Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:16:07.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of choice experiments to quantify the existence value of an endemic moss: a case study in Chile

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2012

Claudia Cerda ,
Jan Barkmann  and
Rainer Marggraf
Claudia Cerda
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Resource Management, Faculty of Forestry and Conservation of Nature, University of Chile, Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago de Chile, Chile. Tel: + 56-2-9785903. Fax: + 56-2-5414952. E-mail: clcerdaj@uchile.cl
Jan Barkmann
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Environmental and Resource Economics, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. E-mail: jbarkma@gwdg.de
Rainer Marggraf
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Environmental and Resource Economics, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. E-mail: rmarggr@gwdg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A choice experiment was applied to measure the existence value of an endemic moss. We assessed value separation, embedding or warm glow and ‘ethical’ motivations. We exemplify our application by valuing an inconspicuous moss endemic to Chile's sub-Antarctic region. The choice experiment was administered to a sample of local residents of Navarino Island (southern Chile). The design isolates the existence value by requiring respondents to make simultaneous tradeoffs between moss existence value, five other biodiversity-related values and income changes. Insensitivity to scope was addressed by using degrees of extinction risks. We predominantly use a willingness-to-accept design of the payment vehicle to avoid protest responses. A meaningful marginal value for the existence of an endemic species for Navarino island residents was documented. The design, based on varying degrees of extinction risk, avoided a strong effect of warm glow. No protest responses motivated by ethical concerns were encountered.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 207 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barkmann, J., Cerda, C., and Marggraf, R. (2005), ‘Interdisziplinäre Analyse von Naturbildern: Notwendige Voraussetzung für die ökonomische Bewertung der natürlichen Umwelt’, Umweltpsychologie 9: 10–29.Google Scholar
Barkmann, J., Glenk, K., Handi, H., Sundawati, L., Witte, J.P., and Marggraf, R. (2007), ‘Assessing economic preferences for biological diversity and ecosystem services at the Central Sulawesi rain forest margin: a choice experiment approach’, in Tscharntke, T., Leuschner, C., Zeller, M., Guhardja, E. and Bidin, A. (eds), Stability of Tropical Rain Forest Margins, Berlin: Springer, pp. 181–208.Google Scholar
Barkmann, J., Glenk, K., Keil, A., Leemhuis, C., Dietrich, N., Gerold, G., and Marggraf, R. (2008), ‘Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: the case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods’, Ecological Economics 65: 48–62.Google Scholar
Bateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R., and Swanson, R. (2002), Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hausman, J. and McFadden, D. (1984), ‘Specification tests for the multinomial logit model’, Econometrica 52: 1219–1240.Google Scholar
Hensher, D., Rose, J., and Greene, W. (2005), Applied Choice Methods – A Primer, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
INE (2002), ‘Censo Nacional de Población. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas Chile’, [Available at] http://www.ine.cl.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, J.B., Boiesen, J.H., Thorsen, B.J., and Strange, N. (2008), ‘What's in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus iconised species when valuing biodiversity’, Environmental and Resource Economics 39: 247–263.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Knetsch, J.L. (1992), ‘Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22: 57–70.Google Scholar
Kanninen, B. (2010), Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Krutilla, J. (1967), ‘Conservation reconsidered’, American Economic Review 57: 777–786.Google Scholar
Lienhoop, N. and Fischer, A. (2009), ‘Can you be bothered? The role of participant motivation in the valuation of species conservation measures’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52: 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J. (1988), ‘Broadening the concept and measurement of existence value’, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 73(3): 358–371.Google Scholar
Louviere, J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D. (2000), Stated Choice Methods – Analysis and Application, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. (1973), ‘Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour’, in Zarembka, P. (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McVittie, A. and Moran, D. (2010), ‘Valuing the non-use benefits of marine conservation zones: an application to the UK Marine Bill’, Ecological Economics 70: 413–424.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, J. and Liebe, U. (2008), ‘Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?’, Environmental and Resource Economics 39(4): 433–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, P.A.L.D. and Schokkaert, E. (2003), ‘Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45: 231–245.Google Scholar
Ojea, E. and Loreiro, M.L. (2007), ‘Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife’, Ecological Economics 63: 807–814.Google Scholar
Rajmis, S., Barkmann, J., and Marggraf, R. (2009), ‘User community preferences for climate change mitigation and adaptation measures around Hainich National Park, Germany’, Climate Research 40: 61–73.Google Scholar
Richardson, L. and Loomis, J. (2009), ‘The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis’, Ecological Economics 68: 1535–1548.Google Scholar
Rozzi, R., Massardo, F., and Anderson, C. (2004), The Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve: A Proposal for Conservation and Tourism to Achieve Sustainable Development at the Southern End of the Americas, Punta Arenas: Ediciones de la Universidad de Magallanes.Google Scholar
Sagoff, M. (2004), Price, Principle, and the Environment, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sayman, S. and Önçüler, A. (2005), ‘Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA–WTP disparity: a meta analytical framework?’, Journal of Economic Psychology 26: 289–312.Google Scholar
Walsh, R., Loomis, J., and Gillman, R. (1984), ‘Valuing option, existence and bequest demand for wilderness’, Land Economics 60: 14–29.Google Scholar
Wattage, P., Glenn, H., Mardle, S., Van Rensburg, T., Grehan, A., and Foley, N. (2011), ‘Economic value of conserving deep-sea corals in Irish waters: a choice experiment study on marine protected areas’, Fisheries Research 107: 59–67.Google Scholar
Yachi, S. and Loreau, M. (1999), ‘Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96: 1463–1468.Google Scholar