IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v11y2015icp115-127.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem service benefits: Case study of St Vincent and the Grenadines’ proposed marine protected areas

Author

Listed:
  • Christie, Michael
  • Remoundou, Kyriaki
  • Siwicka, Ewa
  • Wainwright, Warwick

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a choice experiment (CE) that values the ecosystem service benefits from extending the current network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in St Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG), Caribbean. We considered two future options: an ‘improved’ scenario in which marine protection is increased, and a ‘decline’ scenario in which current protection mechanisms are removed. The CE was administered at two sites (the degraded St Vincent South Coast and the pristine Tobago Cays) and to tourists and local residents. Results suggest that both groups value health protection, fishing, coastal protection, ecosystem resilience, and diving/snorkelling. Values are higher for the ‘decline’ scenario compared to the ‘improved’ scenario. Also, tourists had significantly higher WTP values than locals. Our analysis also enabled an evaluation of the benefits derived from alternative policy interventions that may be used to protect and enhance SVG’s marine parks. Stopping pollution from agriculture run-off and sewage was found to generate the highest ecosystem service benefits, with restricting over-fishing and bad fishing practices also being important. We demonstrate how economic valuation of marine ecosystem service might be used to design and target marine conservation policies that maximise welfare benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Christie, Michael & Remoundou, Kyriaki & Siwicka, Ewa & Wainwright, Warwick, 2015. "Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem service benefits: Case study of St Vincent and the Grenadines’ proposed marine protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 115-127.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:11:y:2015:i:c:p:115-127
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041614001181
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moberg, Fredrik & Folke, Carl, 1999. "Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 215-233, May.
    2. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    4. Kataria, Mitesh, 2009. "Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower regulated rivers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 69-76, January.
    5. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    6. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    7. Christie, Mike & Rayment, Matt, 2012. "An economic assessment of the ecosystem service benefits derived from the SSSI biodiversity conservation policy in England and Wales," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 70-84.
    8. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    9. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
    10. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    11. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brain, M.J & Nahuelhual, L. & Gelcich, S. & Bozzeda, F., 2020. "Marine conservation may not deliver ecosystem services and benefits to all: Insights from Chilean Patagonia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    2. Chakraborty, Shamik & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Blasiak, Robert, 2020. "Multiple values for the management and sustainable use of coastal and marine ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Bing Yu & Yuying Cai & Laiqun Jin & Bisheng Du, 2018. "Effects on Willingness to Pay for Marine Conservation: Evidence from Zhejiang Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    4. John Robinson, Peter & van Beukering, Pieter & Brander, Luke & Brouwer, Roy & Haider, W. & Taylor, Michael & Mau, Paulus, 2022. "Understanding the determinants of biodiversity non-use values in the context of climate change: Stated preferences for the Hawaiian coral reefs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    5. Kristīne Pakalniete & Heini Ahtiainen & Juris Aigars & Ingrīda Andersone & Aurelija Armoškaite & Henning Sten Hansen & Solvita Strāķe, 2021. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Service Benefits and Welfare Impacts of Offshore Marine Protected Areas: A Study from the Baltic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-30, September.
    6. Barbara Cavalletti & Matteo Corsi & Elena Lagomarsino, 2021. "Marine Sites and the Drivers of Wellbeing: Ecosystem vs. Anthropic Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-14, November.
    7. Barreiro-Hurle, Jesus & Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Martinez-Paz, Jose Miguel & Perni, Angel, 2018. "Choosing not to choose: A meta-analysis of status quo effects in environmental valuations using choice experiments," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 18(01), June.
    8. Buonocore, Elvira & Picone, Flavio & Donnarumma, Luigia & Russo, Giovanni F. & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2019. "Modeling matter and energy flows in marine ecosystems using emergy and eco-exergy methods to account for natural capital value," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 392(C), pages 137-146.
    9. Pascoe, Sean & Doshi, Amar & Kovac, Mladen & Austin, Angelica, 2019. "Estimating coastal and marine habitat values by combining multi-criteria methods with choice experiments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Wakita, Kazumi & Kurokura, Hisashi & Oishi, Taro & Shen, Zhonghua & Furuya, Ken, 2019. "Exploring the effect of psychometric variables on willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services: A survey in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 130-138.
    11. Castillo-Eguskitza, Nekane & Hoyos, David & Onaindia, Miren & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2019. "Unraveling local preferences and willingness to pay for different management scenarios: A choice experiment to biosphere reserve management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    12. Franzese, Pier Paolo & Buonocore, Elvira & Donnarumma, Luigia & Russo, Giovanni F., 2017. "Natural capital accounting in marine protected areas: The case of the Islands of Ventotene and S. Stefano (Central Italy)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 360(C), pages 290-299.
    13. Nguyen, Manh-Hung & Nguyen, Thi Lan Anh & Nguyen, Tuan & Reynaud, Arnaud & Simioni, Michel & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Economic analysis of choices among differing measures to manage coastal erosion in Hoi An (a UNESCO World Heritage Site)," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 529-543.
    14. Weber, Matthew A. & Meixner, Thomas & Stromberg, Juliet C., 2016. "Valuing instream-related services of wastewater," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 59-71.
    15. Buonocore, Elvira & Donnarumma, Luigia & Appolloni, Luca & Miccio, Antonino & Russo, Giovanni F. & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2020. "Marine natural capital and ecosystem services: An environmental accounting model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 424(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    2. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    4. Bujosa, Angel & Torres, Cati & Riera, Antoni, 2018. "Framing Decisions in Uncertain Scenarios: An Analysis of Tourist Preferences in the Face of Global Warming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 36-42.
    5. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    6. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    7. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method [Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    8. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    9. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    10. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    11. Kemper, Nathan & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Popp, Jennie & Bazzani, Claudia, 2016. "The Effects of Honesty Oath and Consequentiality in Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235381, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    13. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    14. Taro Ohdoko & Kentaro Yoshida, 2012. "Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 147-169, April.
    15. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    16. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Mavra Stithou & Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Danny Campbell, 2012. "Estimating the Value of Achieving “Good Ecological Status”in the Boyne River Catchmentin Ireland Using Choice Experiments," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 397-422.
    18. Imran Khan & Hongdou Lei & Gaffar Ali & Shahid Ali & Minjuan Zhao, 2019. "Public Attitudes, Preferences and Willingness to Pay for River Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-17, October.
    19. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    20. Taro Ohdoko & Satoru Komatsu & Shinji Kaneko, 2013. "Residential preferences for stable electricity supply and a reduction in air pollution risk: a benefit transfer study using choice modeling in China," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 15(3), pages 309-328, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:11:y:2015:i:c:p:115-127. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.