Towards an ecosystem approach for understanding public values concerning marine biodiversity loss

Marine Ecology Progress Series

Volumn 467, Issue , 2012, Pages 15-28

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE AZORES   (Portugal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GDA SK   (Poland)

^c BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Cultural diversity; Marginal values; Marine biodiversity changes; Payment card; Scope sensitivity; Species loss; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOSYSTEM APPROACH; EUROPEAN UNION; FISH; LEGAL SYSTEM; POLICY MAKING; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; TRADE-OFF; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ATLANTIC OCEAN; AZORES; BALTIC SEA; EUROPE; GULF OF GDANSK; PORTUGAL;

EID: 84868017180     PISSN: 01718630     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3354/meps09967     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. US Fed Regist 58: 4602-4614
2. Barbier EB, Koch EW, Silliman BR, Hacker SD and others (2008) Coastal ecosystem-based management with nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science 319: 321-323
3. Bateman IJ, Cooper P, Georgiou S, Navrud S and others (2005) Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquat Sci 67: 274-291 (Pubitemid 41367206)
4. Bosetti V, Pearce D (2003) A study of environmental conflict: the economic value of grey seals in southwest England. Biodivers Conserv 12: 2361-2392 (Pubitemid 37332314)
5. Bracken M, Friberg S, Gonzalez-Dorantes C, Williams S (2008) Functional consequences of realistic biodiversity changes in a marine ecosystem. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 924-928 (Pubitemid 351282057)
6. Cadotte MW, Cardinale BJ, Oakley TH (2008) Evolutionary history and the effect of biodiversity on plant productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 17012-17017
7. Cameron TA, Huppert DD (1989) OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. J Environ Econ Manage 17: 230-246
8. Carpenter SR, DeFries R, Dietz T, Mooney HA, Polasky S, Reid WV, Scholes RJ (2006) Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science 314: 257-258 (Pubitemid 44571958)
9. Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistranod D and others (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 1305-1312
10. Carson RT, Mitchell RC (1995) Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manag 28: 155-173 (Pubitemid 26431296)
11. Chee Y (2004) An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 120: 549-565 (Pubitemid 39464494)
12. Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG (2000) A note on the warm glow of giving and scope sensitivity in contingent valuation studies. J Econ Psychol 21: 343-349
13. Coll M, Piroddi C, Steenbeek J, Kaschner K and others (2010) The biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: estimates, patterns, and threats. PLoS ONE 5: e11842
14. Cornell S (2010) Valuing ecosystem benefits in a dynamic world. Clim Res 45: 261-272
15. De Santo E (2010) Whose science? Precaution and powerplay in European marine environmental decision-making. Mar Policy 34: 414-420
16. Desvousges WH, Smith VK, Fisher A (1987) Option price estimates for water quality improvements: a contingent valuation study for the Monongahela River. J Environ Econ Manage 14: 248-267 (Pubitemid 17654710)
17. Eurobarometer (2010) Attitudes of Europeans towards the issue of biodiversity. Flash Eurobarometer 290, Gallup Hungary, Budapest
18. Fischer A, Hanley N (2007) Analysing decision behaviour in stated preference surveys: a consumer psychological approach. Ecol Econ 61: 303-314 (Pubitemid 46329942)
19. Fisher B, Turner K, Zylstra M, Brouwer R and others (2008) Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecol Appl 18: 2050-2067
20. Fleming CM, Alexander RR (2003) Single-species versus multiple-species models: the economic implications. Ecol Model 170: 203-211 (Pubitemid 38065580)
21. Glasby GP, Szefer P (1998) Marine pollution in Gdansk Bay, Puck Bay and the Vistula Lagoon, Poland: an overview. Sci Total Environ 212: 49-57 (Pubitemid 28094237)
22. HELCOM (2009) Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea: an integrated thematic assessment on biodiversity and nature conservation in the Baltic Sea. Balt Sea Environ Proc 116B
23. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A and others (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75: 3-35 (Pubitemid 40301269)
24. Jackson J (2008) Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 11458-11465
25. Jin J, Indab A, Nabangchang O, Thuy TD, Harder D, Subade RF (2010) Valuing marine turtle conservation: a cross-country study in Asian cities. Ecol Econ 69: 2020-2026
26. Kruk-Dowgiałło L, Szaniawska A (2008) Gulf of Gdańsk and Puck Bay. Part IIB Eastern Baltic coast. In: Schewier U (eds) Ecology of Baltic coastal waters. Ecological Studies 197, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p 139-162
27. Langford IH, Kontogianni A, Skourtos MS, Georgiou S, Bateman IJ (1998) Multivariate mixed models for openended contingent valuation data: willingness to pay for conservation of monk seals. Environ Resour Econ 12: 443-456
28. Layton D, Brown G, Plummer M (2001) Valuing multiple programs to improve fish populations. Washington State Department of Ecology, Seattle, WA
29. Loomis JB, White DS (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 18: 197-206
30. Majewski A (1994) Natural environmental conditions of the Gulf of Gdańsk and its coastline. In: Błazejowski J, Schuller D (eds) The pollution and renewal of the Gulf of Gdańsk, Mater Seminar. University of Gdańsk, Gdynia, p 22-35
31. Martín-López B, Montes C, Benayas J (2008) Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. Conserv Biol 22: 624-635 (Pubitemid 351813440)
32. Mee LD, Jefferson RL, Laffoley DA, Elliott M (2008) How good is good? Human values and Europe's proposed Marine Strategy Directive. Mar Pollut Bull 56: 187-204 (Pubitemid 351231925)
33. Menezes GM, Sigler MF, Silva HM, Pinho MR (2006) Structure and zonation of demersal fish assemblages off the Azores Archipelago (mid-Atlantic). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 324: 241-261
34. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
35. Mooney H, Mace G (2009) Biodiversity policy challenges. Science 325: 1474
36. Morato T, Watson R, Pitcher TJ, Pauly D (2006) Fishing down the deep. Fish Fish 7: 24-34
37. Myers R, Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423: 280-283 (Pubitemid 40852696)
38. Nunes P, Schokkaert E (2003) Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 45: 231-245 (Pubitemid 36400397)
39. OSPAR (2010) Quality status report 2010. OSPAR Comission, London
40. Pandolfi JM, Jackson JB, Baron N, Bradbury RH and others (2005) Are US coral reefs on the slippery slope to slime? Science 307: 1725-1726 (Pubitemid 40388602)
41. Portney PR (1994) The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. J Econ Perspect 8: 3-17
42. Pullin A, Baldi A, Can OE, Dieterich E and others (2009) Conservation focus on Europe: major conservation policy issues that need to be informed by conservation science. Conserv Biol 23: 818-824
43. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statis - tical Computing, Vienna, available at: www.R-project.org
44. Ressurreição A, Gibbons J, Dentinho T, KaiserM, Santos SS, Edwards-Jones G (2011) Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea. Ecol Econ 70: 729-739
45. Ressurreição A, Gibbons J, Kaiser M, Dentinho T and others (2012) Different cultures, different values: the role of cultural variation in public's WTP for marine species conservation. Biol Conserv 145: 148-159
46. Richardson L, Loomis J (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 68: 1535-1548
47. Rollins K, Lyke A (1998) The case for diminishing marginal existence values. J Environ Econ Manag 36:324-344 (Pubitemid 28537089)
48. Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice C and others (2005) Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310: 1333-1337 (Pubitemid 41698866)
49. Smith VK, Osborne LL (1996) Do contingent valuation estimates pass a 'scope' test? A meta-analysis. J Environ Econ Manage 31: 287-301 (Pubitemid 27012536)
50. Spash CL (2002) Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: coral reef biodiversity. J Econ Psychol 23: 665-687
51. Spash CL, Biel (2002) Social psychology and economics in environmental research. J Econ Psychol 23: 551-555
52. Spash CL, Urama K, Burton R, Kenyon W, Shannon P, Hill G (2009) Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecol Econ 68: 955-964
53. Subade R (2007) Mechanisms to capture economic values of marine biodiversity: the case of Tubbataha Reefs UNESCO world heritage site, Philippines. Mar Policy 31: 135-142 (Pubitemid 44873865)
54. Sutherland WJ, Adams WM, Aronson RB, Aveling R and others (2009) One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of global biological diversity. Conserv Biol 23: 557-567
55. Symes D, Hoefnagel E (2010) Fisheries policy, research and the social sciences in Europe: challenges for the 21st century. Mar Policy 34: 268-275
56. TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) (2010) Mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Progress Press, Malta
57. Tisdell C, Wilson C (2004) The public's knowledge of and support for conservation of Australia's tree-kangaroos and other animals. Biodivers Conserv 13: 2339-2359 (Pubitemid 39520931)
58. Tisdell C, Nantha HS, Wilson C (2007) Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for conservation? Ecol Econ 60: 627-633 (Pubitemid 44960681)
59. Tkac J (1998) The effects of information on willingness-topay values of endangered species. Am J Agric Econ 80: 1214-1220 (Pubitemid 129530392)
60. Turner RK, Adger WN, Brouwer R (1998) Ecosystem services value, research needs and policy relevance: a commentary. Ecol Econ 25: 61-65 (Pubitemid 28257847)
61. Vatn A (2004) Environmental valuation and rationality. Land Econ 80: 1-18 (Pubitemid 38256963)
62. Venkatachalam L (2004) The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24: 89-124 (Pubitemid 38178900)
63. White P, Gregory KW, Lindley PJ, Richards G (1997) Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: a case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. Biol Conserv 82: 345-354 (Pubitemid 27398718)
64. White P, Bennett AC, Hayes EJV (2001) The use of willingness- to-pay approaches in mammal conservation. Mammal Rev 31: 151-167 (Pubitemid 32667970)
65. Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE and others (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314: 787-790 (Pubitemid 44706639)
66. Zarzycki T (2011) Ecological and socio-economic valuation of marine biodiversity of the Gulf of Gdańsk. Institute of Oceanography, University of Gdańsk