Non-use Economic Values for Little-Known Aquatic Species at Risk: Comparing Choice Experiment Results from Surveys Focused on Species, Guilds, and Ecosystems

被引:0
作者
Murray A. Rudd
Sheri Andres
Mary Kilfoil
机构
[1] Emory University,Department of Environmental Sciences
[2] Fisheries and Oceans Canada,Rowe School of Business, Faculty of Management
[3] Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Ltd,undefined
[4] Dalhousie University,undefined
来源
Environmental Management | 2016年 / 58卷
关键词
River; Wetland; Endangered species; Ecosystem services; Ecosystem approach; Fish;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Accounting for non-market economic values of biological diversity is important to fully assess the benefits of environmental policies and regulations. This study used three choice experiments (species-, guild-, and ecosystem-based surveys) in parallel to quantify non-use values for little-known aquatic species at risk in southern Ontario. Mean willingness-to-pay (WTP) ranged from $9.45 to $21.41 per listing status increment under Canada’s Species at Risk Act for both named and unnamed little-known species. Given the broad range of valuable ecosystem services likely to accrue to residents from substantial increases in water quality and the rehabilitation of coastal wetlands, the difference in WTP between species- and ecosystem-based surveys seemed implausibly small. It appeared that naming species—the ‘iconization’ of species in two of the three surveys—had an important effect on WTP. The results suggest that reasonable annual household-level WTP values for little-known aquatic species may be $10 to $25 per species or $10 to $20 per listing status increment. The results highlighted the utility of using parallel surveys to triangulate on non-use economic values for little-known species at risk.
引用
收藏
页码:476 / 490
页数:14
相关论文
共 129 条
[1]  
Adamowicz W(1998)Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation Am J Agric Econ 80 64-75
[2]  
Boxall P(2010)Confronting uncertainty and missing values in environmental value transfer as applied to species conservation Conserv Biol 24 1407-1417
[3]  
Williams M(2011)Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments Environ Resour Econ 48 177-218
[4]  
Louviere J(2006)The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature Environ Resour Econ 33 223-250
[5]  
Akter S(2006)Valuing the diversity of biodiversity Ecol Econ 58 304-317
[6]  
Grafton RQ(2007)Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study J Environ Econ Manag 53 342-363
[7]  
Bateman IJ(2009)Species listing under Canada’s Species at Risk Act Conserv Biol 23 1609-1617
[8]  
Mace GM(2009)Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making Ecol Econ 68 643-653
[9]  
Fezzi C(2015)Current status and future needs of economics research of inland fisheries Fish Manage Ecol 22 458-471
[10]  
Atkinson G(2001)Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ Surv 15 435-462