Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Valuing biodiversity attributes and water supply using choice experiments: a case study of La Campana Peñuelas Biosphere Reserve, Chile

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to assess public economic preferences for biodiversity conservation and water supply and to analyse the factors influencing those preferences. A survey based on the choice experiment method was carried out at Peñuelas National Reserve, Chile, an area that is threatened by both occasional forest fires and the growing housing market. The input of local administrators was used to define environmental attributes of the area related to biodiversity conservation and water supply. Attributes were selected for analysis by the choice experiment. The selected attributes were the following: existence of endemic orchid species, chances of observing animals with scenic attraction, additional protection for an endemic amphibian, and availability of drinkable water in the future. A monetary variable consisting of an increase in the rate for entry to the area was also incorporated to estimate willingness to pay (WTP) for additional protection for the selected attributes. Three hundred four Chilean visitors to the reserve were randomly selected for interviews. Econometric analysis based on the Theory of Utility Maximization shows that visitors are willing to pay to protect the selected attributes. WTP values for the attributes range from CHP $2,600 ($5.4) to $6,600 ($14) per person per visit. The results of this research provide reserve managers information about tradeoffs that could be used to enhance public support and maximise the social benefits of nature conservation management programmes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Pearce and Moran (1994), conceptually, the TEV of an environmental resource consists of its use value (UV) and non-use value (NUV). A use value is a value arising from the actual use made of a given resource. Use values are further divided into direct use values (DUV), which refer to actual uses such as fishing and timber extraction, indirect use values (IUV), which refer to the benefits deriving from ecosystem functions such as a forest’s function in protecting the watershed, and option values (OV), which are values approximating an individual’s willingness to pay to safeguard assets for the option of using them at a future date. Non-use values are usually divided between a bequest value (BQ) and an existence value (EV). Bequest values measure the benefit accruing to any individual from the knowledge that others might benefit from a resource in the future. Existence values refer to the benefit derived from the existence of any particular asset.

  2. Indicates the chances of observing a particular kind of animal.

  3. Not presented here.

  4. Embedding effects occur when one good is valued differently if it is included in a bundle of other goods as compared to an individual valuation of the good (Kahneman and Knetsch 1992; Dehnhardt and Meyerhoff 2002). The phenomenon is also known as insensitivity to scope (i.e., insensitivity to the quantity information presented to respondents).

  5. An English translation of the questionnaire is available from the author upon request.

  6. The validity of using photographic representations to assess perception of nature was established by different studies (e.g., Shuttleworth 1980; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). When individuals viewed photographs, the information within the image was not the only factor that influenced their attitude because the images generated memories of past experiences and previous knowledge (Williams and Cary 2002).

References

  • Adamowicz, V., Boxall, P., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Learner, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Washington: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I., & Willis, K. (1999). Valuing environmental preferences. Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., Pearce OBE, D. W., Sugden, R., & Swanson, R. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., & Blamey, R. (2001). The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berniger, K., Adamowicz, V., Kneeshaw, D., & Messier, C. (2010). Sustainable forest management preferences of interest groups in three regions with different levels of industrial forestry: an exploratory attribute-based choice experiment. Environmental Management, 46, 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biénabe, E., & Hearne, R. R. (2006). Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 335–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, R. K., Bennett, J. W., Louviere, J., Morrison, M. S., & Rolfe, J. (2000). A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies. Ecological Economics, 32, 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Liljenstolpe, C. (2003). Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 47, 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R., & Hyde, T. (2006). Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 58, 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrzan, K., & Orme, B. (2000). An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth Software 2000–2002. Research paper series, www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/desgncbc.pdf.

  • CONAF. (2008). Reserva de Biósfera La Campana-Peñuelas. Formulario de Propuesta de ampliación. Documento Base Programa MaB-UNESCO.

  • CONAMA. (2010). Creación de un Sistema Nacional Integral de Áreas Protegidas para Chile: Documentos de trabajo. ISBN: 978-956-7469-23-9.

