Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Valuation of wildlife populations above survival

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biodiversity valuation studies often address the willingness to pay (WTP) for species survival. Many policy initiatives, however, target more generally the population levels of wildlife. This study investigated the empirical question of WTP for enhancing species populations also beyond the survival level. Respondents’ WTP for increases in population levels of endangered species as well as of general wildlife in three habitats were evaluated in a choice experiment, by trading off against income tax and restrictions in recreational access. Any person may have several motives for deriving value from enhanced wildlife populations, and variation in values were analysed in a Latent Class model. We document considerable discrete variations in WTP and respondents fall into several distinct groups. The first group express a significant WTP for saving endangered species only and has no positive WTP for higher population levels, indicating that existence values dominate their WTP. The second group put emphasis on wildlife, but with equal weight attached to moderate and high increases in population for ‘Endangered’ as well as ‘General’ wildlife. Thus, they appear insensitive to scope. The pattern suggests that WTP may be affected by warm glow or deontological motivations. The third group reveal significant WTP, but for at least one of the wildlife attributes they prefer moderate increases over high. This could be due to moral motivations or reflect provision cost concerns. Our findings point to the caution needed when using results from studies focusing on species survival in valuing broader initiatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Detailed information on representativity can be obtained from the authors upon request.

  2. The analyses are not reported here, but can be obtained from the authors upon request.

  3. Results from this split can be obtained from authors upon request.

  4. See Footnote 3.

  5. Note, however, that one could argue that if the actual provision of the good will in fact not require the actual involvement of the respondents, they may be unlikely to experience the utility effect from improved self-image or warm glow.

Abbreviations

CE:

Choice experiment

CV:

Contingent valuation

WTP:

Willingness to pay

References

  • Adamowicz WL, Louviere J, Swait J (1998) Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods. NOAA-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Resource Valuation Branch, Damage Assessment Center, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Alred J (1994) Existence value, welfare and altruism. Environ Values 3:381–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni J (1989) Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and ricardian equivalence. J Pol Econ 97:1447–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow of giving. Econ J 100:464–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandara R, Tisdell C (2003) Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka: empirical evidence. Biol Conserv 110:327–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black J, Milner-Gulland EJ, Sotherton N, Mourato S (2010) Valuing complex environmental goods: landscape and biodiversity in the North Pennines. Environ Conserv 37(2):136–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boman M, Bostedt G (1999) Valuing the wolf in Sweden: are benefits contingent upon the supply? In: Boman M, Brännlund R, Kristström B (eds) Topics in environmental economics. Klüwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp 157–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosetti V, Pearce D (2003) A study of environmental conflict: the economic value of Grey Seals in southwest England. Biodivers Conserv 12:2361–2392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2002) Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ Res Econ 23:421–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brekke KA, Kverndokk S, Nyborg K (2003) An economic model of moral motivation. J Public Econ 87:1967–1983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2010) Report of the tenth meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity. COP 10, Nagoya, Japan, 18–29 October 2010. UNEP

  • Chen WY, Jim CY (2010) Resident motivations and willingness-to-Pay for urban biodiversity conservation in Guangzhou (China). Environ Manang 45:1052–1064

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG (2000) A note on the warm glow of giving and scope sensitivity in contingent valuation studies. J. Econ Psychol 21:343–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie M, Hanley N, Warren J, Murphy K, Wright R, Hyde T (2006) Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol Econ 58:304–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper P, Poe GL, Bateman IJ (2004) The structure of motivation for contingent values—a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecol Econ 50:69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csutia B, Polasky S, Williams PH, Pressey RL, Camme JD, Kershawf M, Kiesterg AR, Downs B, Hamilton R, Husoi K, Sahri K (1997) A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol Conserv 80(1):83–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czajkowski M, Hanley N (2009) Using labels to investigate scope effects in stated preference methods. Environ Res Econ 44:521–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czajkowski M, Buszko-Briggs M, Hanley N (2009) Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecol Econ 68:2910–2917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Do TN, Bennett J (2008) Estimating wetland biodiversity values: a choice modelling application in Vietnam’s Mekong River Delta. Environ Dev Econ 14:163–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrini S, Scarpa R (2007) Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J Environ Econ Manag 53:342–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella K, Cameron A, Sechrest W, Winfree R, Kremen C (2010) Methodological considerations in reserve system selection: a case study of Malagasy lemurs. Biol Conserv 143:963–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredman P (1995) The existence of existence value—a study of the economic benefits of an endangered species. J For Econ 1:307–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman III A M(2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values, theory and methods, 2nd edn, Resources for the Future, Washington DC, USA

