Valuing improvements to threatened and endangered marine species: An application of stated preference choice experiments

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 92, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1793-1801

  Wallmo, Kristy ^a   Lew, Daniel K ^b,c  

^a NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE   (United States)

^b NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Marine mammals; Non market valuation; Stated preference methods; Threatened and endangered species; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; CONSERVATION; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; RESOURCE VALUATION;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; MARINE MAMMALS; NON-MARKET VALUATION; PREFERENCE CHOICE; STATED PREFERENCE METHOD; STATED PREFERENCES; THREATENED SPECIES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

MAMMALS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; CRUSTACEAN; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; POLICY MAKING; SPECIES DIVERSITY; TAXONOMY; TRADE-OFF; VERTEBRATE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FEMALE; FISH; HUMAN; MALE; MARINE SPECIES; NONHUMAN; POLICY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRISTIS PECTINATA; RESEARCH; SALMON; SEAL; WELFARE;

UNITED STATES;

AVES; CRUSTACEA; MAMMALIA; MONACHUS SCHAUINSLANDI; ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA; PRISTIDAE;

EID: 79955572416     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.02.012     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Aldrich G.W., Grimsrud K.M., Thacher J.A., Kotchen M.J. Relating environmental attitudes and contingent values: how robust are methods for identifying preference heterogeneity?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 37:757-775.
2. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P., Leaner E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993, 58:4602-4614.
3. Bateman I., Cole M., Cooper P., Georgiou S., Hadley D., Poe G. On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Management 2004, 47:71-93.
4. Bell K.P., Huppert D., Johnston R. Willingness to pay for local Coho salmon enhancement in coastal communities. Marine Resource Economics 2003, 18:15-31.
5. Berrens R., Bohara A., Silva C., Brookshire D., McKee M. Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows: with tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal reliability. Journal of Environmental Management 2000, 58:73-90.
6. Berrens R., Jenkins-Smith A., Bohara A., Silva C. Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: fair share, time of contribution and respondent uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2002, 44(1):144-168.
7. Bowker J.M., Stoll J.R. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1988, 70:372-381.
8. Brown T.C., Champ P.A., Bishop R.C., McCollum D.W. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?. Land Economics 1996, 72(2):152-166.
9. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2001, 41:179-192.
10. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C. Is willingness to pay for a public good sensitive to the elicitation format?. Land Economics 2006, 82(2):162-173.
11. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 19(4):383-402.
12. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C., Brown T.C., McCollum D.W. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 33(2):151-162.
13. The Endangered Species Act: Consideration of Economic Factors 2003, Congressional Research Service, Report to Congress, Report Number RL30792.
14. Diamond P., Hausman J. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1993, 8(4):45-64.
15. Dillman D. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2000, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
16. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D., Mertig A., Jones R.E. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 2000, 56(3):425-442.
17. Giraud K., Loomis J., Johnston R. Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. Journal of Environmental Management 1999, 56:221-229.
18. Green W., Hensher D. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit 2002, Working Paper ITS-WP-02-08, Institute of Transport Studies, Sydney, Australia.
19. Hageman Renatte K. Valuing marine mammal populations: benefit valuations in a multi-species ecosystem 1985, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, CA, Administrative Report, LJ-85-22.
20. Hagen D.A., Vincent J.W., Welle P.G. Benefits of preserving old-growth forests and the spotted owl. Contemporary Policy Issues 1992, 10(2):13-26.
21. Hanley N., Wright R., Adamowicz V. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 1998, 11(3-4):413-428.
22. Heberlein T., Wilson M., Bishop R., Schaeffer N. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2005, 50:1-22.
23. Holmes T., Boyle K. Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Economics 2005, 81(1):114-126.
24. Wildlife in a Changing World: an Analysis of the 2008 IUC Red List of Threatened Species 2009, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
25. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, [www.page]. URL. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/18174/0.
26. Johnston R. Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2006, 52:469-481.
27. Kotchen M.J., Reiling S.D. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Another comment. Land Economics 1999, 75(3):478-482.
28. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economic and Statistics 1986, 68:715-719.
29. Layton D., Levine R. Bayesian approaches to modeling stated preference data. Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.).
30. Layton D., Brown G., Plummer M. Valuing Multiple Programs to Improve Fish Populations 2001, Unpublished report to the Washington State Department of Ecology.
31. Lew D., Layton D., Rowe R. Valuing enhancements to endangered species protection under alternative baseline futures: the case of the Steller sea lion. Marine Resource Economics 2010, 25:133-154.
32. Loomis J., Ekstrand E. Economic benefits of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl: a scope test using a multiple-bounded contingent valuation survey. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1997, 22(2):356-366.
33. Loomis J., Larson D. Total economic values of increasing gray whale populations: results from a contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Marine Resource Economics 1994, 9:275-286.
34. Loomis J., White D. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 1996, 18:197-206.
35. Loomis J., Gonzalez-Caban A., Gregory R. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates?. Land Economics 1994, 70(4):499-506.
36. Loureiro M.L., Ojea E. Valuing local endangered species: the role of intra-species substitutes. Ecological Economics 2008, 68:362-369.
37. Louviere J., Hensher D., Swait J. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
38. Morey E., Rowe R., Watson M. A repeated nested-logit model of Atlantic Salmon fishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1993, 75:578-592.
39. Morrison G.C. WTP and WTA in repeated trial experiments: learning or leading?. Journal of Economic Psychology 2000, 21:57-72.
40. Murphy J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30(3):313-325.
41. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus Schauinslandi), Revision 2007, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service OfficeNational Marine Fisheries Service Office, [www.page]. URL. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/hawaiianmonkseal.pdf.
42. Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan (Pristis pectinata) 2009, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service OfficeNational Marine Fisheries Service Office, [www.page]. URL. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/smalltoothsawfish.pdf.
43. Ojea E., Loureiro M.L. Valuation of wildlife: revising some additional considerations for scope tests. Contemporary Economic Policy 2009, 27(2):236-250.
44. Olar M., Adamowicz W., Boxall P., West G. Estimation of the Economic Benefits of Marine Mammal Recovery in the St. Lawrence Estuary 2007, Report to the Policy and Economics Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Regional Branch, Quebec.
45. Perman R., Ma Y., McGilvray J. Natural Resource and Environmental Economics 1996, Longman Publishing, New York, NY.
46. Poe G., Giraud K., Loomis J. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 87(2):353-365.
47. Randall A. Total economic value as a basis for policy. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1987, 116:325-335.
48. Ready R., Buzby J., Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent valuation estimates. Land Economics 1996, 72(3):397-411.
49. Richardson L., Loomis J. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:1535-1548.
50. Rudd M. National values for regional aquatic species at risk in Canada. Endangered Species Research 2009, 6:239-249.
51. Samples K.C., Hollyer J.R. Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the presence of substitutes and complements. Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory, and Applications 1989, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. R. Johnson, G. Johnson (Eds.).
52. Science Daily Caribbean Monk Seal Gone Extinct from Human Causes, NOAA Confirms 2008, [www.page]. URL. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/0806074828.htm.
53. Small K.A., Rosen H.S. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 1981, 49:105-130.
54. Swait J., Adamowicz W. The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. Journal of Consumer Research 2001, 28:135-148.
55. Swanson, C., 1993. Economics of Non-game Management: Bald Eagles on the Skagit River Bald Eagle Area Natural Area, Washington. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University.
56. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
57. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program Species Information 2010, [www.page]. URL. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html.
58. Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resource Implementation Studies 1983, U.S. Water Resources Council, Washington DC.
59. State of Ohio vs. US Department of Interior, Case No. 861575 July 14, 1989, U.S. Department of Interior, US District Court of Appeals.
60. Veisten K., Hoen H., Navrud S., Strand J. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Management 2004, 73:314-331.
61. Whitehead J.C., Blomquist G.C. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Comment. Land Economics 1995, 71(4):541-543.
62. Whitehead J.C., Blomquist G.C. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Reply to another comment. Land Economics 1999, 75(3):483-484.