Odds
1 Beauty Chivita Group Indiv. ratio
Chivita
23.77a 0.001
Beauty Yes 12 2 9.50
2 Crab Lagoon fishing No 0 17
Lagoon fishing Chivita Yes 12 18 n.s.
Salt extraction No 0 1
7.62a 0.006 15.12
3 Shrimp Crab Crab Yes 11 8
No 1 11
Ducks
Nongame species Fishing Yes 11 17 n.s.
No 1 2
4 Nongame species Salt extraction
9.08a 0.003 18.86
Salt extract Yes 11 7
5 Ducks Recreation No 1 12
Recreation
10.87a 0.001 16.00
Shrimp Yes 9 3
Storm protection No 3 16
6 Wood Shrimp Nongame Yes 8 8 n.s.
Storm protection No 4 11
Ducks Yes 5 8 n.s.
7 Beauty
No 7 11
8 Wood
Recreation Yes 5 6 n.s.
No 7 13
Storm protection Yes 5 3 n.s.
Absolute differences may be statistically insignificant No 7 16
when sample size, proportions, expected frequencies,
Wood Yes 2 1 n.s.
and distributions are taken into account. No 10 18 n.s.
As a result, crosstabulation analysis of each
ecosystem service variable with the interview type a d.f. = 1, N = 31
variable was generated to test the null hypothesis that,
in the sample population, the same percentage of focus services by focus group and individual interview data,
groups and individual interviews raised each wetland it should be remembered that 4 times as many people
service for discussion (see Table 3). Table 3 illus- participated in focus groups (78) than in individual
trates the Pearson chi-square test of the distribution interviews (19). All else being equal, if there are differ-
of observed instances that focus groups and indi- ences in focus group and individual interview data
vidual interviews raised each ecosystem service topic that are a linear function of number of people, the
against the null hypothesis that each interview type expected odds ratios should be closer to 4. However,
results in the same frequency of the topic being raised. the observed odds ratios are two to four times that. This
The null hypothesis was rejected for four variables – suggests that more than the larger numbers of partic-
Beauty (P < 0.001), Crab (P < 0.006), Salt Extraction ipants in focus groups is responsible for the increased
(P < 0.003), and Shrimp (P < 0.001). To examine frequency that certain topics were raised by focus
the strength of the association of interview type with groups.
respondents’ raising the particular ecosystem service Four of the six most frequently mentioned topics
in discussion, odds ratios were computed. Table 3 differed significantly in the frequency in which focus
shows, it is about 9 times more likely that a focus group groups and individual interviews raised them in discus-
of local resource beneficiaries raises the topic of the sions. Therefore, the research findings support the
mangrove ecosystem’s beauty than an individual inter- rejection of the null hypothesis. The data show
view. The topics of crab collection, salt extraction, and that focus groups and individual interviews revealed
fishing for shrimp are respectively 15, 19, and 16 times significantly different ecosystem service information.
more likely to be raised in focus groups than raised by
individual during one-on-one interviews.
To further appreciate the significant differences
observed in the frequencies of discussion of ecosystem
175
IDENTIFYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Discussion to discover different information about ecosystem
services than the individual interviews. Had only
The two methods, focus groups and individual inter- focus group information been collected and relied
views, do not reveal equal sets of information nor upon, it would haven been reasonable to believe
do they rank ecosystem services comparably. While that wetland beauty was extremely important to local
the data illustrate that resource beneficiaries asso- beneficiaries (perhaps on a par with lagoon fishing).
ciate a variety of ecosystem services with complex Conversely, had researchers only relied upon indi-
ecosystems, most of the services discussed tended vidual interview data, wetland beauty and nonuse
to be extractive uses of the ecosystem. The focus values might have easily been dismissed as unim-
groups and individual interviews were dominated by portant or beyond the apprehension of respondents.
discussion of lagoon fishing of one type or another. However, using both individual interview and focus
Although wetland beauty was raised in all of the focus group data revealed that wetland beauty was signifi-
groups, the low frequency of its discussion by indi- cant to individuals but only accessible after a dynamic
vidual interviews seems to more accurately reflect exchange of information. The focus groups seem to
individual beneficiaries’ relative appreciation for non- have provided a dynamic that allowed respondents to
consumptive and nonuse values of the ecosystem. identify and discuss nonconsumptive and, at times,
This is no surprise given the economic difficulties nonuse ecosystem services such as wetland beauty.
facing the communities and Mexico as a whole. The This finding is in line with the recent work by cognitive
focus groups and individual interviews were replete psychologists that shows that increased interaction and
with discussions of the difficulty for providing for exchange of information improves respondents’ under-
one’s family. Increasing commercial fishing pressure standing of complex ideas (Schwarz, 1997; Schwarz
in the Gulf of Mexico has decimated the once rich and Sudman, 1995; Sudman et al., 1996). This result,
coastal fishing resource. Local beneficiaries increas- researchers learning of different and complimentary
ingly rely upon the lagoon and its mangrove ecosystem ecosystem services using focus groups and individual
for subsistence. Therefore, it is no surprise that interviews, clearly supports the desirability of using
consumptive use services predominate conversations multiple methods to corroborate qualitative research
about the ecosystem. findings in future ecosystem valuation work (Bryman,
Only 4 of the 11 wetland services discussed by 1988; Morgan, 1996).
participants were non-extractive in nature – Beauty,
Nongame species, Recreation, and Storm Protection. Implications for valuation research
The relatively low frequencies associated with the use
The results also underscore the difficulty of designing
services of storm protection and recreation in both
studies and instruments for estimating the total
focus groups and individual interviews support the
economic value of a complex ecosystem. Valuing
notion that these services are not particularly signifi-
nonmarket and nonuse services associated with natural
cant to most residents. The other two non-extractive
resources, especially in developing countries, seems to
services, Beauty and Nongame species, arguably
require extra care. While the study supports the notion
capture some respondents’ recognition and appreci-
that nonconsumptive and nonuse values may be signifi-
ation of nonuse ecosystem services. While wetland
cant for wetland ecosystems in developing countries
beauty and the presence of nongame species in the
(Aylward and Barbier, 1992), the data reveal the poten-
ecosystem may be classified by some as use values
tial import of using multiple qualitative methods for
because of the benefits derived from in situ enjoyment
identifying potential values to be measured.
of these services, these variables also capture partici-
In the case at hand, local resource beneficiaries
pants’ expressed sentiments that wetland beauty and
seemed better able to identify and appreciate noncon-
diversity should be preserved for future generations.
sumptive and nonuse values in focus group discussions
rather than in individual interviews. Since valuation
Value of multiple methods
methods such as contingent valuation or contingent
It appears important that wetland beauty was ranked ranking rely upon individuals, not in groups, making
first by groups and seventh by individuals. The statis- trade-off choices to reveal nonuse and total economic
tically significant difference in the frequency that focus values, the findings suggest the import of designing
group and individual interview discussions raised better valuation survey instruments. The results seem
wetland beauty comports favorably with the find- to suggest the value of researchers using groups to
ings of De Jong and Schellens (1998) concerning learn about the array of services that matter to bene-
focus group and individual interview data. The ficiaries before using individual interviews to validate
mangrove ecosystem focus groups did lead researchers such findings. Likewise, it seems important to use
176 MICHAEL D. KAPLOWITZ
groups and individual interviews raised chivita collec-
sequential qualitative methods to evaluate how best
tion and lagoon fishing in discussions. Conversely,
to communicate and increase information exchange
the ecosystem services that only occupy a minor or
concerning ecosystem services in value elicitation
cursory place in the communities’ appreciation of
instruments.
wetland services do not differ significantly in their
Researchers’ perceptions and beneficiaries’ frequency of discussion in focus groups and individual
understanding interviews.
