Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects

Ecological Economics

Volumn 78, Issue , 2012, Pages 9-18

  Morse Jones, Sian ^a,b   Bateman, Ian J ^a   Kontoleon, Andreas ^c   Ferrini, Silvia ^a   Burgess, Neil D ^c,d   Turner, R Kerry ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b FAUNA AND FLORA INTERNATIONAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Choice experiment; Endemism; Scope; Substitution; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENDEMIC SPECIES; ENDEMISM; MONTANE FOREST; NATURE CONSERVATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TROPICAL REGION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EASTERN ARC MOUNTAINS; TANZANIA;

EID: 84861457637     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Ariely D., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Q. J. Econ. 2003, 118(1):73-105.
2. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P., Leamer E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 1993, 58(10):4602-4614.
3. Balmford A., Gaston K.J., Blyth S., James A., Kapos V. Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. PNAS 2003, 100(3):1046-1050.
4. Banerjee S., Murphy J.H. The scope test revisited. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2005, 12:613-617.
5. Bateman I.J., Day B.H., Jones A.P., Jude S. Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2009, 58(1):106-118.
6. Bateman I.J., Munro A., Poe G.L. Decoy effects in choice experiments and contingent valuation: asymmetric dominance. Land Econ. 2008, 84(1):115-127.
7. Bateman I.J., Munro A., Rhodes B., Starmer C., Sugden R. Does part-whole bias exist? An experimental investigation. Econ. J. 1997, 107:322-332.
8. Berrens R.P., Bohara A.K., Jenkins-Smith H.C., Silva C.L., Weimer D. Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2004, 47(2):331-363.
9. Boyle K.J., Desvousges W.H., Johnson F.R., Dunford R.W., Hudon S.P. An Investigation of part-whole bias in contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1994, 27:64-83.
10. Boyle K.J., Welsh M.P., Bishop R.C. The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1993, 25(1):S80-S99.
11. Burgess N.D., D'Amico Hales J., Ricketts T., Dinerstein E. Factoring species, non-species values and threats into biodiversity priority-setting across the ecoregions of Africa and its islands. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 127:383-401.
12. Burgess N.D., D'Amico Hales J., Underwood E., Dinerstein E., Olson D., Itoua I., Schipper J., Ricketts T., Newman K. Terrestrial Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: A Continental Assessment 2004, Island Press, Washington DC.
13. Burgess N.D., Butynskid T.M., Cordeiroe N.J., Doggart N.H., Fjeldsa J., Howell K.M., Kilahama F.B., Loader S.P., Lovett J.C., Mbilinyi B., Menegon M., Moyer D.C., Nashanda E., Perkin A., Rovero F., Stanley W.T., Stuart S.N. The biological importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 134:209-231.
14. Butchart S.H.M., Walpole M., Collen B., Arco van Strien A., Scharlemann J.P.W., Almond R.E.A., Baillie J.E.M., Bomhard B., Brown C., Bruno J., Carpenter K.E., Carr G.M., Chanson J., Chenery A.M., Csirke J., Davidson N.C., Dentener F., Foster M., Galli A., Galloway J.N., Genovesi P., Gregory R.D., Hockings M., Kapos V., Lamarque J., Fiona Leverington F., Loh J., McGeoch M.A., McRae L., Anahit Minasyan A., Hernández Morcillo M., Oldfield T.E.E., Pauly D., Quader S., Revenga C., Sauer J.R., Skolnik B., Spear D., Stanwell-Smith D., Stuart S.N., Symes A., Tierney M., Tyrrell T.D., Vié J., Watson R. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 2010, 328(5982):1164-1168.
15. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1995, 28(2):155-173.
16. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Hanemann W.M. Sequencing and valuing public goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1998, 36:314-323.
17. CBD Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 2010, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.
18. CBD COP 10 Decision X/3 on Strategy for Resource Mobilization in Support of the Achievement of the Convention's Three Objectives, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/3 2010.
19. Christie M., Hanley N., Warren J., Murphy K., Wright R., Hyde T. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58(2):304-317.
20. Clucas B., McHugh K., Caro T. Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17:1517-1528.
21. Common M., Perrings C. Towards an ecological economics of sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 1992, 6(1):7-34.
22. Cummings R.G., Ganderton P.T., McGuckin T. Substitution effects in CVM values. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76:205-214.
23. Dawson D., Shogren J.F. An Update on priorities and expenditures under the endangered species. Act Land Econ 2001, 77(4):527-532.
24. Fisher A.C. The conceptual underpinnings of the contingent valuation method. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs 1996, 19-37. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. D.J. Bjornstad, J.R. Kahn (Eds.).
25. Giruad K.L., Loomis J.B., Johnson R.L. Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. J. Environ. Manage. 1999, 56:221-229.
26. Gregory R., Lichtenstein S., Slovic P. Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. J. Risk Uncertainty 1993, 7:177-197.
27. Hailu A., Adamowicz W.L., Boxall P.C. Complements, substitutes, budget constraints and valuation - application of a multi-program environmental valuation method. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2000, 16(1):51-68.
28. Hanley N., Macmillan D., Patterson I., Wright R.E. Economics and the design of nature conservation policy: a case study of wild goose conservation in Scotland using choice experiments. Anim. Conserv. 2003, 6:123-129.
29. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Adamowicz V. Using choice experiments to value the environment - design issues. Current experience and future prospects. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1998, 11(3-4):413-428.
30. Heberlein T.A., Wilson M.A., Bishop R.C., Schaeffer N.C. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2005, 50:1-22.
31. Hess S., Rose J.M., Hensher D.A. Asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay estimates in discrete choice models. Transport. Res. E-Log. 2008, 44:847-863.
32. Hoehn J.P., Loomis J.B. Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1993, 25:56-75.
33. Hoehn J.P., Randall A. Too many proposals pass the benefit-cost test - reply. Am. Econ. Rev. 1989, 81(5):1450-1452.
34. Hoehn J.P. Valuing the multidimensional impacts of environmental policy: theory and methods. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1991, 73(2):289-299.
35. Horton B., Colarullo G., Bateman I.J., Peres C.A. Evaluating non-user willingness to pay for a large-scale conservation programme in Amazonia: a UK/Italian contingent valuation study. Environ. Conserv. 2003, 30(2):139-146.
36. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L. Valuing public-goods - the purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1992, 22(1):57-70.
37. Kontoleon A., Swanson T. The WTP for property rights for the giant panda: can a charismatic species be an instrument for nature conservation?. Land Econ. 2003, 79(4):483-499.
38. Kramer R.A., Mercer D.E. Valuing a global environmental good: US residents' willingness to pay to protect tropical rain forests. Land Econ. 1997, 73(2):196-210.
39. Lindhjem H., Navrud S. Are internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:1628-1637.
40. Loomis J.B., White D.S. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18(3):197-206.
41. Marta-Pedroso C., Freitas H., Domingos T. Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: a case study of web based versus in-person interviews. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62(3-4):388-398.
42. Martin-Lopez B., Montes C., Benayas J. Economic valuation of biodiversity: the meaning of numbers. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22(3):624-635.
43. Metrick A., Weitzman M.L. Patterns of behaviour in endangered species preservation. Land Econ. 1996, 72(1):1-16.
44. Meuser E., Harshaw H.W., Mooers A.O. Public preference for endemism over other conservation-related species attributes. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23(4):1041-1046.
45. Mittermeier R.A., Myers N., Thomsen J.B., da Fonseca G.A.B., Olivieri S. Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conserv. Biol. 1998, 12(3):516-520.
46. Myers N. Threatened biotas: 'hotspots' in tropical forests. Environmentalist 1988, 8:187-208.
47. ONS First Release: Internet Access 2008 Households and Individuals, 26 August 2008 2008, Office for National Statistics, Newport, Available at:. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/iahi0808.pdf.
48. Plott Charles R. Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior., Macmillan, London 1996, 225-250. K. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perleman, C. Schmidt (Eds.).
49. Randall A., Hoehn J.P. Embedding in market demand systems. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1996, 30:369-380.
50. Ressurreição A., Gibbons J., Ponce Dentinho T., Kaiser M., Santos R.S., Edwards-Jones G. Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:729-739.
51. Richardson L., Loomis J. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:1535-1548.
52. Rolfe J., Bennett J., Louviere J. Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 35(2):289-302.
53. Rollins K., Lyke A. The case for diminishing marginal existence values. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1998, 36:324-344.
54. Sagoff M. The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law and the Environment 1988, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
55. Schulze W.D., McClelland G.H., Lazo J.K., Rowe R.D. Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values. Resour. Energy. Econ. 1998, 20:163-178.
56. Sitas N., Baillie J.E.M., Isaac N.J.B. What are we saving? Developing a standardized approach for conservation action. Anim. Conserv. 2009, 12:231-237.
57. Slovic P. The construction of preferences. Am. Psychol. 1995, 50:364-371.
58. Spash C. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 68:390-699.
59. Spash C.L., Hanley N. Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 12(3):191-208.
60. Svedsater H. Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: test of perfect and regular embedding. J. Econ. Psychol. 2000, 21(6):605-623.
61. Swanson T., Kontoleon A. Conflicts in wildlife conservation: aggregating total economic values. Presented at 4th BIOECON Workshop on The Economics and Biodiversity Conservation, Venice, Italy, 28 September 2003 2003.
62. Tisdell C. Institutional economics and the behaviour of conservation organizations: implications for biodiversity conservation. Conserving and Valuing Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity 2011, 175-194. Earthscan, London. K.N. Ninan (Ed.).
63. Vatn A., Bromley D. Choice without prices without apologies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1994, 26:129-148.
64. Veisten K., Hoehn H.F., Navrud S., Strand J. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J. Environ. Manage. 2004, 73:317-331.
65. Verissimo D., Fraser I., Groombridge J., Bristol R., MacMillan D.C. Birds as tourism flagship species: a case study of tropical islands. Anim. Conserv. 2009, 1-10.
66. White P.C.L., Bennett A.C., Hayes E.J.V. The use of willingness-to-pay approaches in mammal conservation. Mammal Rev. 2001, 31(2):151-167.
67. 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. Biol. Conserv. 1997, 345-354.