  • Giraud KL, Loomis JB, Johnson RL (1999) Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for endangered and endangered wildlife. J Environ Manag 56:221–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene W (2000) Econometric analysis. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, MacMillan D, Patterson I, Wright RE (2003) Economics and the design of nature conservation policy: a case study of wild goose conservation in Scotland using choice experiments. Anim Conserv 6:123–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein TA, Wilson MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer NC (2005) Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 50:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne P, Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2005) Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment. For Ecol Manag 207:189–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2010) Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks. Ecol Econ 69:1532–1544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen JB, Boiesen JH, Thorsen BJ, Strange N (2008) What’s in a Name? The use of quantitative measures vs. ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity. Environ Res Econ 39:247–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK (2001) The worth of a possom: valuing species with the contingent valuation method. Environ Res Econ 19:211–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jantke K, Schneider UA (2010) Multiple-species conservation planning for European wetlands with different degrees of coordination. Biol Conserv 143(7):1812–1821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson MV (1999) Economics without markets: four papers on the contingent valuation and stated preference methods. Umeå Economic Studies, Umeå, p 138

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson BS, Wilson MA, Heberlein TA (2001) Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude towards paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope. Ecol Econ 36:133–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahnemann D, Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manag 22:57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanstrup N, Asferg T, Flinterup M, Thorsen BJ, Jensen TS (2009) Vildt & Landskab. Resultater af seks års integreret forskning i Danmark 2003-2008. [Wildlife & Landscape. Results of a six year Danish research programme 2003–2008]. Hornslet Press

  • Karlsson J, Sjöström M (2008) Direct use values and passive use values: implications for conservation of large carnivores. Biodivers Conserv 17:883–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krutilla JV, Fisher AC (1975) The economics of natural environments, studies in the valuation of commodity and amenity resources. Resources for the future, Washington DC

  • Kuhfeld WF (2004) Marketing research methods in SAS-experimental design, choice, conjoint and graphical techniques. Technical report TS-677E, Cary, pp 782

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen E, Kuulivainen J, Pouta E, Rekola M, Chian-Zhong L (2003) Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environ Sci Policy 6:195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA (2000) Encyclopedia of biodiversity. Academic Press, New York, p 4700

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann-Matthies P, Jnge X, Matthies D (2010) The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biol Conserv 143:195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro ML, Ojea E (2008) Valuing local endangered species: the role of intra-species substitutes. Ecol Econ 68:362–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press

  • McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press Inc., New York, pp 105–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel S, Wiek A (2009) Valuation in morally charged situations: the role of deontological stances and intuition for trade-off making. Ecol Econ 68:2198–2206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RC, Carson R (1989) Using surveys to value public goods. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, p 463

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunes PALD, Schokkaert E (2003) Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 45:231–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyborg K (2000) Homo economicus and homo politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values. J Econ Behav Organ 42:305–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poe GL, Giraud KL, Loomis JB (2005) Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am J Agric Econ 87:353–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polasky S, Camm JD, Solow AR, Csuti B, White D, Ding R (2000) Choosing reserve networks with incomplete species information. Biol Conserv 94:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polasky S, Nelson E, Camm J, Csuti B, Fackler P, Lonsdorf E, Montgomery C, White D, Arthur J, Garber-Yonts B, Haight R, Kagan J, Starfield A, Tobalsk C (2008) Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biol Conserv 141:1505–1524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powe NA, Bateman IJ (2004) Investigating insensitivity to scope: a split-sample test of perceived scheme realism. Land Econ 80:258–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruto E, Garrod G, Scarpa R (2008) Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modelling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya. Agric Econ 38:89–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa R, Thiene M (2005) Destination choice models for rock climbing in the Northeastern Alps: a Latent-Class approach based on intensity of preferences. Land Econ 81:426–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Strange N, Thorsen BJ, Bladt J (2006) Optimal reserve selection in a dynamic world. Biol Conserv 131:33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strange N, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ, Tarp P (2007) Value for money: protecting endangered species on Danish heath lands. Environ Manag 40:761–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tisdell C, Nantha HS (2007) Comparison of funding an demand for the conservation of the charismatic koala with those of the critically endangered wombat Lasiorhinus krefftii. Biodivers Conserv 16:1261–1281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tisdell C, Wilson C (2004) The public’s knowledge of and support for conservation of Australia’s tree-kangaroos and other animals. Biodivers Conserv 13:2339–2359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tisdell C, Wilson C, Nantha HS (2005) Policies for saving a rare Australian glider: economics and ecology. Biol Conserv 123:237–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train KE (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 346

