Public Willingness to Pay for Recovering and Downlisting Threatened and Endangered Marine Species

Conservation Biology

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 830-839

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

^a Office of Science and Technology SSMC III   (United States)

^b NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Economics; Marine mammals; Nonmarket valuation; Threatened species; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DATA ACQUISITION; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HOUSEHOLD SURVEY; MARINE ENVIRONMENT; MARINE MAMMAL; RARE SPECIES; REGENERATION; TELEOST; TURTLE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ADULT; ANIMAL; AQUATIC SPECIES; ARTICLE; ECONOMICS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIOECONOMICS; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; UNITED STATES; VERTEBRATE;

ADULT; ANIMALS; AQUATIC ORGANISMS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ENDANGERED SPECIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES; VALUE OF LIFE; VERTEBRATES; YOUNG ADULT;

UNITED STATES;

CARETTA; CARETTA CARETTA; CETACEA; DERMOCHELYIDAE; DERMOCHELYS CORIACEA; EUBALAENA GLACIALIS; EUBALAENA JAPONICA; MAMMALIA; MONACHUS SCHAUINSLANDI; ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA; PRISTIS PECTINATA; TESTUDINES;

EID: 84865988780     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01899.x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, and J. Swait. 1998. Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods. Final report. Damage Assessment Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
2. Bateman, I., M. Cole, P. Cooper, S. Georgiou, D. Hadley, and G. Poe. 2004. On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Management 47:71-93.
3. Berrens, R., A. Jenkins-Smith, A. Bohara, and C. Silva. 2002. Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: fair share, time of contribution and respondent uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44:144-168.
4. Bowker, J. M., and J. R. Stoll. 1988. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70:372-381.
5. Brouwer, R. 2000. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecological Economics 32:137-152.
6. Brown, T. C., P. A. Champ, R. C. Bishop, and D. W. McCollum. 1996. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Economics 72:152-166.
7. Champ, P. A., R. C. Bishop, T. C. Brown, and D. W. McCollum. 1997. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33:151-162.
8. Congressional Research Service. 2003. The Endangered Species Act: consideration of economic factors. Report RL30792. Report to Congress. Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.
9. Diamond, P., and J. Hausman. 1994. Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8:45-64.
10. Ehrenfeld, D. 1988. Why put a value on biodiversity? Pages 212-216 in E. O. Wilson, editor. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
11. Greene, W., and D. Hensher. 2002. A latent class model for discrete choice data analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Working paper ITS-WP-02-08. Institute of Transport Studies, Sydney, Australia.
12. Hanemann, M. 1984. Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66:332-341.
13. Hanemann, M. 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8:19-44.
14. Hanley, N., R. Wright, and W. Adamowicz. 1998. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 11:413-428.
15. Heberlein, T., M. Wilson, R. C. Bishop, and N. Schaeffer. 2005. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50:1-22.
16. Hoehn, J. P., and A. Randall. 2002. The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values. Resource and Energy Economics 24:13-31.
17. Johnston, R. 2006. Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52:469-481.
18. Krinsky, I., and A. L. Robb. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economic and Statistics 68:715-719.
19. Lancaster, K. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74:132-157.
20. Layton, D., and T. S. Lee. 2006. Embracing model uncertainty: strategies for response pooling and model averaging. Environmental and Resource Economics 34:51-85.
21. Lew, D., and K. Wallmo. 2010. External tests of scope and embedding in stated preference choice experiments: an application to endangered species valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 48:1-23.
22. Lew, D., D. Layton, and R. Rowe. 2010. Valuing enhancements to endangered species protection under alternative baseline futures: the case of the Steller sea lion. Marine Resource Economics 25:133-154.
23. Loureiro, M. L., and E. Ojea. 2008. Valuing local endangered species: the role of intra-species substitutes. Ecological Economics 68:362-369.
24. Louviere, J., D. Hensher, and J. Swait. 2000. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
25. Manski, C. 1977. The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8:229-254.
26. McFadden, D. 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Pages 105-142 in P. Zarembka, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York.
27. Metrick, A., and M. Weitzman. 1996. Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Economics 72:1-16.
28. Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
29. Murphy, J. J., P. G. Allen, T. H. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead. 2005. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30:313-325.
30. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010. NOAA's next generation strategic plan. NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland. Available from http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/NOAA_NGSP.pdf (accessed March 2012).
31. Ocean Policy Task Force. 2009. Final recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. White House, Washington, D.C. Avaliable from http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf (accessed March 2012).
32. Ojea, E., and M. L. Loureiro. 2009. Valuation of wildlife: revising some additional considerations for scope tests. Contemporary Economic Policy 27:236-250.
33. Olar, M., W. Adamowicz, P. Boxall, and G. West. 2007. Estimation of the economic benefits of marine mammal recovery in the St. Lawrence estuary. Policy and Economics Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Quebec.
34. Poe, G., K. Giraud, and J. Loomis. 2005. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87:353-365.
35. Ready, R., J. Buzby, and D. Hu. 1996. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent valuation estimates. Land Economics 72:397-411.
36. Richardson, L., and J. Loomis. 2009. The total economic value of threatened, endangered, and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 68:1535-1548.
37. Rudd, M. 2009. National values for regional aquatic species at risk in Canada. Endangered Species Research 6:239-249.
38. Small, K. A., and H. S. Rosen. 1981. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 49:105-130.
39. Train, K. 2003. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
40. Wallmo, K., and S. Edwards. 2007. Estimating nonmarket values for marine protected areas: a latent class modeling approach. Marine Resource Economics 23:301-323.
41. Wallmo, K., and D. K. Lew. 2011. Valuing improvements to threatened and endangered marine species: an application of stated preference choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Management 92:1793-1801.
42. Whitehead, J. C., and G. C. Blomquist. 1999. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Comment. Land Economics 75:483-484.