Literature DB >> 18410400

Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers.

Berta Martín-López1, Carlos Montes, Javier Benayas.   

Abstract

Recognition of the need to include economic criteria in the conservation policy decision-making process has encouraged the use of economic-valuation techniques. Nevertheless, whether it is possible to accurately assign economic values to biodiversity and if so what these values really represent is being debated. We reviewed 60 recent papers on economic valuation of biodiversity and carried out a meta-analysis of these studies to determine what factors affect willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. We analyzed the internal variables of the contingent-valuation method (measure of benefits, vehicle of payment, elicitation format, or timing of payment) and anthropomorphic, anthropocentric and scientific factors. Funding allocation mostly favored the conservation of species with anthropomorphic and anthropocentric characteristics instead of considering scientific factors. We recommend researchers and policy makers contemplate economic valuations of biodiversity carefully, considering the inherent biases of the contingent-valuation method and the anthropomorphic and anthropocentric factors resulting from the public's attitude toward species. Because of the increasing trend of including economic considerations in conservation practices, we suggest that in the future interdisciplinary teams of ecologists, economists, and social scientists collaborate and conduct comparative analyses, such as we have done here. Use of the contingent-valuation method in biodiversity conservation policies can provide useful information about alternative conservation strategies if questionnaires are carefully constructed, respondents are sufficiently informed, and the underlying factors that influence willingness to pay are identified.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18410400     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00921.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  16 in total

1.  Beauty ranking of mammalian species kept in the Prague Zoo: does beauty of animals increase the respondents' willingness to protect them?

Authors:  Eva Landová; Petra Poláková; Silvie Rádlová; Markéta Janovcová; Miroslav Bobek; Daniel Frynta
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2018-11-28

2.  Willingness to pay and the sensitivity of willingness to pay for interdisciplinary musculoskeletal clinics: a contingent valuation study in Quebec, Canada.

Authors:  Thomas G Poder; Jie He
Journal:  Int J Health Econ Manag       Date:  2016-08-04

3.  Use of "entertainment" chimpanzees in commercials distorts public perception regarding their conservation status.

Authors:  Kara K Schroepfer; Alexandra G Rosati; Tanya Chartrand; Brian Hare
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Threatened bird valuation in Australia.

Authors:  Kerstin K Zander; Gillian B Ainsworth; Jürgen Meyerhoff; Stephen T Garnett
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Financial costs of large carnivore translocations--accounting for conservation.

Authors:  Florian J Weise; Ken J Stratford; Rudolf J van Vuuren
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment.

Authors:  Ferdinando Villa; Kenneth J Bagstad; Brian Voigt; Gary W Johnson; Rosimeiry Portela; Miroslav Honzák; David Batker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Meta-analysis of attitudes toward damage-causing mammalian wildlife.

Authors:  Ruth Kansky; Martin Kidd; Andrew T Knight
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2014-03-24       Impact factor: 6.560

8.  Quantifying preferences for the natural world using monetary and nonmonetary assessments of value.

Authors:  Martin Dallimer; Dugald Tinch; Nick Hanley; Katherine N Irvine; James R Rouquette; Philip H Warren; Lorraine Maltby; Kevin J Gaston; Paul R Armsworth
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2013-12-26       Impact factor: 6.560

9.  Testing advances in molecular discrimination among Chinook salmon life histories: evidence from a blind test.

Authors:  Michael A Banks; David P Jacobson; Isabelle Meusnier; Carolyn A Greig; Vanessa K Rashbrook; William R Ardren; Christian T Smith; Jeremiah Bernier-Latmani; John Van Sickle; Kathleen G O'Malley
Journal:  Anim Genet       Date:  2014-03-15       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Socio-cultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems.

Authors:  Alberto Bernués; Tamara Rodríguez-Ortega; Raimon Ripoll-Bosch; Frode Alfnes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.