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Veisten K, Hoen HF, Navrud S, Strand J (2004) Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J Environ Manag 73:317–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Haefen RH, Massey DM, Adamowicz WI (2005) Serial nonparticipation in repeated discrete choice models. Am J Agric Econ 87:1061–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PCL, Gregory KW, Lindley PJ, Richards G (1997) Economic values of endangered mammals in Britain: a case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. Biol Conserv 82:345–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wielgus J, Leah RG, Sala E, Bennett J (2009) Including risk in stated-preference economic valuations: experiments on choices for marine recreation. J Environ Manag 90:3401–3409

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Danish National Research Foundation for support to the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, and to the Danish Social Science Research Council and the Ministry of Environment for support to the present research. A former version of the paper was presented at the Fourth World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Montreal, Canada, June 28–July 2, 2010.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate Change, Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark

    Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, Thomas Hedemark Lundhede & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen

Authors
  1. Jette Bredahl Jacobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Hedemark Lundhede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bo Jellesmark Thorsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jette Bredahl Jacobsen.

Appendices

Appendix

This appendix outlines the information sheet given to respondents. The order in which the habitats were presented varied according to their order in the questionnaire. Two habitats were presented to each respondent. Notice: The questionnaire was in Danish.

Information sheet: wildlife in the Danish nature

Many human activities affect the nature and the wildlife living there. By changing the way we use nature, we can change the conditions for different wildlife species. Depending on which initiatives are taken, different species will be favoured. Some of these species are endangered or declining in number and others are common. In addition, conditions can change so that wildlife experiences become more frequent.

[Habitat 1]

Imagine that we take some initiatives to improve living conditions for wildlife in [habitat 1]. Some initiatives will benefit specific species, while others will benefit wildlife in general.

[Description of wildlife on habitat 1]

[Habitat 2]

Also in [habitat 2] can we take initiatives to improve living conditions for specific species, whereas other initiatives will benefit wildlife in general.

[Description of wildlife on habitat 2]

Encounter of wildlife

Access

Today we are usually allowed to walk and bike on paths and roads in the nature. We can protect wildlife better by prohibiting access to some areas entirely or during the breeding season, which typically is from April to October. This will make wildlife encounters less frequent, but on the other hand wildlife living conditions will improve.

The description of habitats

Lakes and streams

Otter population

The otter is an endangered species in Denmark that lives around and in lakes and streams. We can improve the living conditions for the otter by, e.g. establishing passages for it. Depending on in how many places we take such initiatives, the population may increase somewhat so that the otter becomes rare (but not absolutely endangered) or even common in Denmark.

Great crested grebe population

The great crested grebe is a common breeding bird at Danish lakes. We can improve its living conditions by, e.g. re-establishing lakes and wetlands which have been drained. This will especially benefit the great crested grebe, but also wildlife in general living at lakes and streams. Depending on in how many places we take such initiatives, the population of great crested grebe may increase by 25 or 50%

[Photos of otter and great crested grebe were presented in both splits]

Fields and meadows

Barn owl population

The barn owl is an endangered species in Denmark. It hunts in open fields, bogs and meadows. We can improve the living conditions of the barn owl by, e.g. establishing hedgerows in the open fields. Depending on in how many places we take such initiatives, the population may increase so that the species becomes rare (but not endangered) or even common in Denmark.

Hare population

The hare is a common mammal in fields and meadows in Denmark. Its living conditions can be improved by, e.g. letting parts of fields remain uncultivated and pesticide-free, so that the availability of food and shelter increases. This may especially benefit the hare, but also wildlife in general living on fields and meadows. Depending on in how many places we take such initiatives, the population of hare may increase by 25 or 50%.

[Photos of barn owl and hare were presented in both splits]

Forests

Dormouse population

The dormouse is an endangered species in Denmark. It lives in forests with a dense lower storey. By, e.g. mixing bushes and trees, its living conditions can be improved. Depending on in how many places we take such initiatives, the population of dormouse may increase so that the species becomes rare (but not endangered) or even common in Denmark.

Greater spotted woodpecker population

Greater spotted woodpecker is a common breeding bird in the Danish forests. Its living conditions can be improved by, e.g. leaving dead wood in the forests. This will especially benefit the greater spotted woodpecker, but also other wildlife species living in forests. Depending on in how many places we take such initiatives, the population of greater spotted woodpecker may increase by 25 or 50%.

[Photos of dormouse and greater spotted woodpecker were presented in both splits]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jacobsen, J.B., Lundhede, T.H. & Thorsen, B.J. Valuation of wildlife populations above survival. Biodivers Conserv 21, 543–563 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0200-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0200-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation