IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i17p10692-d899525.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monetary Valuation of Protected Wild Animal Species as a Contingent Assessment in North Sulawesi, Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Jerry Mauri

    (Forestry Economics and Management College, Northeast Forestry University, No. 26 Hexing Road, Harbin 150040, China
    Education Department, Papua Adventist College, Jl. Kusuma Bangsa, Nabire 98816, Indonesia)

  • Yingli Huang

    (Forestry Economics and Management College, Northeast Forestry University, No. 26 Hexing Road, Harbin 150040, China)

  • Jun Harbi

    (Forestry Economics and Management College, Northeast Forestry University, No. 26 Hexing Road, Harbin 150040, China
    Forestry Program Study, Faculty of Agriculture, Muhammadiyah University of Palembang, Jl. Jend. A. Yani, Dua, 13 Ulu, Palembang 30263, Indonesia)

  • Nathan James Roberts

    (College of Wildlife and Protected Area, Northeast Forestry University, No. 26 Hexing Road, Harbin 150040, China)

Abstract

Virtually every country has a problem with preserving protected wild animals, and some countries have their way of protecting animals through legal measures. Animals are a nation’s wealth, just as are forest timber and non-timber forest products. This asset has an economic value that is worth quantifying. Ecosystem assessment is becoming an increasingly crucial factor in determining how much the environment contributes to economic value. Such studies require additional monetary modeling and evaluation of non-market services. This research presents a willingness to pay (WTP) approach to calculate the value of protecting wild animal species. The study area was in North Sulawesi, one of Indonesia’s provinces located at the northern tip of Sulawesi Island. The questionnaire format for collecting data was the dichotomous choice contingency assessment method (DCCVM), and the sample size was 428 respondents. Based on willingness to pay, we assessed the contingency of single bounded dichotomous choice (SBDC) by estimating each protected animal’s average (mean) value in three classes, namely mammals, birds, and reptiles. The mean result of the monetary assessment of protected mammal species was IDR 1,801,870 (USD 124.27), IDR 836,670 (USD 57.70) for protected bird species, and IDR 819,700 (USD 56.53) for protected reptiles. Any loss in wild animals incurs a natural resource debt burden for future generations to repay, just as does forest loss. If we do not want to leave the forest empty for our future generations, we must continue implementing nature conservation measures, including the protection and restoration of wild animals.

