Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea

Ecological Economics

Volumn 70, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 729-739

  Ressurreição, Adriana ^a   Gibbons, James ^b   Dentinho, Tomaz Ponce ^a   Kaiser, Michel ^b   Santos, Ricardo S ^a   Edwards Jones, Gareth ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE AZORES   (Portugal)

^b BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Azores; Conservation; Marine biodiversity; WTP

Indexed keywords

ALGA; BIODIVERSITY; BIRD; CONTINGENT VALUATION; FISH; HABITAT CONSERVATION; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; INVERTEBRATE; MAMMAL; MARINE ECOSYSTEM; OPEN OCEAN; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

AZORES; PORTUGAL;

ALGAE; AVES; INVERTEBRATA; MAMMALIA;

EID: 79351470390     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.11.009     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Adams C., Seroa da Motta R., Ortiz R.A., Reid J., Ebersbach Aznar C., de Almeida Sinisgalli P.A. The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: economic valuation of Morro do Diabo State Park, Atlantic Rainforest, São Paulo State (Brazil). Ecological Economics 2008, 66:359-370.
2. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P., Leamer E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993, 58(10):4602-4614. Washington DC.
3. Bandara R., Tisdell C. Changing abundance of elephants and willingness to pay for their conservation. Journal of Environmental Management 2005, 76:47-59.
4. Beaumont N.J., Austen M.C., Atkins J.P., Burdon D., Degraer S., Dentinho T.P., Derous S., Holm P., Horton T., van Ierland E., Marboe A.H., Starkey D.J., Townsend M., Zarzycki T. Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: implications for the ecosystem approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2007, 54:253-265.
5. Berrens R.P., Bohara A., Kerkvliet J. A randomized response approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1997, 79:252-266.
6. Birol E., Karousakis K., Koundouri P. Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Science of The Total Environment 2006, 365:105-122.
7. Blaine T.W., Lichtkoppler F.R., Jones K.R., Zondag R.H. An assessment of household willingness to pay for curbside recycling: a comparison of payment card and referendum approaches. Journal of Environmental Management 2005, 76:15-22.
8. Bord R.J., O'Connor R.E. The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly 1997, 78:830-840.
9. Bosetti V., Pearce D. A study of environmental conflict: the economic value of grey seals in Southwest England. Biodiversity and Conservation 2003, 12:2361-2392.
10. Bowker J.M., Stoll J.R. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1988, 70:327-381.
11. Boyle K.J., Desvousges W.H., Johnson F.R., Dunford R.W., Hudson S.P. An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent-valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 27:64-83.
12. Brent R. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Developing Countries 1998, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK.
13. Brown K., Taylor L. Do as you say, say as you do: evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods. Economic Behaviour and Organization 2000, 43:127-139.
14. Brown G., Layton D., Lazo J. Valuing Habitat and Endangered Species 1994, Institute for Economic Research, University of Washington.
15. Bulte E.H., van Kooten G.C. Marginal valuation of charismatic species: implications for conservation. Environmental and Resource Economics 1999, 14:119-130.
16. Cameron T.A., Huppert D.D. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1989, 17:230-246.
17. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. The value of clean water: the public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water. Water Resources Research 1993, 29:2445-2454.
18. Carson R.T., Wilks L., Imber D. Valuing the preservation of Australia's Kakadu conservation zone. Oxford Economic Papers 1994, 46:727-749.
19. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Meade N.F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 19:173-210.
20. Chaudhry P., Singh B., Tewari V.P. Non-market economic valuation in developing countries: role of participant observation method in CVM analysis. Journal of Forest Economics 2007, 13:259-275.
21. Chilton S.M., Hutchinson W.G. A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good. Journal of Economic Psychology 2003, 24:65-75.
22. Christie M., Hanley N., Warren J., Murphy K., Wright R., Hyde T. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics 2006, 58:304-317.
23. Clarke T. Birds of the Atlantic Islands. Canary Islands, Madeira, Azores, & Cape Verde 2006, Christopher Helm, London.
24. Cummings R.G., Brookshire D.S., Schulze W.D. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method 1986, Rowan & Allanheld, Totowa.
25. Development, Core, Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2008, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, URL:, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org.
26. Duan N. Smearing estimate: a nonparametric retransformation method. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1983, 78:605-610.
27. Giraud K., Turcin B., Loomis J., Cooper J. Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion. Marine Policy 2002, 26:451-458.
28. Hageman R. Valuing Marine Mammal Populations: Benefits Valuations in a Multi-species Ecosystem. Administrative Report LJ-85-22 1985, Southwest Fisheries Center - National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, California.
29. Hageman R. Economic Valuation of Marine Wildlife: Existence Value Exist?. Marine Pollution Environmental Damage Assessment Report EE-0121 1986, National Center for Environmental Economics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
30. Hanemann M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1984, 66:332-341.
31. Hanemann M., Loomis J., Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1991, 73:1255-1263.
