Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 137–160 | Cite as

Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?

Article

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the empirical relationship between biodiversity conservation values and income. We use random effects panel models to examine the effects of income, and then GDP per capita, on willingness to pay for habitat and biodiversity conservation. In a meta-analysis, 145 Willingness To Pay estimates for biodiversity conservation where existence value plays a major role were collected from 46 contingent valuation studies across six continents. Other effects included in the meta-analysis were the study year; habitat type; continent; scope as presented to respondents; whether WTP bids were for preventing a deterioration or gaining an improvement in conservation, whether a specific species or specific habitat was protected; whether the questionnaire used a dichotomous choice or an open-ended format; distribution format; and the choice of payment vehicle. GDP per capita seemed to perform as well as an explanatory variable as respondent’s mean stated income, indicating that it is wealth in society as a whole which determines variations in WTP. Even if large variation, our main conclusion is, that the demand for biodiversity conservation rises with a nation’s wealth, but the income elasticity of willingness to pay is less than one.

Keywords

Meta-analysis Income effects Contingent valuation Existence values Environmental Kuznets Curve 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amigues JP, Boulatoff C, Desaigues B, Gauthier C, Keith JE (2002) The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecol Econ 43: 17–31. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00172-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armirnejad H, Khalilian S, Assareh MH, Ahmadian M (2006) Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method. Ecol Econ 58: 665–675. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.08.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bal F, Button KJ, Nijkamp P (2002) Ceteris paribus, meta-analysis and the value transfer. Socioecon Plann Sci 36: 127–138. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0121(01)00022-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandera R, Tisdell C (2004) The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study. Ecol Econ 48: 93–107. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbier EB (1997) Introduction to the environmental Kuznets curve. Environ Dev Econ 2: 369–381. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X97000193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman IJ, Langford IH (1997) ‘Non-users’ willingness to pay for a national park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Reg Stud 31: 571–582. doi: 10.1080/00343409750131703 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateman IJ, Jones AP (2003) Contrasting conventional with multi-level modelling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. Land Econ 79(2): 235–258. doi: 10.2307/3146869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateman IJ, Mawby J (2004) First impressions count: interviewer appearance and information effects in stated preference studies. Ecol Econ 49: 47–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD (1995) Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecol Econ 12: 161–179. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(94)00044-V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bateman I, Carson R, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N et al (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennett JW (1984) Using direct questioning to value the existence benefits of preserved natural areas. Aust J Agric Econ 28: 136–152Google Scholar
  12. Bergstrom JC, Dillman BL, Stoll JR (1985) Public environmental amenity benefits of private land: the case of prime agricultural land. South J Agric Econ, July 139–149Google Scholar
  13. Boiesen JH, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ, Strange N, Dubgaard A (2005) Værdisætning af de danske lyngheder [Valuation of Danish heathland]. Working paper 14, Forest & Landscape, p 68Google Scholar
  14. Bowker JM, Stoll JR (1988) Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. Am J Agric Econ 70: 372–381. doi: 10.2307/1242078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 18: 243–253. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brander LM, Florax RJGM, Vermaat JE (2006) The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environ Resour Econ 33: 223–250. doi: 10.1007/s10640-005-3104-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brander LM, Van Beukering P, Herman SJC (2007) The recreational value of coral reefs: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 63: 209–218. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brouwer R, Bateman I (2001) The temporal stability of contingent WTP values. In: Proceedings from EEARE 11th annual conference, University of Southampton, UK, 28–30 June 2001Google Scholar