However, the frequency that several ecosystem
The literature is full of lists of use and nonuse services services raised in focus groups and individual inter-
that in some but not all cases can be associated with views did differ significantly. The extractive ecosystem
mangrove ecosystems (e.g., Barbier, 1994; Barbier et services that differed significantly may be thought
al., 1997; Janssen and Padilla, 1996; Spaninks and van of as sub-components of the more general mangrove
Beukering, 1997). These mangrove services include ecosystem “fishing” service. The difference in these
on-site fisheries, fuelwood collection, timber harvests, frequencies may be a function of the difference in the
off-site fishery support, aquaculture, carbon sequestra- dynamics of a focus group discussion and a one-on-
tion, growing of medicinal plants, biodiversity, recrea- one depth-interview. For example, shrimp collection
tion, transportation, meat production, flood control, (mentioned in 75% of focus groups and 16% of indi-
storm protection, option values, existence values, and vidual interviews) happens to be an occasional and
bequest values. A daunting set of services to have to contentious phenomenon in the lagoon. The recent
include in a particular valuation effort. However, the construction of a duck habitat restoration dike by
findings show that by using qualitative methods, bene- Ducks Unlimited and activities of the Mexican Navy,
ficiaries can help researchers narrow the set ecological according to participants, have resulted in drastic
services to those most relevant for study. curtailment of the once annual or biannual inundation
In Chelém, the focus groups and individual of shrimp in the lagoon. The data show that it is 16
interviews left no doubt that lagoon fishing (espe- times more likely that shrimp collection be raised in
cially for “chivita”, crab, and shrimp) is of utmost focus groups than individual interviews. The lower
importance to local people. A few nonconsumptive frequency that individual interviews raised the topic
uses and possible nonuse values were articulated of shrimp collection may well reflect the decreased
by respondents (nongame species and the beauty of role of shrimp collection in beneficiaries’ use of
the ecosystem) while the relative insignificance of the mangrove lagoon. The topic’s high frequency of
ecosystem storm protection services and wood collec- discussion in focus groups may reflect a collective
tion was also made apparent. Furthermore, the small need or desire of individuals to process or air feelings
role that mangrove wood and wood collection plays associated with the loss of this service.
in the lives of local beneficiaries in Chelém Lagoon Similarly, a statistically significant divergence
contrasts with the findings of Kovacs (1999). Together, between focus group and individual interview data was
the use of focus groups and individual interviews observed in salt extraction data. At one time, indi-
allowed the researcher to identify those service most viduals in the region could construct salt ponds, flood
relevant to local beneficiaries and to further investiga- them with seawater, allow the water to evaporate, and
tion. then collect and sell crystallized sea salt. However, the
area’s lucrative salt mining business has been defunct
Significance of differences
for years. The change followed the flooding and ipso
facto enlarging of Chelém Lagoon that resulting when
The most frequent and least frequent ecosystem
the Mexican government dredged and constructed a
services raised using the two methods were not statis-
safe harbor and naval station in the lagoon in the late
tically different across methods. This seems to imply
1960s and early 1970s (Paré and Fraga, 1994). Like
that, regardless of method, participants recall and
the shrimp collection data, individual interviews raised
articulate common wetland ecosystem uses equally
salt extraction as an ecosystem service significantly
at the extremes of usage or importance in focus
less often than focus groups. It is about 19 times more
groups and individual interviews. For example, the
likely that a focus group raise salt extraction than an
collection of chivita (Melongena melongena) from
individual interview raise that same topic. People’s
the muddy bottom of Chelém Lagoon has become
discussion of the lagoon in groups seemed to trigger
the predominant subsistence strategy for the regions’
communities.6 Chivita collection has replaced more discussion of the loss of ecosystem services, like salt
extraction.
conventional lagoon fishing and collection of crab as
Apparently, focus group data can leave researchers
the most important ecosystem service. Therefore, it
with an impression about the significance of a resource
is no surprise that more than 90% of both the focus
177
IDENTIFYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
service that substantially differs from the impres- cates that the notion of a nonconsumptive or nonuse
sion left by individual interview data. The differences ecosystem service may be difficult for individuals to
observed in the frequencies of the discussions of crab conceptualize and associate with an ecosystem without
collection, salt extraction, and shrimp fishing activ- the benefit of a dynamic exchange of information (e.g.,
ities illustrate that specific components of inclusive informational priming in a survey instrument). The
use values (e.g., Lagoon Fishing) are more likely use of multiple qualitative methods would seem valu-
to be raised in focus groups rather than individual able to researchers charged with the task of designing
interviews. a study or instrument addressing beneficiaries’ stated
preferences or values for nonconsumptive use services
Better understanding from qualitative methods and nonuse services associated with complex ecosys-
tems.
There was not obvious difference in the frequency that
groups and individuals raise chivita collection or the
broader discussion topic of lagoon fishing. It seems Conclusion
that virtually every family in the two communities,
at one time or another has adopted chivita collection This study demonstrates that use of multiple quali-
as part of their subsistence survival strategy. Further- tative methods can help researchers develop a
more, it is common for almost everyone in the area to more complete understanding of beneficiaries’ natural
refer to himself or herself as a “pescador” (fisherman). resource values. Reliance upon one qualitative method,
This despite the fact that many of these individuals focus groups or individual interviews, would have
provide for themselves and their families by working provided researchers with a less than complete under-
in nearby factories or doing construction work. Not standing of beneficiaries’ uses, perceptions, and values
only do individuals perceive themselves as fisher- associated with their shared mangrove ecosystem. This
people, it was learned throughout the groups and inter- study shows the two qualitative research methods to be
views that respondents include chivita collection, crab complementary, not substitute, methods for learning
and shrimp collection together with line and net fishing about ecosystem services.
for other species when speaking about lagoon fishing. The study demonstrates the value of using indi-
What makes this especially important, is that local vidual interviews in addition to focus groups in the
researchers from nearby Mérida working on coastal economic valuation study design process. Such inter-
zone management in the region were surprised to learn views can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of
of the extent to which the respondents relied upon the instrument at communicating complex information
chivita collection. It was their belief that chivita was as well as to judge respondents’ ability to meaning-
a minor component of residents’ subsistence strategy fully undertake the requisite valuation tasks. Incorpo-
and that near-shore fishing in the gulf was the predom- rating both focus groups and individual interviews into
inant occupation in the area. the conceptualization and design phase of valuation
The researcher learned that unfortunately as one studies seems capable of shaping ecosystem valuation
respondent put it, research so that it is more concerned with “what people
value.”
We used to make a living fishing in the sea . . . Now
The incorporation of statistical examination of
you can’t make a profit more than 2–3 months
focus group and individual interview data on
from fishing in the sea . . . The same problem is also
ecosystem services illustrates that the two methods
happening in the estuary, it used to be that you
generate different ecosystem service data. The find-
could take all the crab you wanted. Now only the
ings suggest that focus group ecosystem service data
small ones are around . . . While some try to work
reflect differences that may be attributable to dynamic
elsewhere, people sustain their families with chivita
processing of information. This finding is in line with
from the wetland (Transcript 18).
others’ research that shows increased interaction and
exchange of information improves respondents’ under-
The individual interview data and the focus
standing of complex ideas (Schwarz, 1997; Schwarz
group data about beneficiaries’ uses and perceptions
and Sudman, 1995; Sudman et al., 1996). The system-
of Chelém Lagoon services appear to be compli-
atic statistical analysis of individual interview and
mentary. While both methods revealed information
focus group data can provide an empirical basis for
about ecosystem services, the relative weight that
better understanding of ecosystem services and their
each of the services received differed by method. For
value to respondents.
example, ecosystem beauty was raised in every focus
group. However, only 11 percent of individual inter-
viewees raised ecosystem beauty. This contrast indi-
178 MICHAEL D. KAPLOWITZ
Notes Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and Quality in Social Research.
London: Unwin Hyman.
Carson, R. T. (1998). “Valuation of tropical rainforests: Philo-
1. Contingent valuation (CV) studies elicit economic values
sophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valu-
for environmental amenities and natural resources using
ation,” Ecological Economics 24: 15–29.
carefully designed and administered surveys. CV studies
Carson, R. T. and R. C. Mitchell (1993). “The issue of scope
are one type of stated-preference approach researchers use
in contingent valuation,” American Journal of Agricultural
to reveal how individuals value environmnetal and natural
Economics 75: 1263–1267.
resources.
Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, A. Krosnick, R.
2. Focus groups are carefully planned discussions designed
C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P. A. Ruud, and V. K. Smith (1994).
to learn about subjects’ perceptions on a defined area
Prospective Interim Lost Use Value Due to DDT and PCB
of interest in a permissive, nonthreatening environment.
Contamination in the Southern California Bight. La Jolla,
They are conducted by a skilled moderator who follows
California: Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc.
a discussion guide and involve as few to as many as 12
Chilton, S., T. Burton, M. Jones, and G. Loomes (1998).
informants.
“A qualitative examination of preference reversals,” The 1st
3. Individual interviews (also called unstructured, explor-
World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists,
atory, intensive, in-depth, and depth interviews) are guided
June 25–27. Venice, Italy.
conversations whose goal is to elicit from interviewees
Chilton, S. M. and W. G. Hutchinson (1999). “Exploring diver-
(also called informants) rich, detailed materials that can
gence between respondent and researcher definitions of the
be used in qualitative analysis. The interviewer used the
goods in contingent valuation studies,” Journal of Agricul-
same discussion guide as used in focus groups to guide the
tural Economics 50: 1–16.
one-on-one conversations.
Clark, J. R. (1996). Coastal Zone Management Handbook. Boca
4. Dr. David Morgan is a highly regarded and widely
Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
published focus group researcher. He is a Professor in the
De Jong, M. and P. J. Schellens (1998). “Focus groups
Institute on Aging and the Department of Urban Studies and
or individual interview? A comparison of text evaluation
Planning at Portland State University. His works include
approaches,” Technical Communication 45: 77–88.
such classics as Focus Groups as Qualitative Research
Farnsworth, E. J. and A. M. Ellison (1997). “The global
(1988) and The Focus Group Kit (1998).
conservation status of mangroves,” Ambio 26: 328–334.
5. Dr. Robert Weiss is Director of the Work and Family
Fredricks, M. and S. I. Miller (1997). “Some brief notes on
Research Unit and Professor at the University of Massachu-
the ‘unfinished business’ of qualitative inquiry,” Quality and
setts. Weiss is renown as a qualitative researcher and the
Quantity 31: 1–13.
author of Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of
Freeman, A. M. (1993). The Measurement of Environmental
Qualitative Interview Studies (1994).
and Resource Values. Washington, DC: Resources for the
6. Chivita (Melongena melongena) is a small mollusk found
Future.
in the mud flats on estuaries. It is also known as a West
Gray, J. H. and I. L. Denstein (1998). “Integrating quantitative
Indian Crown Conch.
and qualitative analysis using latent and manifest variables,”
Quality and Quantity 32: 419–431.
Hamilton, L. and S. Snedaker (1984). Handbook for Mangrove
Area Management. Hawaii: East/West Center.
References
Hamilton, L., J. Dixon, and G. Owen Miller (1989).
“Mangroves forests: An undervalued resource of the land and
Arrow, K., R. Solow, E. Leamer, P. Portney, R. Rader, and H.
sea,” in E. M. Borgese, N. Ginsburg, and J. R. Morgan (eds.),
Schuman (1993). “Report of the NOAA panel on contingent
Ocean Yearbook 8. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
valuation,” Federal Register 58: 4601–4614.
Hirsch, D. and A. Mauser (1992). The Economic Values of
Aylward, B. and E. B. Barbier (1992). “Valuing environmental
Mangroves: Two Case Studies – Mida Creek and Funzi Bay,
functions in developing countries,” Biodiversity and Conser-
August–December. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
vation 1: 34–50.
Hutchinson, W. G., S. M. Chilton, and J. Davis (1995).
Bann, C. (1997). An Economic Analysis of Alternative
“Measuring non-use value of environmental goods using
Mangrove Management Strategies in Koh Kong Province,
the contingent valuation method: Problems of information
Cambodia, November. Singapore: Economy and Environ-
and cognition and the application of cognitive questionnaire
ment Program for South East Asia.
design methods,” Journal of Agricultural Economics 46:
Barbier, E. B. (1994). “Valuing environmental functions: Trop-
97–112.
ical wetlands,” Land Economics 70: 155–173.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática
Barbier, E. B., M. Acreman, and D. Knowler (1997). Economic
(INEGI) (1992). Yucatán-resultados definitivos: Datos por
Valuation of Wetlands: A Guide for Policy Makers and Plan-
AGEB urbana. XI censo general de poblacion vivienad, 1990.
ners. Cambridge, UK: Ramsar Convention Bureau, Depart-
Aguascalientes, Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Estadística,
ment of Environmental Economics and Management, Univer-
Geografía e Informática.
sity of York.
Janssen, R. and J. E. Padilla (1996). Valuation and Evaluation of
Bennet, E. L. and C. J. Reynolds (1993). “The value of a
Management Alternatives for the Pagbilao Mangrove Forest,
mangrove area in Sarawak,” Biodiversity and Conservation
October. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies.
2: 359–375.
179
IDENTIFYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Kaplowitz, M. D. (1998). “Research intentions and respondent Perrings, C. (1995). “The economic value of biodiversity”
perceptions: Identifying a nexus in valuing mangrove ecosys- in Heywood, V.H. (ed.), Global Biodiversity Assessment.
tems,” Fifth Biennial Meeting of the International Society for Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ecological Economics, November 15–19. Santiago, Chile. Ruitenbeek, H. J. (1992). Mangrove Management: An
Kaplowitz, M. D. (1999). “Conflicting agendas in the Yucatán,” Economic Analysis of Management Options with a Focus on
International Review of Comparative Public Policy 11: 141– Bintuni Bay, Irian Jaya. Jakarta and Halifax: Environmental
156. Management Development in Indonesia Project (EMDI) and
Kaplowitz, M. D. and J. P. Hoehn (1998). “A total value hypoth- Dalhousie University.
esis for ecosystem valuation in a cross-cultural setting,” First Schkade, D. A. and J. W. Payne (1994). “How people respond to
World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of
June 25–27. Venice, Italy. willingness to pay for an environmental regulation,” Journal
Kitzinger, J. (1994a). “The methodology of focus groups: of Environmental Economics and Management 26: 88–109.
The importance of interaction between research participants,” Schwarz, N. (1997). “Cognition, communication, and survey
Sociology of Health and Illness 16: 103–121. measurement,” in R. J. Kopp, W. Pommerehne, and N.
Kitzinger, J. (1994b). “Focus groups: Method or madness,” in Schwarz (eds.), Determining the Value of Non-Marketed
Boulton, M. (ed.), Challenge and Innovation: Methodolog- Goods. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
ical Advances in Social Research on HIV/AIDS. New York: Schwarz, N. and S. Sudman (1995). Answering Questions:
Taylor and Francis. Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative
Kovacs, J. M. (1999). “Assessing mangrove uses at the local Processes in Survey Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
scale,” Landscape and Urban Planning 43: 201–208. Publishers.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction Spaninks, F. and P. van Beukering (1997). Economic Valuation
to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Public- of Mangrove Ecosystems: Potential and Limitations, July.
ations. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1990). Basic of Qualitative Research:
Applied Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury
Publications. Park, California: Sage Publications.
Kunstadter, P., E. C. F. Bird, and S. Sabhasri, (1985). Man Sudman, S., N. B. Bradburn, and N. Schwarz (1996). Thinking
in the Mangroves: The Socio-Economic Situation of Human About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to
Settlements in Mangrove Forests. Tokyo: United Nations Survey Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
University. Swallow, S., M. Spencer, C. Miller, P. Paton, R. Deegen, L.
Mandondo, A. (1997). “Trees and spaces as emotion and Whinstanley, and J. Shogren (1998). “Methods and applica-
norm laden components of local ecosystems in Nyamaropa tions for ecosystem valuation: A collage,” in B. Kanninen
communal land, Nyanga District, Zimbabwe,” Agriculture (ed.), Proceedings of the first Workshop in the Environmental
and Human Values 14: 353–372. Policy and Economics Workshop Series. Washington, DC:
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Inter- Office of Research and Development and Office of Policy, US
active Approach. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publica- Environmental Protection Agency.
tions. Talawar, S. and R. E. Rhoades (1998). “Scientific and local
Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1989). Using Surveys to classification and management of soils,” Agriculture and
Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Human Values 15: 3–14.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Weber, R. P. (1990). “Basic content analysis,” in M. S. Lewis-
Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink (1993). Wetlands, 2nd edn. Beck (ed.), Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences,
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 2nd edn. Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Morgan, D. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research 2nd Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The Art and
edn. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: The Free
Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Press.
Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). “Focus groups,” in J. Hagan and K. S. Address for correspondence: Michael D. Kaplowitz, J.D.,
Cook (eds.), Annual Review of Sociology. Palo Alto: Annual Ph.D., Michigan State University, 311A Natural Resources,
Reviews. East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Morgan, D. L., R. A. Krueger, A. U. Scannell, and J. A. King Phone: +1-517-355-0101; Fax: +1-517-353-8994;
(1998). Focus Group Kit. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE E-mail: kaplowit@msu.edu
Publications.
Paré, L. and J. Fraga (1994). La costa de Yucatán: Desarrollo
y vulnerabilidad ambiental. Mexico: Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México. Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales.
© 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Identifying ecosystem services using multiple methods: Lessons from the
mangrove wetlands of Yucatan, Mexico
Michael D. Kaplowitz
Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Accepted in revised form October 10, 1999
Abstract. The failure to properly account for the total value of environmental and natural resources results in
socially undesirable overexploitation and degradation of complex ecosystems such as mangrove wetlands. How-
ever, most ecosystem valuation research too often focuses on the question of “what is the value” and not enough
on “what people value.” Nonmarket valuation practitioners have used qualitative approaches in their work for
some time. Yet, the relative strengths and weaknesses of different qualitative methods have been more the subject
of speculation than systematic research. The statistical examination of focus group and individual interview data
on ecosystem services illustrates that the two methods generate important but different ecosystem service data.
Further, the data show that the use of multiple data collection methods offers a more robust understanding of what
people value.
Key words: Focus groups, Interviews, Nonmarket valuation, Qualitative methods, Statistical analysis
Michael D. Kaplowitz is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Resource Development at Michigan State
University. This paper is based on original research made possible, in part, by support by the Inter-American
Foundation and the Organization of American States.
Introduction that are not well-captured in markets (Aylward and
Barbier, 1992; Barbier et al., 1997; Carson, 1998;
The failure to properly account for the total value Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). In particular, the
of environmental and natural resources results in value of wetland ecosystems may be especially great
socially undesirable overexploitation and degradation in developing countries where efficient markets for
of complex ecosystems such as mangrove wetlands wetland services do not exist (Aylward and Barbier,
(Clark, 1996; Farnsworth and Ellison, 1997; Hamilton 1992; Barbier et al., 1997; Carson, 1998). However,
et al., 1989; Spaninks and van Beukering, 1997). the availability of valuation methods for estimating
Complex environmental and natural resources, such as wetland economic values does not necessarily mean
the Yucatán’s mangrove wetlands, represent substan- that the pertinent resources services are identified and
tial sources of cultural, intergenerational, environ- included in wetland ecosystem valuation studies and
mental, and economic wealth (Aylward and Barbier, policy decisions.
1992; Bann, 1997; Barbier, 1994; Barbier et al., The reported research examines two relatively
1997; Carson, 1998; Perrings, 1995). However, most inexpensive research methods for helping researchers
ecosystem valuation research is “too focused on the identify relevant ecosystem services associated with a
question of ‘what is the value’ and not enough on mangrove wetland. Using focus groups and individual
what, in particular, people value” (Swallow et al., interviews, the researcher explored what local resource
1998). There is a need for resource valuation research beneficiaries associate with the mangrove wetland of
to identify the range and relative importance of the Chelém Lagoon. The study identifies the particular
components of ecosystem value rather than merely mangrove wetland services important and relevant to
estimate some value for a particular ecosystem service. the inhabitants of two communities along the coastal
Despite this need for understanding the com- fringe west of Progresso, Mexico. The study demon-
ponents of ecosystem value, it is prohibitively strates that the use of both focus groups and in-
expensive and unrealistic to conduct detailed empirical depth individual interviews can lead to a more robust
nonmarket valuation studies of each ecosystem. The understanding of what people value about a shared
need for ecosystem valuation information is especially ecosystem. Furthermore, the study addresses a gap in
great for those public good services of ecosystems the resource valuation literature by using an empirical
170 MICHAEL D. KAPLOWITZ
method to compare the outcomes of group discus- 1993). Examples of natural resource use values include
sions with individual interviews concerning ecosystem camping, hunting, wood collection, fishing, farming,
services (Chilton and Hutchinson, 1999). as well as such things as breathing clean air. Values
First, the paper reviews some of the natural independent of in situ activities have been called
resource services attributed to mangrove ecosystems. passive use or nonuse values. Examples of nonuse
Next, the paper describes how valuation research values include the value of knowing the resource
has used qualitative research methods in some valu- simply exists, the value some people attribute to
ation studies of natural resources. The paper then some potential use of the resource, and the value
describes the research design and method that was of knowing that future generations will have the
used to test the hypothesis that focus groups and indi- resource (Freeman, 1993). In order to properly account
vidual interviews help researchers identify substan- for the total value of ecosystems in their decision-
tially similar ecosystem services associated with a making, policymakers should understand the extent
mangrove wetland. The research results are presented and magnitude of use and nonuse values associated
before discussing the implications of the findings on with the resource.
the usefulness of multiple methods, ways to improve
valuation studies, and the ability of statistical analysis Qualitative methods and valuation studies
to shed light on the significance of qualitative data.
Social scientists in diverse fields of study regularly use
qualitative methods as comprehensive research tools
and as important components in designing and imple-
Background
menting reliable research studies (Krueger, 1994;
Morgan, 1997; Schwarz, 1997; Sudman et al., 1996;
Mangrove wetland values
Weiss, 1994). Studies for estimating the economic
The term mangrove refers to a number of tree species value of environmental and natural resources range
capable of living in saltwater or salty soils. Mangroves from market or behavior-based methods to direct
methods such as contingent valuation (CV) studies.1
and their ecosystems are found in intertidal areas
of sheltered coastlines called lagoons and estuaries. For some time, resource valuation researchers have
Ecologically, mangrove wetlands maintain high levels been advised to consider using focus group interviews
of biological productivity; export nutrients to outside as well as individual interviews for questionnaire
waters; and provide habitat for valuable plant and pretesting and development (Mitchell and Carson,
animal species (Clark, 1996). Mangrove ecosystems 1989). Despite some initial skepticism of the utility
are also important to the subsistence livelihood of of qualitative methods for designing nonmarket valu-
tropical coastal communities (Hamilton et al., 1989; ation studies (e.g., Arrow et al., 1993), focus groups
Hamilton and Snedaker, 1984). Mangrove ecosys- have been increasingly recognized and relied upon as
tems potentially provide an array of important indirect important aspects of resource valuation questionnaire
services – prevention of storm damage, flood and design and evaluation (Carson and Mitchell, 1993;
water control, support of fisheries, waste absorption, Schkade and Payne, 1994; Chilton and Hutchinson,
recreation, and transport (Barbier, 1994; Barbier et 1999; Hutchinson et al., 1995). Individual interviews
al., 1997). Mangrove ecosystems may be directly have also been reported to provide efficient means for
exploited by extracting goods such as fish, agricul- collecting information on beneficiaries’ use and under-
ture, wildlife, wood, and fresh water (Bann, 1997; standing of mangrove ecosystems at the local level
Bennet and Reynolds, 1993; Farnsworth and Ellison, (Kovacs, 1999).
1997; Hirsch and Mauser, 1992; Kunstadter et al., Work by cognitive psychologists and survey
1985; Ruitenbeek, 1992). Additionally, mangrove method researchers underscore the value of quali-
wetlands have also been said to be significant sources tative research methods for questionnaire design
of nonuse benefits that do not flow from direct use of (Schwarz, 1997; Sudman et al., 1996). These same
the ecosystem (Aylward and Barbier, 1992; Barbier, researchers point out that one qualitative research
1994; Barbier et al., 1997). method alone may be insufficient to learn about
Mangrove ecosystems, like other complex environ- respondents’ resource use and understanding. Some
mental and natural resources, are potential sources of researchers suggest that focus groups and individual
an array of use and nonuse values (Barbier, 1994; interviews may lead to the discovery of different infor-
Barbier et al., 1997; Carson, 1998; Hamilton et mation (De Jong and Schellens, 1998; Kitzinger,
al., 1989). While not dependant upon entry directly 1994a, 1994b). Other researchers assert that focus
into markets, use values require that some in situ group research should be combined with other types of
activity takes place that benefits individuals (Freeman, research, including individual interviews, to triangu-
171
IDENTIFYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
late or corroborate research findings (Bryman, 1988; Design and procedure
Morgan, 1996). Multiple qualitative methods such as
The research design allowed for examination of
focus groups and one-on-one interviews may be useful
the collected data across interview type, gender,
for revealing a wide range of local beneficiaries’ ideas
and community (see Figure 1). Research assistants
about and conception of complex environmental and
canvassed randomly selected sections of the target
natural resources (e.g., Carson et al., 1994; Chilton
communities at staggered times of day to recruit partic-
et al., 1998; Hutchinson et al., 1995). Thus there is a
ipants. The focus groups were comprised of between
need for research that compares the outcomes of focus
four and seven individuals of the same gender from the
group and individual interviews regarding the respond-
same village. No respondent or their family members
ents’ understanding of complex ecosystems (Chilton
participated in more than one focus group or inter-
and Hutchinson, 1999).
view. The focus groups and individual interviews were
designed and implemented following the generally
accepted practices of Morgan4 (1996, 1997, 1998)
Research design and method
and Weiss5 (1994) respectively. A Mexican profes-
sional moderator using a specially prepared discussion
Research question
guide conducted the focus groups and individual inter-
The relative strength and weakness of particular quali- views. All focus group and individual interviews were
tative research methods “has been more the subject tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed.
of speculation than systematic research” (Morgan,
1997: 13). A few researchers have explored differ- Qualitative analysis
ences in focus group and individual interview infor-
The qualitative data analysis allowed the researchers
mation (De Jong and Schellens, 1998; Kitzinger,
to (1) discover themes, (2) consider the choice and
1994a, 1994b). Qualitative methods may be used
meanings of words, (3) consider the context(s) of
successfully to learn from local beneficiaries how they
data collection, and (4) consider the consistency of
use, perceive, and value environmental and natural
responses (Krueger, 1994). Although work remains
resources (Mandondo, 1997). Studies also show that
in developing uniform guidelines and rules for the
resource beneficiaries’ ideas about natural resources
qualitative coding and analysis process (Fredricks and
may differ from those of scientists and so-called
Miller, 1997), the researcher attempted to systemat-
experts (Talawar and Rhoades, 1998). This reported
ically reveal elements of respondents’ experience and
research examines the research hypothesis that focus
perceptions. The qualitative analysis did not produce
groups and individual interviews, all else being equal,
simple counts of things, but rather “fractured” the
reveal similar sets of information about a shared
data and rearrange it into categories that facilitated
mangrove ecosystem.
understanding the data and comparing the data within
and between categories (Maxwell, 1996; Strauss and
Participants
Corbin, 1990). After the transcripts were read, the
The communities of Chelém and Chuburná, Mexico analyst used memos (researcher’s notes and observa-
are located along a 15-kilometer stretch of coastal tions), categorizing strategies (coding and thematic
fringe that borders the Gulf of Mexico on one side analysis), and contextualizing strategies (narrative
and Chelém Lagoon on the other. These villages are analysis and individual case studies).
comprised of families that have traditionally relied The 12 focus group and 19 individual interview
upon the natural resources of the region, including transcripts resulted in more than 500 pages of text.
the mangrove wetland, for their subsistence and live- An iterative, grounded theory approach (Strauss and
lihood. Focus group interviews and individual in- Corbin, 1990) was used to code the transcripts. First,
depth interviews were conducted with residents of almost every word of a randomly selected subset
these communities as part of a study evaluating the of transcripts was coded (open coding). Next a set
importance of mangrove wetlands in Yucatán, Mexico. of thematic or summary codes was developed (axial
Chelém and Chuburná share similar socio-economic coding). When no new open codes were necessary to
characteristics and have roughly 475 and 215 house- code additional transcripts, all of the study’s transcripts
holds respectively (Instituto Nacional de Estadística were axial coded. The final iteration of coding the text,
Geografía e Informática (INEGI), 1992). A total of 97 selective coding, focused on organizing the data into
year-round residents from the two communities were 36 categories relevant to respondents’ resource use,
interviewed in one of 12 focus groups2 or 19 individual value, understanding, perception, and control of the
in-depth interviews.3 ecosystem. The reported research is one means for
172 MICHAEL D. KAPLOWITZ
Figure 1. Research design.
trying to understand the significance of what the quali- concerning resource beneficiaries’ social conflicts and
tative research revealed about local beneficiaries’ use, discussion of socially sensitive topics may be found
perception, and understanding of Chelém Lagoon. elsewhere (Kaplowitz, 1998, 1999; Kaplowitz and
Hoehn, 1998).
Operationalizing hypothesis test While for some qualitative researchers, summary
discursive reports of their findings (e.g., consumer
If focus groups and individual interviews concerning preferences among brands of a product) are sufficient,
respondents’ relationships with a local mangrove other researchers rigorously test their research hypoth-
ecosystem yield similar data on beneficiaries’ percep- eses with a statistical analysis of collected qualitative
tions and appreciation of ecosystem services, one data (e.g., De Jong and Schellens, 1998; Krippen-
would expect, all else being equal, that transcripts dorff, 1980). The statistical analysis of qualitative data
of those sessions would evidence a similar set of has been found to be both possible and helpful (De
data on such services. That is, it would be reason- Jong and Schellens, 1998; Krippendorff, 1980; Weber,
able to expect that a uniform process of coding the 1990). Differences in focus group and individual inter-
focus group and individual interview transcripts would view data of text evaluation exercises have been tested
result in similar distributions of codes that capture using code frequencies, t-tests, and analysis of vari-
use and nonuse services associated with the mangrove ance (De Jong and Schellens, 1998). Similarly, the
ecosystem. Likewise, if there were particular use analysis of manifest attributes of text and accompany-
and nonuse services of importance to resource bene- ing inferential attributes has been performed using
ficiaries, one might expect that systematic analysis of various counts, percentages, and statistical measures
the focus group and individual interview data would (Gray and Denstein, 1998). In their recent analysis of
evidence a higher frequency of such codes. This paper focus group data collected in anticipation of a contin-
focuses on testing the hypothesis that focus groups and gent valuation studies, Chilton and Hutchinson (1999)
individual interviews reveal substantially similar infor- “quasi-quantified” qualitative data to test divergence of
mation concerning resource services associated with a respondent and researchers definitions of goods.
mangrove ecosystem. Presentation of research findings
173
IDENTIFYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Table 1. Ecosystem service variables.
Topic variable Example % sessions rasing topic
Focus groups Individual
interviews
Beauty Wetland is beautiful; a pretty place to see; enjoy the views 100 11
Chivita Melongena melongena; small shellfish collected; as food and in 100 95
commerce
Crab Collected as bait; frozen for use during 2 month octopus season 92 42
Lagoon fishing We fish in lagoon; people come to fish in wetland; there are nets 92 90
day and night at lagoon entrance
Salt extraction Used to be salt here; salt ponds once lucrative; construction 92 37
destroyed salt business
Shrimp Seawater brings shrimp; when shrimp here, all fish for them; 75 16
not as many shrimp as in past
Nongame species Flamingoes; crocodiles; heron; turtles; seagulls 67 42
Ducks Ducks sometimes here; few locals benefit; need permit to hunt 42 42
ducks
Recreation Take guests for ride there; sometimes picnic there; celebrate 42 32
Mass there annually
Storm protection Can protect boats from storm; helps if water rises; 42 16
Wood Some collect wood for fires; not much wood collection lately 17 5
The research reported here created and used by respondents during the focus groups and indi-
discrete variables grounded in economic theory that vidual interviews. Table 1 illustrates the 11 ecosystem
were derived from the iterative reading, analysis, and service variables that resulted from the coding and
coding of the transcripts. These discrete variables variable transformation process of the focus group
recorded those instances that focus group discussions and individual interview data. Table 1 also presents
and individual interviews raised topics concerning some examples of representative references and the
wetland ecosystem services associated with Chelém percentage of focus group and individual interview
Lagoon. For example, the variable Lagoon fishing, sessions that raised each topic. As can be seen, most
recorded discussion of fishing for corvina, mullet, or of the services discussed by participants are extractive
other species in the lagoon. Such variables accom- or consumptive use services (e.g., crab, shrimp, and
modated wide-ranges of discussion topics as well as wood collection). Some of the services discussed are
allowed the coded transcript data to be subsequently nonconsumptive uses (e.g., recreation, storm protec-
analyzed using statistical software. The research tion). A few ecosystem discussed by participants
question was operationalized to statistically test the appear to be noncunsumptive uses but arguably may
null hypothesis that respondents’ discussions of the evidence some nonuse value (e.g., beauty, nongame
wetland ecosystem raised the same wetland services species).
equally during focus groups and individual interview Table 2 illustrates the relative ranking of frequen-
sessions. cies for the ecosystem services variables for the focus
group and individual interview data. It illustrates, for
example, that wetland beauty was raised during every
Results focus group discussion (rank 1), but was only the
seventh most frequent service topic raised during indi-
The focus group and individual interview transcript vidual interviews (rank 7). While perhaps a similar
data were transformed into 12 summary variables to range of ecosystem services were discussed in the
test the research hypothesis. One summary variable, focus groups and in the individual interviews, not
Interview type, records the type of interview (e.g., every individual interview or focus group raised the
focus group or individual interview) associated with entire range of mangrove services. However, apparent
each case of coded data. The other 11 summary vari- differences in aggregate frequencies alone however are
ables capture those wetland ecosystem services raised insufficient to support or reject the null hypothesis.