32. Harrison G.W., Kriström B. On the interpretation of responses in contingent valuation surveys. Current Issues in Environmental Economics 1995, Manchester University Press, UK. P. Johansson, B. Kriström, K.G. Maler (Eds.).
33. Jones N., Sophoulis C.M., Malesios C. Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: a case study in Mitilini, Greece. Journal of Socio-Economics 2008, 37:2478-2491.
34. Jorgensen B.S., Wilson M.A., Heberlein T.A. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope. Ecological Economics 2001, 36:133-148.
35. Kahneman D., Ritov L., Jacowitz K.E., Grant P. Stated willingness to pay for public goods. Psychological Science 1993, 4:310-315.
36. Kotchen M.J., Reiling S.D. Estimation and questioning economic values for endangered species: an application and discussion. Endangered Species Update 1998, 15:77-83.
37. Kotchen M.J., Reiling S.D. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics 2000, 32:93-107.
38. Langford I.H., Kontogianni A., Skourtos M.S., Georgiou S., Bateman I.J. Multivariate mixed models for open-ended contingent valuation data: willingness to pay for conservation of monk seals. Environmental and Resource Economics 1998, 12:443-456.
39. Loomis J.B., Larson D.M. Total economic value of increasing gray whale populations: results from a contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Marine Resource Economics 1994, 9:275-286.
40. Loomis J.B., White D.S. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 1996, 18:197-206.
41. Loomis J., Lockwood M., DeLacy T. Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1993, 25:45-55.
42. Martín-López B., Montes C., Benayas J. Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. Conservation Biology 2008, 22:624-635.
43. Menezes G. Demersal Fish Assemblages in the Atlantic Archipelagos of the Azores, Madeira and Cape Verde, Department of Oceanography and Fisheries 2003, University of the Azores.
44. Metrick A., Weitzman M.L. Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Economics 1996, 72:1-16.
45. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method 1989, Resource for the Future Washington, DC.
46. Neto A.I., Tittley I., Raposeiro P.M. Rocky Shore Marine Flora of the Azores 2006, Regional Council of the Environment and the Sea.
47. Nijkamp P., Vindigni G., Nunes P.A.L.D. Economic valuation of biodiversity: a comparative study. Ecological Economics 2008, 67:217-231.
48. Nunes P.A.L.D., van den Bergh J.C.J.M. Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?. Ecological Economics 2001, 39:203-222.
49. Olsen D., Richards J., Scott D. Existence and sport values for doubling the size of Columbia river basin salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers 1991, 2:44-56.
50. Paradiso M., Trisorio A. The effect of knowledge on the disparity between hypothetical and real willingness to pay. Applied Economics 2001, 33:1359-1364.
51. Richardson L., Loomis J. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:1535-1548.
52. Samnaliev M., Stevens T.H., More T. A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 2006, 57:507-519.
53. Samples K., Hollyer J. Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the presence of substitutes and complements. Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory and Application 1990, 177-192. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. R. Johnson, G. Johnson (Eds.).
54. Samples K., Dixon J., Gowenand M. Information disclosure and endangered species valuation. Land Economics 1986, 62:306-312.
55. Santos R.S., Hawkins S., Monteiro L.R., Alves M., Isidro E.J. Marine research, resources and conservation in the Azores. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 1995, 5:311-354.
56. Smith V.K., Osborne L.L. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a "scope" test? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1996, 31:287-301.
57. Spash C.L., Urama K., Burton R., Kenyon W., Shannon P., Hill G. Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:955-964.
58. Stevens T., Echeverría J., Glass R., Hager T., More T. Measuring the existence value of wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show. Land Economics 1991, 67:390-400.
59. Tkac J. The effects of information on willingness-to-pay values of endangered species. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 80:1214-1220.
60. Turner R.K., Adger W.N., Brouwer R. Ecosystem services value, research needs, and policy relevance: a commentary. Ecological Economics 1998, 25:61-65.
61. Turner R.K., Paavola J., Cooper P., Farber S., Jessamy V., Georgiou S. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics 2003, 46:493-510.
62. Turpie J.K. The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay. Ecological Economics 2003, 46:199-216.
63. Veisten K., Fredrik Hoen H., Navrud S., Strand J. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Management 2004, 73:317-331.
64. Venkatachalam L. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2004, 24:89-124.
65. White P.C.L., Gregory K.W., Lindley P.J., Richards G. Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: a case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. Biological Conservation 1997, 82:345-354.
66. White P.C.L., Bennett A.C., Hayes E.J.V. The use of willingness-to-pay approaches in mammal conservation. Mammal Review 2001, 31:151-167.
67. Whitehead J.C. Ex ante willingness to pay with supply and demand uncertainty: implications for valuing a sea turtle protection programme. Applied Economics 1992, 24:981-988.
68. Whitehead J.C., Blomquist G.C., Hoban T.J., Clifford W.B. Assessing the validity and reliability of contingent values: a comparison of on-site users, off-site users, and non-users. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 29:238-251.
69. Wilson C., Tisdell C. Conservation and economic benefits of wildlife-based marine tourism: sea turtles and whales as case studies. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 2003, 8:49-58.
70. Zhongmin X., Guodong C., Zhiqiang Z., Zhiyong S., Loomis J. Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecological Economics 2003, 44:345-358.