Environmental Economics and Policy Studies

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

Valuation of species and nature conservation in Asia and Oceania: a meta-analysis

  • Henrik Lindhjem
  • Tran Huu Tuan
Research Article


We conduct a meta-analysis (MA) of around 100 studies valuing species and nature conservation in Asia and Oceania, using both revealed and stated preferences methods. Dividing our dataset into two levels of heterogeneity in terms of good characteristics (species vs. nature conservation more generally) and valuation methods, we show that the degree of regularity and conformity with theory and empirical expectations is higher for the more homogenous dataset of contingent valuation of species. For example, we find that willingness to pay (WTP) for preservation of mammals tends to be higher than other species and that WTP for species preservation increases with income (elasticity below one). For the full dataset we find that marine habitats are valued significantly higher than other habitat types in the region. Despite some encouraging results, more research is required to answer the question of how homogenous is homogenous enough in MA, especially when moving towards using MA for benefit transfer and policy use.


Asia Biodiversity Meta-analysis Oceania Valuation 

JEL Classification

Q26 Q51 Q57 H41 



We would like to thank Vic Adamowicz, Ståle Navrud and Randall Rosenberger for constructive comments. Funding from the Environment and Economy Programme for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) is greatly appreciated.

Supplementary material

10018_2011_19_MOESM1_ESM.docx (73 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 72 kb)


  1. Bandara R, Tisdell C (2005) Changing Abundance of Elephants and Willingness to Pay for their Conservation. J Environ Manag 76:47–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrio M, Loureiro M (2010) A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecol Econ 69:1023–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman IJ, Jones AP (2003) Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. Land Econ 79:235–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R, Swanson T (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergstrom JC, Taylor LO (2006) Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: theory and practice. Ecol Econ 60:351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brander LM, Florax RJGM, Verrmaat JE (2006) The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environ Resour Econ 33:223–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brander LM, van Beukering P, Cesar H (2007) The recreational value of coral reefs: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 63:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carson RT, Flores NE, Martin KM, Wright JL (1996) Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Econ 72:80–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Champ PA, Flores NE, Brown TC, Chivers J (2002) Contingent valuation and incentives. Land Econ 78:591–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Banzhaf HS (1998) Environmental policy analysis with limited information: principles and applications of the transfer method. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  11. Engel S (2002) Benefit function transfer versus meta-analysis as policy-making tools: a comparison. In: Florax RJGM, Nijkamp P, Willis KG (eds) Comparative environmental economic assessment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 133–153Google Scholar
  12. Freeman AMI (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values. Resource for the Future Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Fromm O (2000) Ecological structure and functions of biodiversity as elements of its total economic value. Environ Resour Econ 16:303–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glass GV, McGaw B, Smith ML (1981) Meta-analysis in social research. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoehn JP (2006) Methods to address selection effects in the meta regression and transfer of ecosystem values. Ecol Econ 60:389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacobsen JB, Hanley N (2009) Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Environ Resour Econ 43:137–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacobsen JB, Boiesen JH, Thorsen BJ, Strange N (2008) What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity. Environ Resour Econ 39:247–263Google Scholar
  18. Jianjun J, Zhishi W, Xuemin L (2008) Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: A policy and contingent valuation study. Ecol Econ 68:328–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Iovanna R, Miller CJ, Wardwell RF, Ranson MH (2005) Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: a meta-analysis. Can J Agric Econ 53:221–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Ranson MH (2006) Characterizing the effects of valuation methodology in function-based benefits transfer. Ecol Econ 60:407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kriström B, Riera P (1996) Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one? Environ Resour Econ 7:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindhjem H (2007) 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. J Forest Econ 12:251–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindhjem H, Navrud S (2008) How reliable are meta-analyses for international benefit transfers? Ecol Econ 66:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindhjem H, Navrud S (2009) Asking for individual or household willingness to pay for environmental goods: implication for aggregate welfare measures. Environmental and resource economics 43:11–29Google Scholar
  25. Lindhjem H, Navrud S (2011a) Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation? Ecol Econ 70:1628–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindhjem H, Navrud S (2011b) Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: a review and comparison of survey modes. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ (Forthcoming)Google Scholar
  27. Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Econ 72:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Synthesis report. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. Moeltner K, Boyle K, Paterson RW (2007) Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation—addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling. J Environ Econ Manag 53:250–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Navrud S, Ready R (eds) (2007) Environmental value transfer: issues and methods. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  31. Nelson JP, Kennedy PE (2009) The use (and Abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource economics: an assessment. Environ Resour Econ 42:345–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pearce D (2005) Economists and biodiversity conservation: what can we contribute?. EAERE, BremenGoogle Scholar
  33. Ready R, Navrud S (2006) International benefit transfer: methods and validity tests. Ecol Econ 60:429–434Google Scholar
  34. Richardson L, Loomis J (2009) The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecol Econs 68:1535–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenberger RS, Johnston RJ (2009) Selection effects in meta-analysis and benefit transfer: avoiding unintended consequences. Land Econ 85:410–428Google Scholar
  36. Rosenberger R, Loomis J (2000a) Panel stratification in meta-analysis of economic studies: an investigation of its effects in the recreation valuation literature. J Agric Appl Econ 32:131–149Google Scholar
  37. Rosenberger RS, Loomis JB (2000b) Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: in-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resour Res 36:1097–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schläpfer F (2006) Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 57:415–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shrestha RK, Loomis JB (2003) Meta-analytic benefit transfer of outdoor recreation economic values: testing out-of-sample convergent validity. Environ Resour Econ 25:79–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith VK, Pattanayak SK (2002) Is meta-analysis a Noah’s Ark for non-market valuation? Environ Resour Econ 22:271–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stanley TD, Jarrel SD (2005) Meta-regression analysis: a quantitative method of literature surveys. J Econ Surveys 19:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stapler RW, Johnston RJ (2009) Meta-analysis, benefit transfer, and methodological covariates: implications for transfer error. Environ Resour Econ 42:227–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tuan TH, Lindhjem H (2009) Meta-analysis of nature conservation values in Asia and Oceania: data heterogeneity and benefit transfer issues. In: Lindhjem H (ed) Methodological issues in meta-analysis, benefit transfer and environmental valuation. PhD Thesis. Department of Economics and Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NorwegianGoogle Scholar
  44. USEPA (2006) Report of the EPA work group on VSL meta-analysis, report NCEE-0494. National Center for Environmental Economics, EPA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Houtven G, Powers J, Pattanayak SK (2007) Valuing water quality improvements using meta-analysis: is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis? Resour Energy Econ 29:206–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiser R (2007) Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecol Econ 62:419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zandersen M, Tol RSJ (2009) A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. J Forest Econ 15:109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)OsloNorway
  2. 2.College of Economics, Hue UniversityHueVietnam

Personalised recommendations