IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v79y2003i4p483-499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Willingness to Pay for Property Rights for the Giant Panda: Can a Charismatic Species Be an Instrument for Nature Conservation?

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Kontoleon
  • Timothy Swanson

Abstract

This paper presents the results from a contingent valuation (CV) that elicited willingness to pay (WTP) of OECD citizens, for the conservation of the Giant Panda. The study investigates the extent to which such a charismatic or flagship species can be used to promote wider biodiversity conservation. There exists an internally consistent WTP for the purchase of property rights of the habitat required for the conservation of the panda. This WTP is shown to consist largely of the value placed on the ‘‘naturalness’’ of the species, implying that the symbolic nature of the panda might be a potential in

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Kontoleon & Timothy Swanson, 2003. "The Willingness to Pay for Property Rights for the Giant Panda: Can a Charismatic Species Be an Instrument for Nature Conservation?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 483-499.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:79:y:2003:i:4:p:483-499
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/79/4/483
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    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. Timothy M. Swanson & Andreas Kontoleon, 2000. "Why Did the Protected Areas Fail the Giant Panda?," World Economics, World Economics, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 1(4), pages 135-148, October.
    2. Rollins, Kimberly & Lyke, Audrey, 1998. "The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 324-344, November.
    3. Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1996. "Patterns of Behavior in Endangered Species Preservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 1-16.
    4. McConnell, K. E., 1997. "Does Altruism Undermine Existence Value?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 22-37, January.
    5. Loomis, John B. & White, Douglas S., 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 197-206, September.
    6. Cam Donaldson & Andrew Jones & Tracy Mapp & Jan Abel Olson, 1998. "Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 667-677.
    7. Loomis, John B., 1988. "Broadening The Concept And Measurements Of Existence Value," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-7, April.
    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. J.K. Horowitz, 2002. "Preferences in the Future," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 21(3), pages 241-258, March.
    2. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
    3. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    4. Tisdell, Clem & Nantha, Hemanath Swarna & Wilson, Clevo, 2007. "Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 627-633, January.
    5. Shuang Liu & David I Stern, 2008. "A Meta-Analysis of Contingent Valuation Studies in Coastal and Near-Shore Marine Ecosystems," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-15, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    6. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    7. Polasky, Stephen & Costello, Christopher & Solow, Andrew, 2005. "The Economics of Biodiversity," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 29, pages 1517-1560, Elsevier.
    8. Gardner M. Brown & Jason F. Shogren, 1998. "Economics of the Endangered Species Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 3-20, Summer.
    9. Shreedhar, Ganga & Mourato, Susana, 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Biodiversity Conservation Videos on Charitable Donations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-193.
    10. Jacoline Bouvy & Just Weemers & Huub Schellekens & Marc Koopmanschap, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Adverse Drug Event Regulatory Actions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(11), pages 963-975, November.
    11. Ando, Amy Whritenour, 2001. "Economies of Scope in Endangered-Species Protection: Evidence from Interest-Group Behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 312-332, May.
    12. Zafonte, Matthew & Hampton, Steve, 2007. "Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 134-145, February.
    13. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 2006. "Benefit-Cost in a Benevolent Society," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 339-351, March.
    14. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2003. "A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 65-75, February.
    15. Erwin Bulte & G. van Kooten, 1999. "Marginal Valuation of Charismatic Species: Implications for Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 119-130, July.
    16. Ressurreição, Adriana & Gibbons, James & Dentinho, Tomaz Ponce & Kaiser, Michel & Santos, Ricardo S. & Edwards-Jones, Gareth, 2011. "Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 729-739, February.
    17. Kohn, Robert E., 1999. "Thresholds and complementarities in an economic model of preserving and conserving biodiversity," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-172, June.
    18. Subroy, Vandana & Gunawardena, Asha & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Pannell, David J., 2019. "The worth of wildlife: A meta-analysis of global non-market values of threatened species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    20. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q22 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Fishery

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:uwp:landec:v:79:y:2003:i:4:p:483-499. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.