  19. Brouwer R, Langford IH, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (1999) A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Reg Environ Change 1: 47–57. doi: 10.1007/s101130050007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bruvoll A, Faehn T, Strom B (2003) Quantifying central hypotheses on environmental Kuznets curves for a rich economy. Scott J Polit Econ 50(2): 149–173. doi: 10.1111/1467-9485.5002003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1994) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “Dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire. J Environ Econ Manage 27: 218–234. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1994.1035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1998) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “Dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire: reply. J Environ Econ Manage 35: 195–199. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1998.1026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Carson RT, Wilks L, Imber D (1994) Valuing the preservation of Australia’s Kakadu conservation zone. Oxf Econ Pap 46: 727–749Google Scholar
  24. Chang K, Ying YH (2005) ‘External benefits of preserving agricultural land: Taiwan’s rice fields. Soc Sci J 42: 285–293. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Christie M, Hanley N, Warren J, Murphy K, Wright R, Hyde T (2006) Valuing diversity of biodiversity. Ecol Econ 58: 304–317. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Deacon RT, Norman CS (2006) Does the environmental Kuznets Curve describe how countries behave. Land Econ 82(2): 291–315Google Scholar
  27. Ebert U (2003) Environmental goods and the distribution of income. Environ Resour Econ 25: 435–459. doi: 10.1023/A:1025052225929 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Flores NE, Carson RT (1997) The Relationship between the income elasticities of demand and willingness to pay. J Environ Econ Manage 33: 287–295. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1997.0998 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Franco D, Franco D, Mannino I, Zanetto G (2001) The role of agroforestry networks in landscape socioeconomic processes: the potential and limits of the contingent valuation method. Landsc Urban Plan 55: 239–256. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00158-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garcia-Lopez G (2006) Evaluating the validity of the benefit transfer approach: the case of manatee protection in Florida and Puerto Rico. Masters Thesis, Department of Land Economy, Cambridge UniversityGoogle Scholar
  31. Giraud KL, Loomis JB, Johnson RL (1999) Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. J Environ Manage 56: 221–229. doi: 10.1006/jema.1999.0277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Giraud K, Turcin B, Loomis J, Cooper J (2002) Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion. Mar Policy 26: 451–458. doi: 10.1016/S0308-597X(02)00025-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gong Y (2003) Opportunity cost of local people and WTP of off-site residents for biodiversity conservation in Fanjingshan National Nature Reserve in China. CCAP Working Paper 04-E1, 39 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. Greene WH (2002) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p 1026Google Scholar
  35. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110: 353–377. doi: 10.2307/2118443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hadker N, Sharma S, David A, Muraleedharan TR (1997) Willingness-to-pay for Borivli National Park: evidence from a contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 21: 105–122. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00094-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hailu A, Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC (2000) Complements, substitutes, budget constraints and valuation. Environ Resour Econ 16: 51–58. doi: 10.1023/A:1008328920083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hammitt J, Liu J-T, Liu J-L (2001) Contingent valuation of a Taiwanese wetland. Environ Dev Econ 6: 259–268. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X01000146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hanley N, Macmillan D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D et al (1998a) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agric Econ 49: 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998b) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11: 413–428. doi: 10.1023/A:1008287310583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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. doi: 10.1017/S1367943003003160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Heberlein TA, Matthew MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer NC (2005) Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 50: 1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2004.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hökby S, Söderqvist T (2003) Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environ Resour Econ 26: 361–383. doi: 10.1023/B:EARE.0000003581.97411.75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holmes TP, Bergstrom JC, Huszar E, Kask SB, Orr F (2004) Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecol Econ 49: 19–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL (2004) Methods of meta-analysis, correcting error and bias in research findings, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, London, p 582Google Scholar
  46. IMF (2007a) World economic outlook database, September 2006 edition. Downloaded from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/download.aspx on 5 January 2007
  47. IMF (2007b) World Economic Outlook, October 2007, Globalization and inequality. International Monetary Fund, Washington, 275 ppGoogle Scholar
