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

Despite heightened awareness of the need to find additional resources for tropical biodiversity conservation, and recognition that the benefits to populations in developed countries may be significant, very few empirical studies have been conducted to estimate these values. In this article, we report the results of a choice experiment survey that investigated the preferences of UK residents for the conservation of threatened wildlife in the Eastern Arc Mountains in Tanzania, part of the Eastern Afromontane “biodiversity hotspot”. We examine the sensitivity of values to species types, the number of species, the number of conservation sites and, more unusually, to potential substitutes/complements. Critically we find some evidence of coherency in preferences. Respondents are willing to pay significant, positive amounts to conserve charismatic and/or endemic species and are scope sensitive to the number of endemic species. In contrast, species which are neither endemic nor charismatic, and the number of conservation sites, do not contribute significantly to utility. Further, changing the overall scope of the ‘good’ is found to have a significant and differential impact on respondent's choices depending on the species type: as the availability of wildlife increases, we observe substitution effects for non-endemic charismatic species, and complementarity for endemic (non-charismatic) species.

[1]  Gary H. McClelland,et al.  Embedding and calibration in measuring non-use values , 1998 .

[2]  N. Myers Threatened biotas: "Hot spots" in tropical forests , 1988, The Environmentalist.

[3]  N. D. Burgessa,et al.  The biological importance of the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya , 2006 .

[4]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach , 1993 .

[5]  T. Swanson,et al.  The WTP for property rights for the Giant Panda: can a charismatic species be an instrument for conservation of natural habitat? , 2002 .

[6]  Jorgen B. Thomsen,et al.  Biodiversity Hotspots and Major Tropical Wilderness Areas: Approaches to Setting Conservation Priorities , 1998 .

[7]  Alex James,et al.  Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  John M. Rose,et al.  Asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay estimates in discrete choice models , 2008 .

[9]  Alan Randall,et al.  Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit-Cost Test: Reply , 1989 .

[10]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change , 2009 .

[11]  Michel J. Kaiser,et al.  Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea , 2011 .

[12]  R. Carson,et al.  Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1995 .

[13]  Robert E. Wright,et al.  Economics and the design of nature conservation policy: a case study of wild goose conservation in Scotland using choice experiments , 2003 .

[14]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Decoy Effects in Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation: Asymmetric Dominance , 2008, Land Economics.

[15]  T. Ricketts,et al.  Terrestrial Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: A Conservation Assessment , 2004 .

[16]  C. Tisdell Institutional economics and the behaviour of conservation organizations: Implications for biodiversity conservation , 2007 .

[17]  T. Ricketts,et al.  Factoring species, non-species values and threats into biodiversity prioritisation across the ecoregions of Africa and its islands , 2006 .

[18]  N. Isaac,et al.  What are we saving? Developing a standardized approach for conservation action , 2009 .

[19]  P. Slovic The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[20]  T. Caro,et al.  Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines , 2008, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[21]  Andrew Metrick,et al.  Patterns of Behavior in Endangered Species Preservation , 2007 .

[22]  J. Shogren,et al.  An Update on Priorities and Expenditures under the Endangered Species Act , 2001, Land Economics.

[23]  Charles Perrings,et al.  Towards an ecological economics of sustainability , 1992 .

[24]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods , 1998 .

[25]  I. Bateman,et al.  Evaluating non-user willingness to pay for a large-scale conservation programme in Amazonia: a UK/Italian contingent valuation study , 2003, Environmental Conservation.

[26]  Tiago Domingos,et al.  Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews , 2007 .

[27]  J. Loomis,et al.  The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis , 2009 .

[28]  Piran C. L. White,et al.  Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: A case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris , 1997 .

[29]  A. Mooers,et al.  Public Preference for Endemism over Other Conservation‐Related Species Attributes , 2009, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[30]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Substitution Effects in CVM Values , 1994 .

[31]  Alan Randall,et al.  Embedding in market demand systems , 1996 .

[32]  Robert P. Berrens,et al.  Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples ☆ , 2004 .

[33]  T. Swanson,et al.  The Willingness to Pay for Property Rights for the Giant Panda: Can a Charismatic Species Be an Instrument for Nature Conservation? , 2003, Land Economics.

[34]  D. Mercer,et al.  Valuing a Global Environmental Good: U.S. Residents' Willingness to Pay to Protect Tropical Rain Forests , 1997 .

[35]  K. Rollins,et al.  The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values , 1998 .

[36]  J. Hoehn,et al.  Substitution Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs , 1993 .

[37]  John P. Hoehn,et al.  Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy: Theory and Methods , 1991 .

[38]  Samiran Banerjee,et al.  The scope test revisited , 2005 .

[39]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation , 2005 .

[40]  C. Spash Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change , 2007 .

[41]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction , 1992 .

[42]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. , 1993 .

[43]  P. White,et al.  The use of willingness‐to‐pay approaches in mammal conservation , 2001 .

[44]  J. Lamarque,et al.  Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines , 2010, Science.

[45]  N. Hanley,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment , 1998 .

[46]  N. Hanley,et al.  Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation , 1995 .

[47]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis , 1996 .

[48]  A. Dobson Monitoring global rates of biodiversity change: challenges that arise in meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2010 goals , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[49]  B. Martín‐López,et al.  Economic Valuation of Biodiversity Conservation: the Meaning of Numbers , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[50]  Knut Veisten,et al.  Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. , 2004, Journal of environmental management.

[51]  Robert E. Wright,et al.  Valuing the diversity of biodiversity , 2006 .

[52]  Andrew Metrick,et al.  Patterns of Behavior in Biodiversity Preservation , 1994 .

[53]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  Rational Individual Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes: the Discovered Preference Hypothesis , 1993 .

[55]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies , 1993 .

[56]  P. Boxall,et al.  Complements, Substitutes, Budget Constraints and Valuation , 2000 .

[57]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation , 2000 .

[58]  S. Navrud,et al.  Are Internet Surveys an Alternative to Face-to Face Interviews in Contingent Valuation? , 2011 .

[59]  M. Sagoff The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law, and the Environment , 1988 .

[60]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation , 1997 .

[61]  D. Ariely,et al.  “Coherent Arbitrariness”: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences , 2003 .

[62]  H. Svedsater Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: Test of perfect and regular embedding , 2000 .

[63]  A. Vatn,et al.  Choices without Prices without Apologies , 1994 .

[64]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife , 1999 .

[65]  D. Macmillan,et al.  Birds as tourism flagship species: a case study of tropical islands , 2009 .