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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    See e.g. Navrud and Mungatana (1994), Loomis and White (1996), White et al. (1997), Kontoleon and Swanson (2003), Christie et al. (2006), Jacobsen et al. (2008) and Morse-Jones et al. (2012). There is a similar trend in conservation and conservation biology (Miller and Hobbs 2002; Dunn et al. 2006) which is not uncontroversial (Gaston and Fuller 2008). One exception to this is Clucas et al. (2015), who assess the total economic value of two common songbird species in Berlin and Seattle. They use the contingent valuation method to elicit the willingness-to-pay of survey participants to increase the population of two common songbirds by an unspecified amount, and combine this with self-reported expenditure on bird food. Another exception is Farmer et al. (2011), who use a hedonic study of house prices to estimate the value of an increase in a local bird diversity index.

  2. 2.

    As given to participants in printed form when making their choices. The full instructions used to introduce participants to the choice experiment are available as supplementary material.

  3. 3.

    The electronic version of this paper shows all figures in their original colours.

  4. 4.

    The latter can be justified by looking at the results for tits which is the only species for which no, one or multiple individuals could be observed in the choice set. In Table 5, Regression (2) the coefficient to observe multiple rather than one tit is 1.161. Dividing this by 2.5 yields 0.464 which is very close to the coefficient of tit_single (0.458) and well within its 95 %-confidence interval [0.309; 0.607].

  5. 5.

    This refers to their willingness to substitute one bird species for another. Results (p values) of chi squared tests: robin_single versus bullfinch_single 0.31, robin_single versus tit_single 0.004, bullfinch versus tit_single 0.092, tit_multiple versus blackbird_multiple 0.001, tit_multiple versus sparrow_multiple 0.000. woodpigeon_single is significantly negative while all other species coefficients are significantly positive in Regression (2).

  6. 6.

    Note that in regression (2) the difference in the coefficients is not significant.

  7. 7.

    Results (not presented) for the subsample focusing on participants that never feed birds (\(\hbox {N} = 39\)) look very similar to those in Regression (3).

  8. 8.

    For the first two samples the differences between motives is significant at the 0.1 %-level for all pairwise comparisons. For experienced and benefactor participants only the two highest ranked reasons are not significantly different from each other. The differences between samples are highly significant as well, with the following exceptions: the score for ‘enjoyment from looking at them’ for the two experienced samples is not different, as would be expected, and the scores for the food waste motive are not different across samples.

References

  1. Adamwicz V, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preference approaches to measuring passive use values. Am J Agric Econ 80:64–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J 100(401):464–477

  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, Northampton

    Google 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):127–141

    Article  Google 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):106–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bennett J, Blamey R (eds) (2001) The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton

    Google 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):304–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clucas B, Rabotyagov S, Marzluff JM (2015) How much is that birdie in my backyard? Urban Ecosyst 18:251–266

    Article  Google 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):761–771

    Article  Google 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 Research

  12. Diener E, Biswas-Diener R (2011) Happiness: unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth. Wiley, New York

    Google 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):94–122

    Article  Google 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):1814–1816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dutcher DD, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Johnson JB (2007) Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environ Behav 39(4):474–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Farmer MC, Wallace MC, Shiroya M (2011) Bird diversity indicates ecological value in urban home prices. Urban Ecosyst 16(1):131–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Frey BS, Stutzer A (2010) Happiness and public choice. Public Choice 144(3–4):557–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gaston KJ, Fuller RA (2008) Commonness, population depletion and conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 23(1):14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gibbons S, Mourato S, Resende GM (2014) The amenity value of English nature: a hedonic price approach. Environ Resour Econ 57(2):175–196

    Article  Google 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):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11(3–4):413–428

    Article  Google 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):931–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoyos D (2010) The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol Econ 69(8):1595–1603

    Article  Google 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):28–36

    Article  Google 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):247–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Johnson TD (2011) Pets can be a prescription for happier, healthier life. Nation’s Health 40:10–32

    Google 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):1–7

    Article  Google 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):483–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74(2):132–157

  30. List JA (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Q J Econ 118(1):41–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Loomis JB, White DS (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 18(3):197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  33. McFadden D (1974) Conditional Logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (ed) Front Econom. Academic Press, New York, pp 105–142

    Google Scholar 

  34. Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Econ 72(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conserv Biol 16(2):330–337

    Article  Google 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 78:9–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Navrud S, Mungatana ED (1994) Environmental valuation in developing countries: the recreational value of wildlife viewing. Ecol Econ 11(2):135–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Norfolk County Council (2013) Norfolk’s Story, Version 4.0. www.insight@norfolk.org.uk

  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 39:203–222

    Article  Google 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):251–272

    Article  Google 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, Yliopistopaino

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rolfe J, Bennett J (2009) The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments. Ecol Econ 68(4):1140–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rosen H, Small K (1979) Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. NBER Working Paper 319 (Feb)

  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):435–453

    Article  Google 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, Alberta

    Google Scholar 

  49. Tinbergen N (1953) The herring gull’s world. Collins, London, pp 176–181

    Google 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):345–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the editors, two anonymous referees, Nick Hanley and Alistair Munro for helpful comments and suggestions. We are grateful to James Parrish of Parrish Farms for providing the data on bird food sales and to Steve Boon and the staff of Notcutts Norwich for their support and the permission to conduct the choice experiment on their premises. This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council through a studentship for Michael Brock.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grischa Perino.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 937 KB)

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 9.

Table 9 Rankings of the RPSB Big Garden Bird Watch (BGBW) Survey 2012

Appendix 2: Survey Instructions Key

You will need to use this to understand the cases you are presented with

Species

Cases will indicate the type and frequency of species that may come to your garden. Frequency estimations are described in the table below:

Rating Description
  This species will not come to your garden
figurea
Expect 1 bird of this species to come to your garden
figureb
Expect an average of between 2 and 5 birds of this species to come to your garden

This is the frequency estimation for each time the food is dispensed. The average person would expect to obtain 20 feeding opportunities from each bag.

Visibility

If instead of being shown in full colour, a bird is shown faded, this will mean these birds will feed in your garden from the food you have dispensed, but you will not see them. An example illustrates this below. Here, whilst 2–5 of these birds will feed in your garden, you will only actually see one of them.

figurec

Here are the six different species that may be seen as a consequence of dispensing bird food. The species appear below in their natural plumage (colouring) and will always appear in the same position on a choice card if present.

figured

Nutrition

Each option has a

figuree

rating. These act like ‘Hotel ratings’, ranging from one-star to three-star categories. A one-star option will provide basic nourishment, and options with more stars will provide a greater level of nutrition to each bird which is fed.

Price and Donations

The price of an option represents the amount you would have to pay to obtain that seed bag[Please remember no actual purchases will be made as part of this survey].

In some cases, this price includes a donation. This donation contributes toward habitat restoration which aims to raise the population of the Bittern in East Anglia.

The Bittern is a very rare and elusive species, and over two thirds of its remaining UK population live among East Anglian reedbeds currently. If a donation is being made, this will be clearly indicated on the choice case.

figuref

Appendix 3: Bird Quiz Sheet

Possible bird names Letter
Chaffinch  
Robin  
Grey heron  
Lesser-spotted woodpecker  
Blue tit  
Woodpigeon  
Blackbird  
Bullfinch  
Song thrush  
Kestrel  
Collared dove  
Dunnock  
Mallard  
Tree sparrow  
House sparrow  
Great tit  

Appendix 4: Template of Respondent Survey

figureg
figureh

This is the end of the survey! Thanks again for your participation; both your responses and time have been invaluable and essential to the research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brock, M., Perino, G. & Sugden, R. The Warden Attitude: An Investigation of the Value of Interaction with Everyday Wildlife. Environ Resource Econ 67, 127–155 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9979-9

Download citation

Keywords

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

JEL Classification

  • Q26
  • Q57
  • H41