A comparison of regional and national values for recovering threatened and endangered marine species in the United States

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 179, Issue , 2016, Pages 38-46

  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

Economic values; Endangered species; Non market valuation; Regional values; United States; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; ECOSYSTEMS;

ECONOMIC VALUES; ENDANGERED SPECIES; MARINE SPECIES; NATIONAL VALUES; NON-MARKET VALUATION; REGIONAL VALUE; SPATIAL VARIATIONS; UNITED STATE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY ESTIMATES;

CONSERVATION;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT; ENDANGERED SPECIES; MARINE ECOSYSTEM; SPATIAL VARIATION; VALUATION; VULNERABILITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; HOUSEHOLD; MARINE SPECIES; RANDOM SAMPLE; UNITED STATES; ANIMAL; AQUATIC SPECIES; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FAMILY SIZE; HUMAN; HUMPBACK WHALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIAL CLASS; TURTLE;

UNITED STATES;

ANIMALS; AQUATIC ORGANISMS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS; HUMANS; HUMPBACK WHALE; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL CLASS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; TURTLES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84964957375     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.04.053     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 80:64-75.
2. Bateman I.J., Langford I.H. Non-users' willingness to pay for a National Park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Reg. Stud. 1997, 31(6):571-582.
3. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L., Olar M., West G.E., Cantin G. Analysis of the economic benefits associated with the recovery of threatened marine mammal species in the Canadian St. Lawrence Estuary. Mar. Policy 2012, 36:189-197.
4. Brouwer R. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32:137-152.
5. Congressional Research Service The Endangered Species Act: Consideration of Economic Factors 2003, Report to Congress, Report Number RL30792.
6. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D., Mertig A.G., Jones R.E. Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Iss. 2000, 56(3):425-442.
7. Dillman D.A., Smyth J.D., Christian L.M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2009, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
8. Farrow K., Brinson A., Wallmo K., Lew D.K. Environmental attitudes in the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016, 119-134.
9. Georgiou S., Bateman I., Cole M., Hadley D. Contingent ranking and valuation of river water quality improvements: testing for scope sensitivity, ordering and distance decay effects. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 2000-18, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia and University College London, Norwich, UK 2000.
10. Giraud K., Valcic B. Willingness-to-Pay estimates and geographic embedded samples: case study of alaskan steller sea lion. J. Int. Wildl. Law Policy 2004, 7:57-72.
11. Hanley N., Mourato S., Wright R.E. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. J. Econ. Surv. 2001, 15(3):435-462.
12. Hanley N., Schlapfer F., Spurgeon J. Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 68:297-304.
13. Hoehn J.P., Randall A. The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values. Resour. Energy Econ. 2002, 24:13-31.
14. Johnston R., Jarvis D., Wallmo K., Lew D. Multi-scale spatial pattern in nonuse willingness to pay: applications to threatened and endangered marine species. Land Econ. 2015, 91(4):739-761.
15. Kaul S., Boyle K.J., Kuminoff N.V., Parmeter C.F., Pope J.C. What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2013, 66:90-104.
16. Kling C.L., Phaneuf D.J., Zhao J. From exxon to BP: has some number become better than no number?. J. Econ. Perspect. 2012, 26(4):3-26.
17. Krinsky I., Robb A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 68:715-719.
18. Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 1966, 74:132-157.
19. Lew D.K. Willingness to pay for threatened and endangered marine species: a review of the literature and prospects for policy use. Front. Mar. Sci. 2015, 10.3389/fmars.2015.00096.
20. Lew D.K., Layton D.F., Rowe R.D. Valuing enhancements to endangered species protection under alternative baseline futures: the case of the steller sea lion. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2010, 25(2):133-154.
21. Lipton D., Lew D.K., Wallmo K., Wiley P., Dvarskas A. The evolution of non-market valuation of U.S. Coastal and marine resources. J. Ocean Coast. Econ. 2014, 2014. Article 6.
22. Loomis J.B., White D.S. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18:197-206.
23. Loomis J.B. Vertically summing public good demand curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Econ. 2000, 76(2):312-321.
24. Louviere J., Hensher D., Swait J. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application 2000, Cambridge University Press, UK.
25. Martin-Lopez B., Montes C., Benayas J. Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22(3):624-635.
26. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1973, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
27. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis 2005, Island Press, Washington D.C.
28. Nelson T.A., Boots B. Detecting spatially explicit hot spots in landscape-scale ecology. Ecography 2008, 31(5):556-566.
29. Ojea E., Loureiro M.L. Valuing the recovery of overexploited fish stocks in the context of existence and option values. Mar. Policy 2010, 34:514-521.
30. Poe G., Giraud K., Loomis J. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87:353-365.
31. Richardson L., Loomis J. The total economic value of threatened, endangered, and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:1535-1548.
32. Rolfe J., Windle J. Distance decay functions for iconic assets: assessing national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2012, 53(3):347-365.
33. Rudd M. National values for regional aquatic species at-risk in Canada. Endanger. Species Res. 2009, 6:239-249.
34. Sanchirico J., Lew D.K., Haynie A., Kling D., Layton D.F. Conservation values in marine ecosystem-based management. Mar. Policy 2013, 38:523-530.
35. Small K.A., Rosen H.S. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 1981, 49:105-130.
36. Wallmo K., Lew D.K. Public values for recovering and downlisting threatened and endangered marine species. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26(5):830-839.
37. Wallmo K., Lew D.K. Public preferences for endangered species: an examination of geospatial scale and non-market values. Front. Mar. Sci. 2015, 10.3389/fmars.2015.00055.
38. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Living Blue Planet Report: Species, Habitats, and Human Well-being 2015, WWF, Gland, Switzerland. http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/living_blue_planet_report_2015.pdf?_ga=1.164316409.752169663.1445553473.