174 MICHAEL D. KAPLOWITZ
Table 2. Rank of service frequencies. Table 3. Focus group and individual interview data asso-
ciations.
Rank Focus groups Individual interview
Interview type χ 2
Topic P Odds
1 Beauty Chivita Group Indiv. ratio
Chivita
23.77a 0.001
Beauty Yes 12 2 9.50
2 Crab Lagoon fishing No 0 17
Lagoon fishing Chivita Yes 12 18 n.s.
Salt extraction No 0 1
7.62a 0.006 15.12
3 Shrimp Crab Crab Yes 11 8
No 1 11
Ducks
Nongame species Fishing Yes 11 17 n.s.
No 1 2
4 Nongame species Salt extraction
9.08a 0.003 18.86
Salt extract Yes 11 7
5 Ducks Recreation No 1 12
Recreation
10.87a 0.001 16.00
Shrimp Yes 9 3
Storm protection No 3 16
6 Wood Shrimp Nongame Yes 8 8 n.s.
Storm protection No 4 11
Ducks Yes 5 8 n.s.
7 Beauty
No 7 11
8 Wood
Recreation Yes 5 6 n.s.
No 7 13
Storm protection Yes 5 3 n.s.
Absolute differences may be statistically insignificant No 7 16
when sample size, proportions, expected frequencies,
Wood Yes 2 1 n.s.
and distributions are taken into account. No 10 18 n.s.
As a result, crosstabulation analysis of each
ecosystem service variable with the interview type a d.f. = 1, N = 31
variable was generated to test the null hypothesis that,
in the sample population, the same percentage of focus services by focus group and individual interview data,
groups and individual interviews raised each wetland it should be remembered that 4 times as many people
service for discussion (see Table 3). Table 3 illus- participated in focus groups (78) than in individual
trates the Pearson chi-square test of the distribution interviews (19). All else being equal, if there are differ-
of observed instances that focus groups and indi- ences in focus group and individual interview data
vidual interviews raised each ecosystem service topic that are a linear function of number of people, the
against the null hypothesis that each interview type expected odds ratios should be closer to 4. However,
results in the same frequency of the topic being raised. the observed odds ratios are two to four times that. This
The null hypothesis was rejected for four variables – suggests that more than the larger numbers of partic-
Beauty (P < 0.001), Crab (P < 0.006), Salt Extraction ipants in focus groups is responsible for the increased
(P < 0.003), and Shrimp (P < 0.001). To examine frequency that certain topics were raised by focus
the strength of the association of interview type with groups.
respondents’ raising the particular ecosystem service Four of the six most frequently mentioned topics
in discussion, odds ratios were computed. Table 3 differed significantly in the frequency in which focus
shows, it is about 9 times more likely that a focus group groups and individual interviews raised them in discus-
of local resource beneficiaries raises the topic of the sions. Therefore, the research findings support the
mangrove ecosystem’s beauty than an individual inter- rejection of the null hypothesis. The data show
view. The topics of crab collection, salt extraction, and that focus groups and individual interviews revealed
fishing for shrimp are respectively 15, 19, and 16 times significantly different ecosystem service information.
more likely to be raised in focus groups than raised by
individual during one-on-one interviews.
To further appreciate the significant differences
observed in the frequencies of discussion of ecosystem
175
IDENTIFYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Discussion to discover different information about ecosystem
services than the individual interviews. Had only
The two methods, focus groups and individual inter- focus group information been collected and relied
views, do not reveal equal sets of information nor upon, it would haven been reasonable to believe
do they rank ecosystem services comparably. While that wetland beauty was extremely important to local
the data illustrate that resource beneficiaries asso- beneficiaries (perhaps on a par with lagoon fishing).
ciate a variety of ecosystem services with complex Conversely, had researchers only relied upon indi-
ecosystems, most of the services discussed tended vidual interview data, wetland beauty and nonuse
to be extractive uses of the ecosystem. The focus values might have easily been dismissed as unim-
groups and individual interviews were dominated by portant or beyond the apprehension of respondents.
discussion of lagoon fishing of one type or another. However, using both individual interview and focus
Although wetland beauty was raised in all of the focus group data revealed that wetland beauty was signifi-
groups, the low frequency of its discussion by indi- cant to individuals but only accessible after a dynamic
vidual interviews seems to more accurately reflect exchange of information. The focus groups seem to
individual beneficiaries’ relative appreciation for non- have provided a dynamic that allowed respondents to
consumptive and nonuse values of the ecosystem. identify and discuss nonconsumptive and, at times,
This is no surprise given the economic difficulties nonuse ecosystem services such as wetland beauty.
facing the communities and Mexico as a whole. The This finding is in line with the recent work by cognitive
focus groups and individual interviews were replete psychologists that shows that increased interaction and
with discussions of the difficulty for providing for exchange of information improves respondents’ under-
one’s family. Increasing commercial fishing pressure standing of complex ideas (Schwarz, 1997; Schwarz
in the Gulf of Mexico has decimated the once rich and Sudman, 1995; Sudman et al., 1996). This result,
coastal fishing resource. Local beneficiaries increas- researchers learning of different and complimentary
ingly rely upon the lagoon and its mangrove ecosystem ecosystem services using focus groups and individual
for subsistence. Therefore, it is no surprise that interviews, clearly supports the desirability of using
consumptive use services predominate conversations multiple methods to corroborate qualitative research
about the ecosystem. findings in future ecosystem valuation work (Bryman,
Only 4 of the 11 wetland services discussed by 1988; Morgan, 1996).
participants were non-extractive in nature – Beauty,
Nongame species, Recreation, and Storm Protection. Implications for valuation research
The relatively low frequencies associated with the use
The results also underscore the difficulty of designing
services of storm protection and recreation in both
studies and instruments for estimating the total
focus groups and individual interviews support the
economic value of a complex ecosystem. Valuing
notion that these services are not particularly signifi-
nonmarket and nonuse services associated with natural
cant to most residents. The other two non-extractive
resources, especially in developing countries, seems to
services, Beauty and Nongame species, arguably
require extra care. While the study supports the notion
capture some respondents’ recognition and appreci-
that nonconsumptive and nonuse values may be signifi-
ation of nonuse ecosystem services. While wetland
cant for wetland ecosystems in developing countries
beauty and the presence of nongame species in the
(Aylward and Barbier, 1992), the data reveal the poten-
ecosystem may be classified by some as use values
tial import of using multiple qualitative methods for
because of the benefits derived from in situ enjoyment
identifying potential values to be measured.
of these services, these variables also capture partici-
In the case at hand, local resource beneficiaries
pants’ expressed sentiments that wetland beauty and
seemed better able to identify and appreciate noncon-
diversity should be preserved for future generations.
sumptive and nonuse values in focus group discussions
rather than in individual interviews. Since valuation
Value of multiple methods
methods such as contingent valuation or contingent
It appears important that wetland beauty was ranked ranking rely upon individuals, not in groups, making
first by groups and seventh by individuals. The statis- trade-off choices to reveal nonuse and total economic
tically significant difference in the frequency that focus values, the findings suggest the import of designing
group and individual interview discussions raised better valuation survey instruments. The results seem
wetland beauty comports favorably with the find- to suggest the value of researchers using groups to
ings of De Jong and Schellens (1998) concerning learn about the array of services that matter to bene-
focus group and individual interview data. The ficiaries before using individual interviews to validate
mangrove ecosystem focus groups did lead researchers such findings. Likewise, it seems important to use
176 MICHAEL D. KAPLOWITZ
groups and individual interviews raised chivita collec-
sequential qualitative methods to evaluate how best
tion and lagoon fishing in discussions. Conversely,
to communicate and increase information exchange
the ecosystem services that only occupy a minor or
concerning ecosystem services in value elicitation
cursory place in the communities’ appreciation of
instruments.
wetland services do not differ significantly in their
Researchers’ perceptions and beneficiaries’ frequency of discussion in focus groups and individual
understanding interviews.
However, the frequency that several ecosystem
The literature is full of lists of use and nonuse services services raised in focus groups and individual inter-
that in some but not all cases can be associated with views did differ significantly. The extractive ecosystem
mangrove ecosystems (e.g., Barbier, 1994; Barbier et services that differed significantly may be thought
al., 1997; Janssen and Padilla, 1996; Spaninks and van of as sub-components of the more general mangrove
Beukering, 1997). These mangrove services include ecosystem “fishing” service. The difference in these
on-site fisheries, fuelwood collection, timber harvests, frequencies may be a function of the difference in the
off-site fishery support, aquaculture, carbon sequestra- dynamics of a focus group discussion and a one-on-
tion, growing of medicinal plants, biodiversity, recrea- one depth-interview. For example, shrimp collection
tion, transportation, meat production, flood control, (mentioned in 75% of focus groups and 16% of indi-
storm protection, option values, existence values, and vidual interviews) happens to be an occasional and
bequest values. A daunting set of services to have to contentious phenomenon in the lagoon. The recent
include in a particular valuation effort. However, the construction of a duck habitat restoration dike by
findings show that by using qualitative methods, bene- Ducks Unlimited and activities of the Mexican Navy,
ficiaries can help researchers narrow the set ecological according to participants, have resulted in drastic
services to those most relevant for study. curtailment of the once annual or biannual inundation
In Chelém, the focus groups and individual of shrimp in the lagoon. The data show that it is 16
interviews left no doubt that lagoon fishing (espe- times more likely that shrimp collection be raised in
cially for “chivita”, crab, and shrimp) is of utmost focus groups than individual interviews. The lower
importance to local people. A few nonconsumptive frequency that individual interviews raised the topic
uses and possible nonuse values were articulated of shrimp collection may well reflect the decreased
by respondents (nongame species and the beauty of role of shrimp collection in beneficiaries’ use of
the ecosystem) while the relative insignificance of the mangrove lagoon. The topic’s high frequency of
ecosystem storm protection services and wood collec- discussion in focus groups may reflect a collective
tion was also made apparent. Furthermore, the small need or desire of individuals to process or air feelings
role that mangrove wood and wood collection plays associated with the loss of this service.
in the lives of local beneficiaries in Chelém Lagoon Similarly, a statistically significant divergence
contrasts with the findings of Kovacs (1999). Together, between focus group and individual interview data was
the use of focus groups and individual interviews observed in salt extraction data. At one time, indi-
allowed the researcher to identify those service most viduals in the region could construct salt ponds, flood
relevant to local beneficiaries and to further investiga- them with seawater, allow the water to evaporate, and
tion. then collect and sell crystallized sea salt. However, the
area’s lucrative salt mining business has been defunct
Significance of differences
for years. The change followed the flooding and ipso
facto enlarging of Chelém Lagoon that resulting when
The most frequent and least frequent ecosystem
the Mexican government dredged and constructed a
services raised using the two methods were not statis-
safe harbor and naval station in the lagoon in the late
tically different across methods. This seems to imply
1960s and early 1970s (Paré and Fraga, 1994). Like
that, regardless of method, participants recall and
the shrimp collection data, individual interviews raised
articulate common wetland ecosystem uses equally
salt extraction as an ecosystem service significantly
at the extremes of usage or importance in focus
less often than focus groups. It is about 19 times more
groups and individual interviews. For example, the
likely that a focus group raise salt extraction than an
collection of chivita (Melongena melongena) from
individual interview raise that same topic. People’s
the muddy bottom of Chelém Lagoon has become
discussion of the lagoon in groups seemed to trigger
the predominant subsistence strategy for the regions’
communities.6 Chivita collection has replaced more discussion of the loss of ecosystem services, like salt
extraction.
conventional lagoon fishing and collection of crab as
Apparently, focus group data can leave researchers
the most important ecosystem service. Therefore, it
with an impression about the significance of a resource
is no surprise that more than 90% of both the focus
177
IDENTIFYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
service that substantially differs from the impres- cates that the notion of a nonconsumptive or nonuse
sion left by individual interview data. The differences ecosystem service may be difficult for individuals to
observed in the frequencies of the discussions of crab conceptualize and associate with an ecosystem without
collection, salt extraction, and shrimp fishing activ- the benefit of a dynamic exchange of information (e.g.,
ities illustrate that specific components of inclusive informational priming in a survey instrument). The
use values (e.g., Lagoon Fishing) are more likely use of multiple qualitative methods would seem valu-
to be raised in focus groups rather than individual able to researchers charged with the task of designing
interviews. a study or instrument addressing beneficiaries’ stated
preferences or values for nonconsumptive use services
Better understanding from qualitative methods and nonuse services associated with complex ecosys-
tems.
There was not obvious difference in the frequency that
groups and individuals raise chivita collection or the
broader discussion topic of lagoon fishing. It seems Conclusion
that virtually every family in the two communities,
at one time or another has adopted chivita collection This study demonstrates that use of multiple quali-
as part of their subsistence survival strategy. Further- tative methods can help researchers develop a
more, it is common for almost everyone in the area to more complete understanding of beneficiaries’ natural
refer to himself or herself as a “pescador” (fisherman). resource values. Reliance upon one qualitative method,
This despite the fact that many of these individuals focus groups or individual interviews, would have
provide for themselves and their families by working provided researchers with a less than complete under-
in nearby factories or doing construction work. Not standing of beneficiaries’ uses, perceptions, and values
only do individuals perceive themselves as fisher- associated with their shared mangrove ecosystem. This
people, it was learned throughout the groups and inter- study shows the two qualitative research methods to be
views that respondents include chivita collection, crab complementary, not substitute, methods for learning
and shrimp collection together with line and net fishing about ecosystem services.
for other species when speaking about lagoon fishing. The study demonstrates the value of using indi-
What makes this especially important, is that local vidual interviews in addition to focus groups in the
researchers from nearby Mérida working on coastal economic valuation study design process. Such inter-
zone management in the region were surprised to learn views can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of
of the extent to which the respondents relied upon the instrument at communicating complex information
chivita collection. It was their belief that chivita was as well as to judge respondents’ ability to meaning-
a minor component of residents’ subsistence strategy fully undertake the requisite valuation tasks. Incorpo-
and that near-shore fishing in the gulf was the predom- rating both focus groups and individual interviews into
inant occupation in the area. the conceptualization and design phase of valuation
The researcher learned that unfortunately as one studies seems capable of shaping ecosystem valuation
respondent put it, research so that it is more concerned with “what people
value.”
We used to make a living fishing in the sea . . . Now
The incorporation of statistical examination of
you can’t make a profit more than 2–3 months
focus group and individual interview data on
from fishing in the sea . . . The same problem is also
ecosystem services illustrates that the two methods
happening in the estuary, it used to be that you
generate different ecosystem service data. The find-
could take all the crab you wanted. Now only the
ings suggest that focus group ecosystem service data
small ones are around . . . While some try to work
reflect differences that may be attributable to dynamic
elsewhere, people sustain their families with chivita
processing of information. This finding is in line with
from the wetland (Transcript 18).
others’ research that shows increased interaction and
exchange of information improves respondents’ under-
The individual interview data and the focus
standing of complex ideas (Schwarz, 1997; Schwarz
group data about beneficiaries’ uses and perceptions
and Sudman, 1995; Sudman et al., 1996). The system-
of Chelém Lagoon services appear to be compli-
atic statistical analysis of individual interview and
mentary. While both methods revealed information
focus group data can provide an empirical basis for
about ecosystem services, the relative weight that
better understanding of ecosystem services and their
each of the services received differed by method. For
value to respondents.
example, ecosystem beauty was raised in every focus
group. However, only 11 percent of individual inter-
viewees raised ecosystem beauty. This contrast indi-
178 MICHAEL D. KAPLOWITZ
Notes Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and Quality in Social Research.
London: Unwin Hyman.
Carson, R. T. (1998). “Valuation of tropical rainforests: Philo-
1. Contingent valuation (CV) studies elicit economic values
sophical and practical issues in the use of contingent valu-
for environmental amenities and natural resources using
ation,” Ecological Economics 24: 15–29.
carefully designed and administered surveys. CV studies
Carson, R. T. and R. C. Mitchell (1993). “The issue of scope
are one type of stated-preference approach researchers use
in contingent valuation,” American Journal of Agricultural
to reveal how individuals value environmnetal and natural
Economics 75: 1263–1267.
resources.
Carson, R. T., W. M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, A. Krosnick, R.
2. Focus groups are carefully planned discussions designed
C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P. A. Ruud, and V. K. Smith (1994).
to learn about subjects’ perceptions on a defined area
Prospective Interim Lost Use Value Due to DDT and PCB
of interest in a permissive, nonthreatening environment.
Contamination in the Southern California Bight. La Jolla,
They are conducted by a skilled moderator who follows
California: Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc.
a discussion guide and involve as few to as many as 12
Chilton, S., T. Burton, M. Jones, and G. Loomes (1998).
informants.
