Valuing the benefits of implementing a national strategy on biological diversity—The case of Germany

Abstract The National Biodiversity Strategies and Actions Plans (NBSAP), required by Article 6 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, have been developed to make them meaningful as strategic instruments. One objective is to make the benefits of conservation more visible and build support for conservation activities. However, so far determining the benefits within the NBSAP has rarely taken place. This paper presents results from a nationwide contingent valuation study investigating the benefits of implementing a set of measures derived from the National Strategy on Biological Diversity (NBS) in Germany. Results from a survey employing the contingent valuation method interviewing more than 2300 people indicate that implementing the NBS would generate substantial benefits, ranging between €2.3 billion and €9.3 billion per year. Monetizing benefits arising from the strategy provide important information for policy makers, especially as biodiversity conservation will very likely face stronger competition with alternative land uses such as food or biomass production in the future. Comparing the benefits to the opportunity and management costs shows that implementing the NBS in Germany is economically sensible.

[1]  Guo-Hua Liu,et al.  Double counting in ecosystem services valuation: causes and countermeasures , 2010, Ecological Research.

[2]  Ulrich Hampicke,et al.  Ethics and economics of conservation , 1994 .

[3]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Handbook on Contingent Valuation , 2009 .

[4]  I. Gren.  Pricing Nature, Cost--Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy , 2010 .

[5]  B. Martín‐López,et al.  The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation , 2007 .

[6]  Tomoo Mizutani,et al.  National Strategy on Biological Diversity , 2000 .

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

[8]  George Halkos,et al.  Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection , 2012 .

[9]  Michael Getzner,et al.  Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[10]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities , 1986 .

[11]  Henrik Lindhjem,et al.  Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes , 2011 .

[12]  N. Hanley,et al.  Costs and benefits of wild goose conservation in Scotland , 2004 .

[13]  Glenn C. Blomquist,et al.  The Use of Contingent Valuation in Benefit–Cost Analysis , 2006 .

[14]  Aurelia Bengochea-Morancho,et al.  A comparison of empirical models used to infer the willingness to pay in contingent valuation , 2005 .

[15]  Uwe A. Schneider,et al.  Effects of bioenergy policies and targets on European wetland restoration options , 2010 .

[16]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl , 1998 .

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

[18]  Martin Müller,et al.  The economic impact of tourism in six German national parks , 2010 .

[19]  P. Verburg,et al.  Impact assessment of the European biofuel directive on land use and biodiversity. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[20]  N. Hanley,et al.  Economic Valuation of the Benefits of Ecosystem Services delivered by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (Defra Project SFFSD 0702) , 2011 .

[21]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions , 1997 .

[22]  J. Nielsen.  Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: A comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews , 2011 .

[23]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Chapter 17 Contingent Valuation , 2005 .

[24]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies , 2009 .

[25]  B. Hasler,et al.  Making Benefit Transfers Work: Deriving and Testing Principles for Value Transfers for Similar and Dissimilar Sites Using a Case Study of the Non-Market Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Across Europe , 2011 .

[26]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods , 1997 .

[27]  L. Emerton.  The Use of Economic Measures in National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans: A Review of Experiences, Lessons Learned and Ways Forward , 2001 .

[28]  Biodiversity Planning An Assessment of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) , 2010 .

[29]  Pushpam Kumar,et al.  The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity : mainstreaming the economics of nature : a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB , 2010 .