Valuing Enhancements to Endangered Species Protection under Alternative Baseline Futures: The Case of the Steller Sea Lion

Abstract This article presents results from a stated preference survey of U.S. households intended to value the public's preferences for enhancements to the protection of the western stock of Steller sea lions, which is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. To account for the uncertainty of future populations under current programs without additional protection efforts, three survey versions were implemented that each present different, yet plausible, baseline futures for Steller sea lions. Stated preference choice experiment data from each survey are analyzed using repeated, rank ordered random parameters logit models, and welfare estimates are calculated and compared for each baseline for a variety of possible improvements. The willingness to pay (WTP) results reflect positive, but diminishing, marginal utility for improvements in the western stock population, regardless of baseline future: WTP increases for population improvements until the population greatly exceeds the current population, at which point the WTP for additional improvements levels off. Similarly, as would be expected, WTP for improvements to the western stock population decreases as the future baseline population forecast improves. JEL Classification Codes: Q51

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

[2]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[3]  S. F. Edwards.  Option prices for groundwater protection , 1988 .

[4]  C. Bhat.  Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model , 2001 .

[5]  J. Loomis,et al.  Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion , 2002 .

[6]  Richard A. Levine,et al.  Bayesian Approaches to Modeling Stated Preference Data , 2005 .

[7]  D. Dillman.  Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

[8]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Valuing wildlife in benefit‐cost analyses: A case study involving endangered species , 1987 .

[9]  D. Dillman.  Mail and internet surveys , 1999 .

[10]  M. Rudd.  National values for regional aquatic species at risk in Canada , 2009 .

[11]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Implementing the Convolutions Approach: A Companion to "Measuring the Difference (X-Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach" , 1994 .

[12]  F. Norwood,et al.  Effect of Experimental Design on Choice‐Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates , 2005 .

[13]  F. Carlsson,et al.  Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation , 2001 .

[14]  A. Trites,et al.  RISK OF EXTIRPATION OF STELLER SEA LIONS IN THE GULF OF ALASKA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS: A POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS BASED ON ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES FOR WHY SEA LIONS DECLINED IN WESTERN ALASKA , 2006 .

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

[16]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Individual Option Prices for Climate Change Mitigation , 2002 .

[17]  A. Dragun,et al.  The Worth of a Possum: Valuing Species with the Contingent Valuation Method , 2001 .

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

[19]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study , 2007 .

[20]  Tuffin Bruno.  On the use of low discrepancy sequences in Monte Carlo methods , 1996 .

[21]  William H. Desvousges,et al.  Option price estimates for water quality improvements: A contingent valuation study for the monongahela river , 1987 .

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

[23]  David F. Layton,et al.  Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys , 2000 .

[24]  Randall G. Chapaaan,et al.  Exploiting Rank Ordered Choice Set Data within the Stochastic Utility Model , 1982 .

[25]  K. Train.  Halton Sequences for Mixed Logit , 2000 .

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

[27]  M. Wedel,et al.  Designing Conjoint Choice Experiments Using Managers' Prior Beliefs , 2001 .

[28]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope , 1995 .

[29]  K. Wallmo,et al.  External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation , 2011 .

[30]  K. Train.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .

[31]  Joel Huber,et al.  The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs , 1996 .

[32]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  A Comparison of Experimental Design Strategies for Multinomial Logit Models : The Case of Generic Attributes , 2001 .

[33]  J. Whitehead.  Ex ante willingness to pay with supply and demand uncertainty: implications for valuing a sea turtle protection programme , 1992 .

[34]  C. Bhat.  Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences , 2003 .

[35]  J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

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

[37]  J. Lusk,et al.  Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty , 2008 .

[38]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Assessing the potential demand for electric cars , 1981 .

[39]  Catherine L. Kling,et al.  Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods , 2012 .

[40]  Edward R. Morey,et al.  A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing , 1993 .

[41]  L. Gerber,et al.  Implications of three viability models for the conservation status of the western population of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) , 2001 .

[42]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions , 2005 .