  • Czajkowski, M., Buszko-Briggs, M., & Hanley, N. (2009). Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 68, 2910–2917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehnhardt, A., & Meyerhoff, J. (2002). Nachhaltige Entwicklung der Stromlandschaft Elbe. Nutzen und Kosten der Wiedergewinnung und Renaturierung von Überschwemmungsauen. Kiel: Vauk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-Páez, H., & Ortíz, J. (2003). Evaluación del estado de conservación de los anfibios en Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 76, 509–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsasser, P. (1996). Recreational benefits of forests in Germany. In C. S. Roper & A. Park (Eds.), The living forest. Non-market benefits of forestry (pp. 175–183). London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueroa, E., & Calfucura, E. (2006). Sustainable development in a natural resource rich economy: the case of Chile in 1985–2004. Environmental Development and Sustainability, 12, 647–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, A., & Hanley, N. (2007). Analysing decision behaviour in stated preference surveys: a consumer psychological approach. Ecological Economics, 61, 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, F., Yang, Z., & Wang, H. (2010). Estimating willingness to pay for environment conservation: a contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1798-4.

  • Hanley, N., Wright, R., & Adamowicz, W. (1998). Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hearne, R., & Salinas, Z. M. (2002). The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Costa Rica. Journal of Environmental Management, 65, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D., Rose, J., & Greene, W. (2005). Applied choice methods—a primer. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyos, D. (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 69, 1595–1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, J. B., & Thorsen, B. J. (2010). Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks. Ecological Economics, 69, 1532–1544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotchen, M., & Reiling, S. (2000). Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of non-use values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics, 32, 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., & Hensher, D. A. (1982). On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling. Transportation Research Record, 890, 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., & Woodworth, G. G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregated data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods. Analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C. (1977). The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision, 8, 229–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff, J., Liebe, U., & Hartje, V. (2009) Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: evidence from two choice experiments in Germany. Journal of Forest Economics, 15(1–2), 37–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., & Carson, R. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council of the National Academies. (2005). Valuing ecosystem services. Toward better environmental decision-making. Washington: The National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2005). Handbook of market creation for biodiversity: issues in implementation. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D., & Barbier, E. (2000). Blueprint for a sustainable economy. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D. W., & Moran, D. (1994). The economic value of biodiversity. IUCN—The World Conservation Union. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrings, C., Barbier, E., Brown, G., Dalmazzone, S., Folke, C., Gadgil, M., Hanley, N., Holling, C., Lesser, W. H., Mäler, K. G., Mason, P., Panayotou, T., Turner, R. K., & Wells, M. (1995). The economic value of biodiversity. In V. H. Heywood & R. Watson (Eds.), Global biodiversity assessment, published for the United Nations Environment Programme (pp. 823–914). Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajmis, S., Barkmann, J., & Marggraf, R. (2009). User community preferences for climate change mitigation and adaptation measures around Hainich National Park, Germany. Climate Research, 40, 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. (2004). Price, principle, and the environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shuttleworth, S. (1980). The use of photographs as an environmental preservation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11, 61–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonetti, J., Grez, A., & Bustamante, R. (2002). El valor de la matriz en la conservación ambiental. Ambiente y Desarrollo, 18(1), 51–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spash, C. L., Urama, L., Burton, R., Wendy, K., Shannon, P., & Hill, H. (2009). Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: economic, ethics and social psychology. Ecological Economics, 68, 955–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, T., Echeverría, J., Glass, R., Hager, T., & More, T. (1991). Measuring the existence value of wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show. Land Economics, 67(4), 390–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wattage, P., Glenn, H., Mardle, T., Van Rensburg, T., Grehan, A., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. J. H., & Cary, J. (2002). Landscape preferences, ecological quality and biodiversity protection. Environment and Behavior, 34, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this project was provided by the Vice-Rector for Research and Development at University of Chile. I thank the many students who helped with the survey conduction and data coding. My thanks to Mr. Claudio Ilabaca, representing the managers of the Peñuelas Reserve, for his assistance and support.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Claudia Cerda

    Present address: Department of Forest Resource Management, Faculty of Forestry and Conservation of Nature, University of Chile, Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago de Chile, Chile

Authors and Affiliations

    Authors
    1. Claudia Cerda
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Claudia Cerda.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Cite this article

    Cerda, C. Valuing biodiversity attributes and water supply using choice experiments: a case study of La Campana Peñuelas Biosphere Reserve, Chile. Environ Monit Assess 185, 253–266 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2549-5

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2549-5

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation