Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 127–155 | Cite as

The Warden Attitude: An Investigation of the Value of Interaction with Everyday Wildlife



Using a discrete choice experiment, we elicit valuations of engagement with ‘everyday wildlife’ through feeding garden birds. We find that bird-feeding is primarily but not exclusively motivated by the direct consumption value of interaction with wildlife. The implicit valuations given to different species suggest that people prefer birds that have aesthetic appeal and that evoke human feelings of protectiveness. These findings suggest that people derive wellbeing by adopting a warden-like role towards ‘their’ wildlife. We test for external validity by conducting a hedonic analysis of sales of bird food. We discuss some policy implications of the existence of warden attitudes.


Use value Everyday wildlife Discrete choice experiment  Nature connectivity Warden attitude Garden birds Hedonic 

JEL Classification

Q26 Q57 H41 

Supplementary material

10640_2015_9979_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (937 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 937 KB)


  1. Adamwicz V, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preference approaches to measuring passive use values. Am J Agric Econ 80:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J 100(401):464–477Google Scholar
  3. Bateman I, Carson R, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce D, Sudgen R, Swanson J (2002) Economics valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Publishing, NorthamptonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman IJ, Burgess D, Hutchinson WG, Matthews DI (2008) Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J Environ Econ Manag 55(2):127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Jones AP, Jude S (2009) Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J Environ Econ Manag 58(1):106–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  7. BTO (2014) A–Z of garden birds, British Trust for Ornithology. http://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/gbw/gardens-wildlife/garden-birds/a-z-garden-birds. Accessed 24 April 2015
  8. Christie M, Hanley N, Warren J, Murphy K, Wright R, Hyde T (2006) Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol Econ 58(2):304–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clucas B, Rabotyagov S, Marzluff JM (2015) How much is that birdie in my backyard? Urban Ecosyst 18:251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies ZG, Fuller RA, Loram A, Irvine KN, Sims V, Gaston KJ (2009) A national scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biol Conserv 142(4):761–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diederich J, Goeschl T (2013) To give or not to give: the price of contributing and the provision of public goods (No. w19332). National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener E, Biswas-Diener R (2011) Happiness: unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Dolan P, Peasgood T, White M (2008) Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. J Econ Psychol 29(1):94–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunn RR, Gavin MC, Sanchez MC, Solomon JN (2006) The pigeon paradox: dependence of global conservation on urban nature. Conserv Biol 20(6):1814–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dutcher DD, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Johnson JB (2007) Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environ Behav 39(4):474–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farmer MC, Wallace MC, Shiroya M (2011) Bird diversity indicates ecological value in urban home prices. Urban Ecosyst 16(1):131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frey BS, Stutzer A (2010) Happiness and public choice. Public Choice 144(3–4):557–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaston KJ, Fuller RA (2008) Commonness, population depletion and conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 23(1):14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbons S, Mourato S, Resende GM (2014) The amenity value of English nature: a hedonic price approach. Environ Resour Econ 57(2):175–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanley N, MacMillan D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B (1998) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agric Econ 49(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11(3–4):413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hole DG, Whittingham MJ, Bradbury RB, Anderson GQ, Lee PL, Wilson JD, Krebs JR (2002) Agriculture: widespread local house–sparrow extinctions. Nature 418(6901):931–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoyos D (2010) The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol Econ 69(8):1595–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inger R, Gregory R, Duffy JP, Stott I, Voříšek P, Gaston KJ (2015) Common European birds are declining rapidly while less abundant species’ numbers are rising. Ecol Lett 18(1):28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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(3):247–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson TD (2011) Pets can be a prescription for happier, healthier life. Nation’s Health 40:10–32Google Scholar
  27. Jones D (2011) An appetite for connection: why we need to understand the effect and value of feeding wild birds. Emu 111(2):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kontoleon A, Swanson T (2003) The willingness to pay for property rights for the Giant Panda: Can a charismatic species be an instrument for nature conservation? Land Econ 79(4):483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74(2):132–157Google Scholar
  30. List JA (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Q J Econ 118(1):41–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loomis JB, White DS (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 18(3):197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McFadden D (1974) Conditional Logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (ed) Front Econom. Academic Press, New York, pp 105–142Google Scholar
  34. Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Econ 72(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conserv Biol 16(2):330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morse-Jones S, Bateman IJ, Kontoleon A, Ferrini S, Burgess ND, Turner RK (2012) Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects. Ecol Econ 78:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Navrud S, Mungatana ED (1994) Environmental valuation in developing countries: the recreational value of wildlife viewing. Ecol Econ 11(2):135–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Norfolk County Council (2013) Norfolk’s Story, Version 4.0. www.insight@norfolk.org.ukGoogle Scholar
  39. Norfolk Insights (2013) Population statistics, access to the 2011 Census data for the region.http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk/profiles/profile?profileId=18&geoTypeId=. Accessed 26 April 2015
  40. Nunes P, van den Bergh J (2001) Economic valuation of biodiversity: Sense or nonsense? Ecol Econ 39:203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parrish’s Farm (2014) Feeding tips. http://www.parrishsfarm.org.uk/feedingtips.html. Accessed 24 April 2015
  42. Perino G, Andrews B, Kontoleon A, Bateman I (2014) The value of urban green space in Britain: a methodological framework for spatially referenced benefit transfer. Environ Resour Econ 57(2):251–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rappe E (2005) The influence of a green environment and horticultural activities on the subjective well-being of the elderly living in long-term care. University of Helsinki, YliopistopainoGoogle Scholar
  44. Rolfe J, Bennett J (2009) The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments. Ecol Econ 68(4):1140–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosen H, Small K (1979) Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. NBER Working Paper 319 (Feb)Google Scholar
  46. RSPB (2014) Which bird food, Royal Society for the protection of birds. http://shopping.rspb.org.uk/which-bird-food. Accessed 24 April 2015
  47. Scheufele G, Bennett J (2012) Response strategies and learning in discrete choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ 52(3):435–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Swait J, Adamowicz W (1996) The effect of choice environment and task demands on consumer behavior: discriminating between contribution and confusion. Department of Rural Economy, Faculty of Agriculture & Forestry, and Home Economics, University of Alberta, AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  49. Tinbergen N (1953) The herring gull’s world. Collins, London, pp 176–181Google Scholar
  50. White PC, 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(3):345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.Department of SocioeconomicsUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations