Valuing type and scope of ecosystem conservation: A meta-analysis

被引:30
作者
Hjerpe, Evan [1 ]
Hussain, Anwar [1 ]
Phillips, Spencer [1 ]
机构
[1] Auburn Univ, Forest Policy Ctr, Auburn, AL 36849 USA
关键词
Conservation economics; Willingness to pay; Meta-analysis; Preservation; Ecological restoration; Ecosystem services; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; BENEFIT TRANSFER; ECONOMIC VALUE; QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS; PUBLIC VALUES; UNITED-STATES; BIODIVERSITY; SERVICES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jfe.2014.12.001
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Ecosystem conservation programs are increasingly incorporating both preservation and restoration strategies for ensuring the flow of ecosystem services from public lands. While preservation and restoration have similar end ecological objectives, differences in these conservation types may create systematic variation in willingness to pay (WTP) for their benefits. There has also been conflicting evidence of whether or not the amount, or scope, of conservation influences the demand for environmental improvements in manners consistent with neoclassical economics (greater value for more conservation). To investigate the sensitivity of conservation values to type and scope, we conducted a meta-analysis of existing evidence. We synthesized 127 data points from 22 primary studies that provided WTP estimates for preservation, forest restoration, and freshwater restoration conducted primarily on public lands. Estimates were derived from choice experiments, contingent rankings, and dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies for conservation programs in Europe, Canada, and the U.S. from 1987 to 2013. We found strong evidence for systematic variation of WTP depending on conservation type and scope. Values for preservation were greater than both forest and freshwater restoration; and freshwater restoration was valued greater than forest restoration. Meta-estimates were found to be sensitive to scope effects, as value increased with conservation intensity but at diminishing marginal rates. We provide quantitative policy analysis in the form of within-sample predictions of mean WTP for each conservation type and scope and conclude with recommendations. (C) 2015 Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea. Published by Elsevier GmbH. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页码:32 / 50
页数:19
相关论文
共 67 条
[1]   Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation [J].
Adamowicz, W ;
Boxall, P ;
Williams, M ;
Louviere, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1998, 80 (01) :64-75
[2]  
Arrow K., 1993, Federal Register
[3]   A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies [J].
Barrio, Melina ;
Loureiro, Maria L. .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2010, 69 (05) :1023-1030
[4]   Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values [J].
Bateman, IJ ;
Jones, AP .
LAND ECONOMICS, 2003, 79 (02) :235-258
[5]  
Baum ChristopherF., 2006, INTRO MODERN ECONOME
[6]   Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice [J].
Bergstrom, John C. ;
Taylor, Laura O. .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2006, 60 (02) :351-360
[7]   A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies [J].
Brouwer, R. ;
Langford, I. H. ;
Bateman, I. J. ;
Turner, R. K. .
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE, 1999, 1 (01) :47-57
[8]   Marginal valuation of charismatic species: Implications for conservation [J].
Bulte, EH ;
Van Kooten, GC .
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 1999, 14 (01) :119-130
[9]  
Cameron A.C., 2009, MICROECONOMETRICS US, V5
[10]   Would you choose your preferred option?: Comparing choice and recoded ranking experiments [J].
Caparros, Alejandro ;
Oviedo, Jose L. ;
Campos, Pablo .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2008, 90 (03) :843-855