Suggested Citation

  • Jerry Mauri & Yingli Huang & Jun Harbi & Nathan James Roberts, 2022. "Monetary Valuation of Protected Wild Animal Species as a Contingent Assessment in North Sulawesi, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10692-:d:899525
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10692/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10692/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cardoso, Andrea, 2015. "Behind the life cycle of coal: Socio-environmental liabilities of coal mining in Cesar, Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 71-82.
    2. Recuero Virto, Laura & Weber, Jean-Louis & Jeantil, Mathilde, 2018. "Natural Capital Accounts and Public Policy Decisions: Findings From a Survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 244-259.
    3. Azqueta, Diego & Sotelsek, Daniel, 2007. "Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 22-30, June.
    4. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    5. Maria-Gabriella Baldarelli & Mara Del Baldo & Ninel Nesheva-Kiosseva, 2017. "Environmental Accounting and Reporting," CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance, Springer, number 978-3-319-50918-1, May.
    6. Hyo-Jin Kim & Se-Jun Jin & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Public Assessment of Releasing a Captive Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin into the Wild in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-8, September.
    7. Carolyn Fischer, 2010. "Does Trade Help or Hinder the Conservation of Natural Resources?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 103-121, Winter.
    8. Wu Yang & Thomas Dietz & Wei Liu & Junyan Luo & Jianguo Liu, 2013. "Going Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: An Index System of Human Dependence on Ecosystem Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-9, May.
    9. Marija Opačak & Erda Wang, 2019. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for a Future Recreational Park Atop the Current Jakuševec Landfill in Zagreb, Croatia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-16, October.
    10. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    11. Agnieszka Lorek & Paweł Lorek, 2021. "Social Assessment of the Value of Forests and Protected Areas on the Example of the Silesian Voivodeship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, March.
    12. Gundimeda, Haripriya & Sukhdev, Pavan & Sinha, Rajiv K. & Sanyal, Sanjeev, 2007. "Natural resource accounting for Indian states -- Illustrating the case of forest resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 635-649, March.
    13. Tisdell, Clem & Wilson, Clevo & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2008. "Contingent valuation as a dynamic process," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1443-1458, August.
    14. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    15. Bartelmus, Peter, 2009. "The cost of natural capital consumption: Accounting for a sustainable world economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1850-1857, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Kevin A. Decker & Philip Watson, 2017. "Estimating willingness to pay for a threatened species within a threatened ecosystem," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(8), pages 1347-1365, August.
    18. Voltaire, Louinord, 2017. "Pricing Future Nature Reserves Through Contingent Valuation Data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 66-75.
    19. Muuz Hadush, 2018. "Welfare and food security response of animal feed and water resource scarcity in Northern Ethiopia," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 6(1), pages 1-24, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Comte, Adrien & Sylvie Campagne, C. & Lange, Sabine & Bruzón, Adrián García & Hein, Lars & Santos-Martín, Fernando & Levrel, Harold, 2022. "Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    2. C. Feger & Laurent Mermet, 2021. "Advances in accounting for biodiversity and ecosystems: a typology focusing upon the environmental results imperative [Innovations comptables pour la biodiversité et les écosystèmes : une typologie," Post-Print hal-02549016, HAL.
    3. Dai, Xuhuan & Li, Bo & Zheng, Hua & Yang, Yanzheng & Yang, Zihan & Peng, Chenchen, 2023. "Can sedentarization decrease the dependence of pastoral livelihoods on ecosystem services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    4. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    5. Nicholas Z. Muller, 2014. "Toward the Measurement of Net Economic Welfare: Air Pollution Damage in the US National Accounts–2002, 2005, 2008," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Economic Sustainability and Progress, pages 429-459, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Warnell, Katherine J.D. & Russell, Marc & Rhodes, Charles & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Olander, Lydia P. & Nowak, David J. & Poudel, Rajendra & Glynn, Pierre D. & Hass, Julie L. & Hirabayashi, Satoshi & In, 2020. "Testing ecosystem accounting in the United States: A case study for the Southeast," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    7. Sipei Pan & Jiale Liang & Wanxu Chen & Jiangfeng Li & Ziqi Liu, 2021. "Gray Forecast of Ecosystem Services Value and Its Driving Forces in Karst Areas of China: A Case Study in Guizhou Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Cavalletti, B. & Di Fabio, C. & Lagomarsino, E. & Ramassa, P., 2020. "Ecosystem accounting for marine protected areas: A proposed framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    9. Huashun Dou & Xiaobing Li & Shengkun Li & Dongliang Dang, 2018. "How to Detect Scale Effect of Ecosystem Services Supply? A Comprehensive Insight from Xilinhot in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-21, October.
    10. Xu, Xibao & Jiang, Bo & Tan, Yan & Costanza, Robert & Yang, Guishan, 2018. "Lake-wetland ecosystem services modeling and valuation: Progress, gaps and future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 19-28.
    11. Capriolo, A. & Boschetto, R.G. & Mascolo, R.A. & Balbi, S. & Villa, F., 2020. "Biophysical and economic assessment of four ecosystem services for natural capital accounting in Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    12. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    13. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    14. Choquet, Pauline & Gabrielle, Benoit & Chalhoub, Maha & Michelin, Joël & Sauzet, Ophélie & Scammacca, Ottone & Garnier, Patricia & Baveye, Philippe C. & Montagne, David, 2021. "Comparison of empirical and process-based modelling to quantify soil-supported ecosystem services on the Saclay plateau (France)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    15. Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Belton, Valerie & Hjerppe, Turo & Marttunen, Mika, 2020. "Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis – Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    16. Shuyao Wu & Jiao Huang & Shuangcheng Li, 2020. "Classifying ecosystem disservices and comparing their effects with ecosystem services in Beijing, China," Papers 2001.01605, arXiv.org.
    17. 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.
    18. Gren, Ing-Marie & Isacs, Lina, 2009. "Ecosystem services and regional development: An application to Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2549-2559, August.
    19. Ana Carolina V. Nadalini & Ricardo de Araujo Kalid & Ednildo Andrade Torres, 2021. "Emergy as a Tool to Evaluate Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-14, June.
    20. Jarmila Makovníková & Stanislav Kološta & Filip Flaška & Boris Pálka, 2023. "Potential of Regulating Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital in Model Regions of Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, January.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10692-:d:899525. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.