Different cultures, different values: The role of cultural variation in public’s WTP for marine species conservation

Understanding the cultural variation in public preference for marine species is a necessary pre-requisite if conservation objectives are to include societal preferences in addition to scientific considerations. We report the results of a contingent study undertaken at three case-study sites: Azores islands (Portugal), Gulf of Gdansk (Poland) and Isles of Scilly (UK). The study considered species richness of five specific marine taxa (mammals, birds, fish, invertebrates and algae) as proxies of marine biodiversity and the aim of analysis was to estimate from a multi-site perspective public’s willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid increased levels of species loss (reduction of species richness) for different marine taxa. Results, based on 1502 face-to-face interviews, showed that income, education and environmental awareness of the respondents were significant predictors of WTP for marine species conservation. Results also indicated that respondents in each of the European locations had different preferences for marine taxa. In the Azores, although mammals and fish were valued highly, small differences occurred in the WTP among different taxa. Respondents in the Isles of Scilly put a relatively low value on fish while algae and marine mammals were highly valued. In Gdansk, respondents defined a clear order of preference for marine mammals>fish>birds>invertebrates and algae. These findings suggested that cultural differences may be important drivers of valuation and undermines the commonly held premise that charismatic/likeable taxa consistently have a disproportionately strong influence on WTP for biodiversity conservation. We conclude that conservation policy must take account of cultural diversity alongside biological diversity.

[1]  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 .

[2]  I. Hodge,et al.  Are stated preferences convergent with revealed preferences? Empirical evidence from Nigeria , 2006 .

[3]  L. Venkatachalam The contingent valuation method: a review , 2004 .

[4]  M. Loureiro,et al.  Interviewer Effects on the Valuation of Goods with Ethical and Environmental Attributes , 2003 .

[5]  R. S. D. Motta,et al.  The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: Economic valuation of Morro do Diabo State Park, Atlantic Rainforest, São Paulo State (Brazil) , 2008 .

[6]  P. Seddon,et al.  Taxonomic bias in reintroduction projects , 2005 .

[7]  V. Kerry Smith,et al.  Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis , 1996 .

[8]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[9]  J. Loomis,et al.  Comparing money and labour payment in contingent valuation: the case of forest fire prevention in Vietnamese context , 2007 .

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

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

[12]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  Economic valuation of biodiversity: A comparative study , 2008 .

[13]  R. May,et al.  Taxonomic Bias in Conservation Research , 2002, Science.

[14]  B. Martín‐López,et al.  What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? , 2009 .

[15]  Clement A. Tisdell,et al.  Public Choice of Species for the "Ark": Phylogenetic Similarity and Preferred Wildlife Species for Survival , 2006 .

[16]  T. Hoban,et al.  Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Contingent Values: A Comparison of On-Site Users, Off-Site Users, and Non-users , 1995 .

[17]  R. Carson,et al.  The Value of clean water: The public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and swimmable quality water , 1993 .

[18]  W. Hutchinson,et al.  A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good , 2003 .

[19]  B. Worm,et al.  Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities , 2003, Nature.

[20]  David Hoyos,et al.  The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments , 2010 .

[21]  Tracey M Dalton Beyond Biogeography: a Framework for Involving the Public in Planning of U.S. Marine Protected Areas , 2005 .

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

[23]  Ulf Olsson,et al.  Confidence Intervals for the Mean of a Log-Normal Distribution , 2005 .

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

[25]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection , 1993 .

[26]  Simon P. Wilson,et al.  Predicting the number of known and unknown species in European seas using rates of description , 2011 .

[27]  Martin Solan,et al.  Extinction and Ecosystem Function in the Marine Benthos , 2004, Science.

[28]  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.

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

[30]  Michael Elliott,et al.  How good is good? Human values and Europe's proposed Marine Strategy Directive. , 2008, Marine pollution bulletin.

[31]  K. Hiscock,et al.  Marine biodiversity hotspots in the UK: A report identifying and protecting areas for marine biodiversity , 2007 .

[32]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[33]  Bruce Shindler,et al.  Formation of Social Acceptability Judgments and Their Implications for Management of Rare and Little‐Known Species , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[34]  R. Warwick,et al.  The marine flora and fauna of the Isles of Scilly , 1977 .

[35]  L. Monteiro,et al.  Marine research, resources and conservation in the Azores , 1995 .

[36]  E. Barbier,et al.  Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services , 2006, Science.

[37]  C. Spash,et al.  Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology , 2009 .

[38]  Jianjun Jin,et al.  Valuing marine turtle conservation: A cross-country study in Asian cities , 2010 .

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

[40]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Psychological Perspective , 1993 .

[41]  I. Bateman,et al.  Multivariate Mixed Models for Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Data: Willingness To Pay For Conservation of Monk Seals , 1998 .

[42]  N. Jones,et al.  Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: A case study in Mitilini, Greece , 2008 .

[43]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  A study of environmental conflict: the economic value of Grey Seals in southwest England , 2003, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[44]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  What do conservation biologists publish , 2005 .

[45]  C. Tisdell,et al.  The public's knowledge of and support for conservation of Australia's tree-kangaroos and other animals , 2003, Biodiversity & Conservation.

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

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

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

[49]  Christophe Béné,et al.  Contribution values of biodiversity to ecosystem performances: A viability perspective , 2008 .

[50]  S. Gürlük The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey , 2006 .

[51]  Richard York,et al.  Economic Growth and Marine Biodiversity: Influence of Human Social Structure on Decline of Marine Trophic Levels , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[52]  Antonella Trisorio,et al.  The effect of knowledge on the disparity between hypothetical and real willingness to pay , 2001 .

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

[54]  Susan L. Williams,et al.  Functional consequences of realistic biodiversity changes in a marine ecosystem , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[55]  J. Loomis,et al.  Total Economic Values of Increasing Gray Whale Populations: Results from a Contingent Valuation Survey of Visitors and Households , 1994, Marine Resource Economics.

[56]  David M. Richardson,et al.  The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society , 2007 .

[57]  S. Somot,et al.  The Biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: Estimates, Patterns, and Threats , 2010, PloS one.

[58]  J. Dixon,et al.  Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation , 1985 .

[59]  M. Johannesson The Contingent-valuation Method , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[60]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data , 1989 .

[61]  F. Chapin,et al.  EFFECTS OF BIODIVERSITY ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING: A CONSENSUS OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE , 2005 .