  48. Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2008) Where to put a national park and what to put in it? An a priori study of the willingness-to-pay for coming national parks. Working paper, Forest & Landscape, Copenhagen University, p 31Google Scholar
  49. Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ, Boiesen JH, Anthon S, Tranberg J (2006) Værdisætning af syv mulige nationalparker i Danmark [Valuation of seven potential national parks in Denmark], Summary in English, Arbejdsrapport 28. Forest & Landscape KVL, Frederiksberg, p 63Google Scholar
  50. Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK (1996) Contingent valuation and endangered species. Methodological issues and applications. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 269Google Scholar
  51. Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK (2001) The worth of a Possom: valuing species with the contingent valuation method. Environ Resour Econ 19: 211–227. doi: 10.1023/A:1011128620388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Johnson RL, Bregenzer NS, Shelby B (1990) Contingent valuation question formats: dichotomous choice versus open-ended responses, pp 193–204. In: Johnson RL, Johnson GV(eds) Economic valuation of natural resources. Issues, theory and applications. Social Behaviour and Natural Resource Series. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA, p 220Google Scholar
  53. Kriström B, Riera P (1996) Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?. Environ Resour Econ 7: 45–55. doi: 10.1007/BF00420426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Krutilla JV, Fisher AC (1975) The economics of natural environments. Studies in the valuation of commodity and amenity resources, resources for the future. Colorado, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  55. Kuznets, (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review 49: 1–28Google Scholar
  56. Kwak S-J, Yoo S-H, Han S-Y (2003) Estimating the public’s value for urban forest in the Seoul metropolitan area of korea: a contingent valuation study. Urban Stud 40: 2207–2221. doi: 10.1080/0042098032000123259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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. doi: 10.1016/S1462-9011(03)00035-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. León CJ (1996) Double bounded survival values for preserving the landscape of natural parks. J Environ Manage 46: 103–118Google Scholar
  59. Lindhjem H (2007) 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. J For Econ 12: 251–277Google Scholar
  60. Lockwood M, Carberry D (1998) Stated preference surveys of remnant native vegetation conservation. Johnstone Centre, Report No. 104, Albury, 30 ppGoogle Scholar
  61. Loomis JB (1987) Expanding contingent value sample estimates to aggregate benefit estimates: current practices and proposed solutions. Land Econ 63: 396–402. doi: 10.2307/3146296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Loomis JB, White DS (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 18: 197–206. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(96)00029-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Loomis JB, Gonzales-Caban A (1998) A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire. Ecol Econ 25: 315–322. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00044-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Loomis J, Lockwood M, DeLacy T (1993) Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. J Environ Econ Manage 24: 45–55. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1993.1025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Loomis JB, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A (2000) Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol Econ 33: 103–117. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00131-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Macmillan DC, Duff EI, Elston DA (2001) Modelling the non-market environmental costs and benefits of biodiversity projects using contingent valuation data. Environ Resour Econ 18: 391–410. doi: 10.1023/A:1011169413639 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McPherson MA, Nieswiadomy ML (2005) Environmental Kuznets curve: threatened species and spatial effects. Ecol Econ 55: 395–407. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1994) Patterns of behavior in biodiversity preservation. The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 1358, 36 ppGoogle Scholar
  69. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods, The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC, 463 ppGoogle Scholar
  70. Munro A (2005) Household willingness to pay equals individual willingness to pay if and only if the household income pools. Econ Lett 88: 227–230. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2005.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nyborg K (2000) Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values. J Econ Behav Organ 42: 305–322. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00091-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pang F, Drummond M, Song F (1999) The use of meta-analysis in economic valuation. Discussion Paper 173, Centre for Health Economics, The University of York, 25 ppGoogle Scholar
  73. Pate J, Loomis L (1997) The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol Econ 20: 199–207. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00080-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Poe GL, Boyle KJ, Bergstrom JC (2000) A meta analysis of contingent values for groundwater quality in the United States. In: 10th Annual conference of the European association of environmental and resource economists, 30 June–2 July, University of Crete, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  75. Reaves DW, Kramer RA, Holmes TP (1999) Does question format matter? Valuing endangeres species. Environ Resour Econ 14: 365–383. doi: 10.1023/A:1008320621720 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Richer J (1995) Willingness to pay for desert protection. Contemp Econ Policy 13: 93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Riera P, Mogas J, Bennett J (2008) Forest value inference using contingent valuation and choice experiments. In: Birol E, Koundouri P(eds) Choice experiments informing European environmental policy. Edward–Elgar Publishing, Wally Oates and Henk Folmer’s ‘New Horizons in Environmental Economics’ Series. Cheltenham, UK, p 368Google Scholar
  78. Rondeau D, Schulze W, Poe G (1999) Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism. J Public Econ 72: 455–470. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(98)00104-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rosenberger RS, Loomis JB (2000) Panel stratification in meta-analysis of economic studies: an investigation of its effects in the recreation valuation literature. J Agric Appl Econ 32: 459–470Google Scholar
  80. Schläpfer F (2006) Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 57: 415–429. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shechter M, Reiser B, Zaitsev N (1998) Measuring passive use value, pledges, donations and CV responses in connection with an important natural resource. Environ Resour Econ 12: 457–478. doi: 10.1023/A:1008397411466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Smith VK, Kaoru Y (1990) Signals or noise? Explaining the variation in recreation benefit estimates. Am J Agric Econ 72: 419–433. doi: 10.2307/1242344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Smith VK, Osborne LL (1996) Do contingent valuation estimates pass a “scope” test? A meta-analysis. J Environ Econ Manage 31: 287–301. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Solomon BD, Corey-Luse CM, Halvorsen KE (2004) The Florida manatee and eco-tourism: toward a safe minimum standard. Ecol Econ 50: 101–115. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Spanniks F, Hoevenagel R (1995) Temporal embedding in contingent valuation: evidence from a study investigating the value of Wildlife Management in Agricultural Areas. In: Proceedings from the Sixth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Umeå, Sweden, June 18–20, 1995Google Scholar
  86. Streever WJ, Callaghan-Perry M, Searles A, Stevens T, Svoboda P (1998) Public attitudes and values for wetland conservation in New South Wales, Australia. J Environ Manage 54: 1–14. doi: 10.1006/jema.1998.0224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Subade RF (2005) Valuing biodiversity conservation in a world heritage site. Citizens Non-use B values for Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park, Philippines. Economy and Environmental Program for Southeast Asia, Research Report No. 2005-RP4, 68 ppGoogle Scholar
  88. Tsuge T, Washida T (2003) Economic valuation of the Seto Inland Sea by using an Internet CV survey. Mar Pollut Bull 47: 230–236. doi: 10.1016/S0025-326X(03)00058-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Turpie JK (2003) The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay. Ecol Econ 46: 199–216. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00122-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. van den Bergh J, Button KJ, Nijkamp P, Pepping GC (1997) Meta-analysis in environmental economics. Economy & Environment, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p 240Google Scholar
  91. Veisten K, Hoen HF, Navrud S, Strand J (2004) Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J Environ Manage 73: 317–331. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Walsh RG, Loomis JB, Gillman RA (1984) Valuing option, existence, and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Econ 60: 14–29. doi: 10.2307/3146089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Welsh MP, Poe GL (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ Manage 36: 170–185. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1998.1043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. White PCL, Gregory KW, Lindley PJ, Richards G (1997) Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: a case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. Biol Conserv 82: 345–354. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00036-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. White PCL, Bennett AC, Hayes EJV (2001) The use of willingness-to-pay approaches in mammal conservation. Mammal Rev 31: 151–167. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2907.2001.00083.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Woodward RT, Wui Y-S (2001) The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 37: 257–270. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00276-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zhongmin X, Guodong C, Zhiqiang Z, Zhiyong S, Loomis J (2003) Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecol Econ 44: 345–358. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00280-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Policy and Management Planning, Forest & LandscapeUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg C.Denmark
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of StirlingStirlingScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations