Deriving a benefit transfer function for threatened and endangered species in interaction with their level of charisma

Environments - MDPI

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 1-18

  Amuakwa Mensah, Franklin ^a   Bärenbold, Rebekka ^a   Riemer, Olivia ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Contingent valuation method; Literature review; Meta analysis; Threatened and endangered species; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 85057833130     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20763298     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/environments5020031     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. Flather, C.H.; Knowles, M.S.; Kendall, I.A. Threatened and endangered species geography. BioScience 1998, 48, 365–376.
2. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available online: https://cmsdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/keydocuments/IUCN_Red_List_Brochure_2015_LOW.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2017).
3. IUCN. Red List Categories and Criteria Version 3.1. Available online: http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria/2001-categories-criteria (accessed on 29 November 2017).
4. Department of the interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlfe Service. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Available online: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESAall.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2017).
5. Convention on Biological Diversity. Major Threats. Available online: http://www.biodiv.be/biodiversity/threats (accessed on 29 November 2017).
6. Ackerman, F.; Heinzerling, L. Pricing the priceless: Cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 2002, 150, 1553–1584.
7. Jakobsson, K.M.; Dragun, A.K. Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species: Methodological Issues and Applications; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 1996.
8. Bishop, R.C. Endangered species and uncertainty: The economics of a safe minimum standard. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1978, 60, 10–18.
9. Hanemann, W.M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8, 19–43.
10. Stanley, D.L. Local Perception of Public Goods: Recent Assessments of Willingness-to-pay for Endangered Species. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2005, 23, 165–179.
11. Wallmo, K.; Lew, D.K. A comparison of regional and national values for recovering threatened and endangered marine species in the United States. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 179, 38–46.
12. Randall, A.; Stoll, J.R. Existence value in a total valuation framework. In Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at National Parks and Wilderness Areas; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1983; pp. 265–274.
13. Rosenberger, R.S.; Loomis, J.B. Benefit transfer. In A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 445–482.
14. Loomis, J.B.; White, D.S. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18, 197–206.
15. Richardson, L.; Loomis, J. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1535–1548.
16. Martínlópez, B.; Montes, C.; Benayas, J. Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: The meaning of numbers. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 624–635.
17. 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, 2, 96, doi:10.3389/fmars.2015.00096.
18. 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.
19. Hanley, N.; MacMillan, D.; Wright, R.E.; Bullock, C.; Simpson, I.; Parsisson, D.; Crabtree, B. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 49, 1–15.
20. Arrow, K.; Solow, R.; Portney, P.R.; Leamer, E.E.; Radner, R.; Schuman, H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 1993, 58, 4601–4614.
21. Portney, P.R. The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care. J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8, 3–17.
22. Hanemann, M.; Loomis, J.; Kanninen, B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1991, 73, 1255–1263.
23. Reaves, D.W.; Kramer, R.A. Valuing the Endangered Red Cockaded Woodpecker and Its Habitat: A Comparison of Contingent Valuation Elicitation Techniques and a Test For Embedding; Paper presented at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Summer Workshop; AERE: San Diego, CA, USA, August 1994.
24. Bowker, J.M.; Stoll, J.R. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1988, 70, 372–381.
25. Tisdell, C.; Wilson, C.; Nantha, H.S. Policies for saving a rare Australian glider: Economics and ecology. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 123, 237–248.
26. Loomis, J.; Ekstrand, E. Economic benefits of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl: A scope test using a multiple-bounded contingent valuation survey. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 1997, 22, 356–366.
27. Bennett, J.; Blamey, R. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2001.
28. Carson, R.T. Contingent Valuation: A User’s Guide; ACS: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
29. Lancaster, K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Political Econ. 1966, 74, 132–157.
30. Manski, C.F. The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis. 1977, 8, 229–254.
31. Thurstone, L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 1927, 34, 273–286.
32. Choi, A.S.; Fielding, K.S. Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: A case study involving endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 89, 24–32.
33. Boxall, P.C.; Adamowicz, W.L.; Swait, J.; Williams, M.; Louviere, J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18, 243–253.
34. Bush, G.; Colombo, S.; Hanley, N. Should all choices count? Using the cut-offs approach to edit responses in a choice experiment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 44, 397–414.
35. Hanley, N.; Wright, R.E.; Koop, G. Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: Climbing in Scotland. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 22, 449–466.
36. Bonnet, X.; Shine, R.; Lourdais, O. Taxonomic chauvinism. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2002, 17, 1–3.
37. Clark, J.A.; May, R.M. Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 2002, 297, 191–192.
38. White, P.C.; Bennett, A.C.; Hayes, E.J. The use of willingness-to-pay approaches in mammal conservation. Mammal Rev. 2001, 31, 151–167.
39. Yao, R.T.; Scarpa, R.; Turner, J.A.; Barnard, T.D.; Rose, J.M.; Palma, J.H.; Harrison, D.R. Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand’s planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 98, 90–101.
40. Ressurreição, A.; Gibbons, J.; Kaiser, M.; Dentinho, T.P.; Zarzycki, T.; Bentley, C.; Austen, M.; Burdon, D.; Atkins, J.; Santos, R.S.; et al. Different cultures, different values: The role of cultural variation in public’s WTP for marine species conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 145, 148–159.
41. Kotchen, M.J.; Reiling, S.D. Estimating and questioning economic values for endangered species: An application and discussion. Endanger. Species Update 1998, 15, 77–83.
42. Kotchen, M.J.; Reiling, S.D. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32, 93–107.
43. Fishbase. System Glossary Entry for Charismatic Species. Available online: http://www.fishbase.org/glossary/Glossary.php?q=charismatic+species (accessed on 13 November 2017).
44. Kontoleon, A.; Swanson, T. The willingness to pay for property rights for the giant panda: Can a charismatic species be an instrument for nature conservation? Land Econ. 2003, 79, 483–499.
45. Ducarme, F.; Luque, G.M.; Courchamp, F. What are “charismatic species” for conservation biologists. BioSci. Master Rev. 2013, 10, 1–8.
46. Martín-López, B.; Montes, C.; Benayas, J. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139, 67–82.
47. Metrick, A.; Weitzman, M.L. Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Econ. 1996, 72, 1–16.
48. Tisdell, C.; Nantha, H.S. Comparison of funding and demand for the conservation of the charismatic koala with those for the critically endangered wombat Lasiorhinus krefftii. In Vertebrate Conservation and Biodiversity; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 435–455.
49. Colléony, A.; Clayton, S.; Couvet, D.; Saint Jalme, M.; Prévot, A.C. Human preferences for species conservation: Animal charisma trumps endangered status. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 206, 263–269.
50. Tisdell, C.; Nantha, H.S.; Wilson, C. Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for conservation? Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 627–633.
51. Tkac, J. Award-Winning Undergraduate Paper: The Effects of Information on Willingness-To-Pay Values of Endangered Species. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 80, 1214–1220.
52. Bandara, R.; Tisdell, C. Changing abundance of elephants and willingness to pay for their conservation. J. Environ. Manag. 2005, 76, 47–59.
53. Pandit, R.; Subroy, V.; Garnett, S.T.; Zander, K.K.; Pannell, D. A Review of Non-Market Valuation Studies of Threatened Species and Ecological Communities; Report to the National Environmental Science Programme; Department of the Environment: Canberra, Australia, 18 December 2015.
54. US Inflation Calculator. Consumer Price Index Data from 1913 to 2017. Available online: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/(accessed on 16 January 2018).
55. Decker, K.A.; Watson, P. Estimating willingness to pay for a threatened species within a threatened ecosystem. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 1347–1365.
56. Bandara, R.; Tisdell, C. The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: A policy and contingent valuation study. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48, 93–107.
57. Forbes, K.; Boxall, P.C.; Adamowicz, W.L.; De Maio Sukic, A. Recovering Pacific rockfish at risk: The economic valuation of management actions. Front. Mar. Sci. 2015, 2, 71, doi:10.3389/fmars.2015.00071.
58. Zander, K.K.; Signorello, G.; De Salvo, M.; Gandini, G.; Drucker, A.G. Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 93, 219–229.
59. Jakobsson, K.M.; Dragun, A.K. The worth of a possum: Valuing species with the contingent valuation method. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 19, 211–227.
60. Kontogianni, A.; Tourkolias, C.; Machleras, A.; Skourtos, M. Service providing units, existence values and the valuation of endangered species: A methodological test. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 79, 97–104.
61. Boyle, K.J.; Poe, G.L.; Bergstrom, J.C. What do we know about groundwater values? Preliminary implications from a meta analysis of contingent-valuation studies. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76, 1055–1061.
62. Poufoun, J.N.; Abildtrup, J.; Sonwa, D.J.; Delacote, P. The value of endangered forest elephants to local communities in a transboundary conservation landscape. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 126, 70–86.
63. Swanson, C.S. Economics of Non-Game Management: Bald Eagles on the Skagit River Bald Eagle Natural Area, Washington. Ph.D. Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA, 1993.
64. Stevens, T.H.; Echeverria, J.; Glass, R.J.; Hager, T.; More, T.A. Measuring the existence value of wildlife: What do CVM estimates really show? Land Econ. 1991, 67, 390–400.
65. Baral, N.; Gautam, R.; Timilsina, N.; Bhat, M.G. Conservation implications of contingent valuation of critically endangered white-rumped vulture Gyps bengalensis in South Asia. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Manag. 2007, 3, 145–156.
66. Bell, K.P.; Huppert, D.; Johnson, R.L. Willingness to pay for local coho salmon enhancement in coastal communities. Mar. Resour. Econ. 2003, 18, 15–31.
67. Berrens, R.P.; Ganderton, P.; Silva, C.L. Valuing the protection of minimum instream flows in New Mexico. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 1996, 21, 294–308.
68. Boyle, K.J.; Bishop, R.C. Valuing wildlife in benefit-cost analyses: A case study involving endangered species. Water Resour. Res. 1987, 23, 943–950.
69. Chambers, C.M.; Whitehead, J.C. A contingent valuation estimate of the benefits of wolves in Minnesota. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 26, 249–267.
70. Giraud, K.; Turcin, B.; Loomis, J.; Cooper, J. Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion. Mar. Policy 2002, 26, 451–458.
71. Haqen, D.A.; Vincent, J.W.; Welle, P.G. Benefits of preserving old-growth forests and the spotted owl. Contemp. Econ. Policy 1992, 10, 13–26.
72. Han, S.Y.; Lee, C.K. Estimating the value of preserving the Manchurian black bear using the contingent valuation method. Scand. J. For. Res. 2008, 23, 458–465.
73. Jin, J.; Indab, A.; Nabangchang, O.; Thuy, T.D.; Harder, D.; Subade, R.F. Valuing marine turtle conservation: A cross-country study in Asian cities. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2020–2026.
74. Jin, J.; Wang, Z.; Liu, X. Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: A policy and contingent valuation study. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68, 328–335.
75. Kim, J.Y.; Mjelde, J.W.; Kim, T.K.; Lee, C.K.; Ahn, K.M. Comparing willingness-to-pay between residents and non-residents when correcting hypothetical bias: Case of endangered spotted seal in South Korea. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 78, 123–131.
76. Thuy, T.D. WTP for Conservation of Vietnamese Rhino; Technical Report; Research Report; Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA): Singapore, 2007; 40p.
77. White, P.C.; 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, 82, 345–354.
78. Whitehead, J.C. Ex ante willingness to pay with supply and demand uncertainty: Implications for valuing a sea turtle protection programme. Appl. Econ. 1992, 24, 981–988.
79. Matsiori, S.; Stamkopoulos, Z.; Aggelopoulos, S.; Soutsas, K.; Vafidis, D. Social values of biodiversity conservation for Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus). Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 8, 2022–2026.
80. Giraud, K.; Loomis, J.B.; Johnson, R. Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. J. Environ. Manag. 1999, 56, 221–229.
81. Loomis, J.B.; Larson, D.M. Total economic values of increasing gray whale populations: Results from a contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Mar. Resour. Econ. 1994, 9, 275–286.
82. Tisdell, C.; Swarna Nantha, H.; Wilson, C. Public Valuation of and Attitudes Towards the Conservation and Use of the Hawksbill Turtle: An Australian Case Study; The University of Queensland School of Economics: St Lucia, Australia, 2005.
83. Langford, I.H.; Kontogianni, A.; Skourtos, M.S.; Georgiou, S.; Bateman, I.J. Multivariate mixed models for open-ended contingent valuation data: Willingness to pay for conservation of monk seals. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1998, 12, 443–456.
84. Stithou, M.; Scarpa, R. Collective versus voluntary payment in contingent valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity: An exploratory study from Zakynthos, Greece. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2012, 56, 1–9.
85. Hageman, R.K. Valuing Marine Mammal Populations: Benefit Valuations in A Multi-Species Ecosystem; National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center: La Jolla, CA, USA, 1985.
86. Rathnayake, R.M.W. “Turtle watching”: A strategy for endangered marine turtle conservation through community participation in Sri Lanka. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016, 119, 199–207.
87. Ma, K.; Liu, D.; Wei, R.; Zhang, G.; Xie, H.; Huang, Y.; Li, D.; Zhang, H.; Xu, H. Giant panda reintroduction: Factors affecting public support. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016, 25, 2987–3004.
88. Indab, A.L. Willingness to pay for whale shark conservation in Sorsogon, Philippines. In Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Valuation, Institutions, and Policy in Southeast Asia; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016; pp. 93–128.
89. Zander, K.K.; Pang, S.T.; Jinam, C.; Tuen, A.A.; Garnett, S.T. Wild and valuable? Tourist values for orang-utan conservation in Sarawak. Conserv. Soc. 2014, 12, 27–42.
90. Tisdell, C.; Wilson, C. Information, wildlife valuation, conservation: Experiments and policy. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2006, 24, 144–159.
91. Rubin, J.; Helfand, G.; Loomis, J. A benefit-cost analysis of the northern spotted owl. J. For. (USA) 1991, 89, 25–30.
92. Wallmo, K.; Lew, D.K. Valuing improvements to threatened and endangered marine species: An application of stated preference choice experiments. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 1793–1801.
93. Rudd, M.A. National values for regional aquatic species at risk in Canada. Endanger. Species Res. 2009, 6, 239–249.
94. Han, S.Y.; Lee, C.K.; Mjelde, J.W.; Kim, T.K. Choice-experiment valuation of management alternatives for reintroduction of the endangered mountain goral in Woraksan National Park, South Korea. Scand. J. For. Res. 2010, 25, 534–543.
95. Wallmo, K.; Lew, D.K. Public willingness to pay for recovering and downlisting threatened and endangered marine species. Conserv. Biol. 2012, 26, 830–839.
96. Ninan, K.; Sathyapalan, J. The economics of biodiversity conservation: A study of a coffee growing region in the Western Ghats of India. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 55, 61–72.
97. Boxall, P.; Adamowicz, W.; Olar, M.; West, G.; 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.
98. Kahneman, D.; Knetsch, J.L. Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1992, 22, 57–70.