“A qualitative examination of preference reversals,” The 1st
3. Individual interviews (also called unstructured, explor-
World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists,
atory, intensive, in-depth, and depth interviews) are guided
June 25–27. Venice, Italy.
conversations whose goal is to elicit from interviewees
Chilton, S. M. and W. G. Hutchinson (1999). “Exploring diver-
(also called informants) rich, detailed materials that can
gence between respondent and researcher definitions of the
be used in qualitative analysis. The interviewer used the
goods in contingent valuation studies,” Journal of Agricul-
same discussion guide as used in focus groups to guide the
tural Economics 50: 1–16.
one-on-one conversations.
Clark, J. R. (1996). Coastal Zone Management Handbook. Boca
4. Dr. David Morgan is a highly regarded and widely
Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
published focus group researcher. He is a Professor in the
De Jong, M. and P. J. Schellens (1998). “Focus groups
Institute on Aging and the Department of Urban Studies and
or individual interview? A comparison of text evaluation
Planning at Portland State University. His works include
approaches,” Technical Communication 45: 77–88.
such classics as Focus Groups as Qualitative Research
Farnsworth, E. J. and A. M. Ellison (1997). “The global
(1988) and The Focus Group Kit (1998).
conservation status of mangroves,” Ambio 26: 328–334.
5. Dr. Robert Weiss is Director of the Work and Family
Fredricks, M. and S. I. Miller (1997). “Some brief notes on
Research Unit and Professor at the University of Massachu-
the ‘unfinished business’ of qualitative inquiry,” Quality and
setts. Weiss is renown as a qualitative researcher and the
Quantity 31: 1–13.
author of Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of
Freeman, A. M. (1993). The Measurement of Environmental
Qualitative Interview Studies (1994).
and Resource Values. Washington, DC: Resources for the
6. Chivita (Melongena melongena) is a small mollusk found
Future.
in the mud flats on estuaries. It is also known as a West
Gray, J. H. and I. L. Denstein (1998). “Integrating quantitative
Indian Crown Conch.
and qualitative analysis using latent and manifest variables,”
Quality and Quantity 32: 419–431.
Hamilton, L. and S. Snedaker (1984). Handbook for Mangrove
Area Management. Hawaii: East/West Center.
References
Hamilton, L., J. Dixon, and G. Owen Miller (1989).
“Mangroves forests: An undervalued resource of the land and
Arrow, K., R. Solow, E. Leamer, P. Portney, R. Rader, and H.
sea,” in E. M. Borgese, N. Ginsburg, and J. R. Morgan (eds.),
Schuman (1993). “Report of the NOAA panel on contingent
Ocean Yearbook 8. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
valuation,” Federal Register 58: 4601–4614.
Hirsch, D. and A. Mauser (1992). The Economic Values of
Aylward, B. and E. B. Barbier (1992). “Valuing environmental
Mangroves: Two Case Studies – Mida Creek and Funzi Bay,
functions in developing countries,” Biodiversity and Conser-
August–December. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
vation 1: 34–50.
Hutchinson, W. G., S. M. Chilton, and J. Davis (1995).
Bann, C. (1997). An Economic Analysis of Alternative
“Measuring non-use value of environmental goods using
Mangrove Management Strategies in Koh Kong Province,
the contingent valuation method: Problems of information
Cambodia, November. Singapore: Economy and Environ-
and cognition and the application of cognitive questionnaire
ment Program for South East Asia.
design methods,” Journal of Agricultural Economics 46:
Barbier, E. B. (1994). “Valuing environmental functions: Trop-
97–112.
ical wetlands,” Land Economics 70: 155–173.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática
Barbier, E. B., M. Acreman, and D. Knowler (1997). Economic
(INEGI) (1992). Yucatán-resultados definitivos: Datos por
Valuation of Wetlands: A Guide for Policy Makers and Plan-
AGEB urbana. XI censo general de poblacion vivienad, 1990.
ners. Cambridge, UK: Ramsar Convention Bureau, Depart-
Aguascalientes, Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Estadística,
ment of Environmental Economics and Management, Univer-
Geografía e Informática.
sity of York.
Janssen, R. and J. E. Padilla (1996). Valuation and Evaluation of
Bennet, E. L. and C. J. Reynolds (1993). “The value of a
Management Alternatives for the Pagbilao Mangrove Forest,
mangrove area in Sarawak,” Biodiversity and Conservation
October. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies.
2: 359–375.
179
IDENTIFYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Kaplowitz, M. D. (1998). “Research intentions and respondent Perrings, C. (1995). “The economic value of biodiversity”
perceptions: Identifying a nexus in valuing mangrove ecosys- in Heywood, V.H. (ed.), Global Biodiversity Assessment.
tems,” Fifth Biennial Meeting of the International Society for Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ecological Economics, November 15–19. Santiago, Chile. Ruitenbeek, H. J. (1992). Mangrove Management: An
Kaplowitz, M. D. (1999). “Conflicting agendas in the Yucatán,” Economic Analysis of Management Options with a Focus on
International Review of Comparative Public Policy 11: 141– Bintuni Bay, Irian Jaya. Jakarta and Halifax: Environmental
156. Management Development in Indonesia Project (EMDI) and
Kaplowitz, M. D. and J. P. Hoehn (1998). “A total value hypoth- Dalhousie University.
esis for ecosystem valuation in a cross-cultural setting,” First Schkade, D. A. and J. W. Payne (1994). “How people respond to
World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of
June 25–27. Venice, Italy. willingness to pay for an environmental regulation,” Journal
Kitzinger, J. (1994a). “The methodology of focus groups: of Environmental Economics and Management 26: 88–109.
The importance of interaction between research participants,” Schwarz, N. (1997). “Cognition, communication, and survey
Sociology of Health and Illness 16: 103–121. measurement,” in R. J. Kopp, W. Pommerehne, and N.
Kitzinger, J. (1994b). “Focus groups: Method or madness,” in Schwarz (eds.), Determining the Value of Non-Marketed
Boulton, M. (ed.), Challenge and Innovation: Methodolog- Goods. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
ical Advances in Social Research on HIV/AIDS. New York: Schwarz, N. and S. Sudman (1995). Answering Questions:
Taylor and Francis. Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative
Kovacs, J. M. (1999). “Assessing mangrove uses at the local Processes in Survey Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
scale,” Landscape and Urban Planning 43: 201–208. Publishers.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction Spaninks, F. and P. van Beukering (1997). Economic Valuation
to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Public- of Mangrove Ecosystems: Potential and Limitations, July.
ations. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1990). Basic of Qualitative Research:
Applied Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury
Publications. Park, California: Sage Publications.
Kunstadter, P., E. C. F. Bird, and S. Sabhasri, (1985). Man Sudman, S., N. B. Bradburn, and N. Schwarz (1996). Thinking
in the Mangroves: The Socio-Economic Situation of Human About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to
Settlements in Mangrove Forests. Tokyo: United Nations Survey Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
University. Swallow, S., M. Spencer, C. Miller, P. Paton, R. Deegen, L.
Mandondo, A. (1997). “Trees and spaces as emotion and Whinstanley, and J. Shogren (1998). “Methods and applica-
norm laden components of local ecosystems in Nyamaropa tions for ecosystem valuation: A collage,” in B. Kanninen
communal land, Nyanga District, Zimbabwe,” Agriculture (ed.), Proceedings of the first Workshop in the Environmental
and Human Values 14: 353–372. Policy and Economics Workshop Series. Washington, DC:
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Inter- Office of Research and Development and Office of Policy, US
active Approach. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publica- Environmental Protection Agency.
tions. Talawar, S. and R. E. Rhoades (1998). “Scientific and local
Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1989). Using Surveys to classification and management of soils,” Agriculture and
Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Human Values 15: 3–14.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Weber, R. P. (1990). “Basic content analysis,” in M. S. Lewis-
Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink (1993). Wetlands, 2nd edn. Beck (ed.), Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences,
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 2nd edn. Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Morgan, D. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research 2nd Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The Art and
edn. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: The Free
Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Press.
Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). “Focus groups,” in J. Hagan and K. S. Address for correspondence: Michael D. Kaplowitz, J.D.,
Cook (eds.), Annual Review of Sociology. Palo Alto: Annual Ph.D., Michigan State University, 311A Natural Resources,
Reviews. East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Morgan, D. L., R. A. Krueger, A. U. Scannell, and J. A. King Phone: +1-517-355-0101; Fax: +1-517-353-8994;
(1998). Focus Group Kit. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE E-mail: kaplowit@msu.edu
Publications.
Paré, L. and J. Fraga (1994). La costa de Yucatán: Desarrollo
y vulnerabilidad ambiental. Mexico: Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México. Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales.