Valuing the diversity of biodiversity

Policy makers have responded to concerns over declining levels of biodiversity by introducing a range of policy measures including agri-environment and wildlife management schemes. Costs for such measures are relatively easy to establish, but benefits are less easily estimated. Economics can help guide the design of biodiversity policy by eliciting public preferences on different attributes of biodiversity. However, this is complicated by the generally low level of awareness and understanding of what biodiversity means on the part of the general public. In this paper we report research that applied the choice experiment and contingent valuation methods to value the diversity of biological diversity. Focus groups were used to identify ecological concepts of biodiversity that were important and relevant to the public, and to discover how best to describe these concepts in a meaningful and understandable manner. A choice experiment examined a range of biodiversity attributes including familiarity of species, species rarity, habitat, and ecosystem processes, while a contingent valuation study examined public willingness to pay for biodiversity enhancements associated with agri-environmental and habitat re-creation policy. The key conclusions drawn from the valuation studies were that the public has positive valuation preferences for most, but not all, aspects of biodiversity, but that they appeared to be largely indifferent to how biodiversity protection was achieved. Finally, we also investigate the extent to which valuation workshop approaches to data collection can overcome some of the possible information problems associated with the valuation of complex goods. The key conclusion was that the additional opportunities for information exchange and group discussion in the workshops helped to reduce the variability of value estimates.

[1]  M. Christie A comparison of alternative contingent valuation elicitation treatments for the evaluation of complex environmental policy. , 2001, Journal of environmental management.

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

[3]  M. Rekola,et al.  Lexicographic Preferences in Contingent Valuation: A Theoretical Framework with Illustrations , 2003, Land Economics.

[4]  N. Hanley,et al.  Awkward Choices: Economics and Nature Conservation , 2008 .

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

[6]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[7]  D. Macmillan,et al.  Estimating the non-market costs and benefits of native woodland restoration using the contingent valuation method , 1998 .

[8]  Guy Garrod,et al.  The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study , 1997 .

[9]  E. Pouta,et al.  Contingent valuation of the Natura 2000 nature conservation programme in Finland , 2000 .

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

[11]  R M May,et al.  Conceptual aspects of the quantification of the extent of biological diversity. , 1994, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[12]  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 .

[13]  Nick Hanley,et al.  A contingent valuation study of uncertain environmental gains , 1995 .

[14]  David Pearce,et al.  Valuing biological diversity: issues and overview , 2001 .

[15]  R. O'Neill,et al.  Complex systems and valuation , 2002 .

[16]  N. Hanley,et al.  Wilderness development decisions and the Krutilla-Fisher model: The case of Scotland's ‘flow country’ , 1991 .

[17]  O. Fromm,et al.  Ecological Structure and Functions of Biodiversity as Elements of Its Total Economic Value , 2000 .

[18]  J. Bennett,et al.  The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation , 2001 .

[19]  G. Garrod,et al.  Valuing biodiversity and nature conservation at a local level , 1994, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[20]  R. Steneck,et al.  A functional group approach to the structure of algal-dominated communities , 1994 .

[21]  R. Noss Can we maintain biological and ecological integrity , 1990 .

[22]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias , 1991 .

[23]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection , 1995 .

[24]  Robert H. Whittaker,et al.  Evolution of Species Diversity in Land Communities , 1977 .

[25]  N. Hanley,et al.  Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches , 2002 .

[26]  R. Furness,et al.  Prediction of plant diversity response to land-use change on Scottish agricultural land , 2003 .

[27]  D. Elston,et al.  Modelling the Non-market Environmental Costs and Benefits of Biodiversity Projects Using Contingent Valuation Data , 2001 .

[28]  Robert E. Wright,et al.  Developing measures for valuing changes in biodiversity , 2006 .

[29]  J. Bergh,et al.  Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? , 2001 .

[30]  Gordon C. Rausser,et al.  Valuing Research leads: Bioprospecting and the Conservation of Genetic Resources , 2000, Journal of Political Economy.

[31]  Robert E. Wright,et al.  Developing measures for valuing changes in biodiversity: final report , 2004 .

[32]  Roger A. Sedjo,et al.  Valuing Biodiversity for Use in Pharmaceutical Research , 1996, Journal of Political Economy.

[33]  D L Hawksworth,et al.  Biodiversity: measurement and estimation. , 1995, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[34]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias , 1991 .