Linking Policies for Biodiversity Conservation with Advances in Behavioral Economics
AbstractGlobal biodiversity loss and its consequences for human welfare and sustainable development have become major concerns. Economists have, therefore, given increasing attention to the policy issues involved in the management of genetic resources. To do so, they often apply empirical methods developed in behavioral and experimental economics to estimate economic values placed on genetic resources. This trend away from almost exclusive dependence on axiomatic methods is welcomed. However, major valuation methods used in behavioral economics raise new scientific challenges. Possibly the most important of these include deficiencies in the knowledge of the public (and researchers) about genetic resources, implications for the formation of values of supplying information to focal individuals, and limits to rationality. These issues are explored for stated-preference techniques of valuation (e.g., contingent valuation) as well as revealed preference techniques, especially the travel cost method. They are illustrated by Australian and Asian examples. Taking into account behavioral and psychological models and empirical evidence, particular attention is given to how elicitation of preferences, and supply of information to individuals, influences their preferences about biodiversity. Policy consequences are outlined.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Queensland, School of Economics in its series Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers with number 55087.
Date of creation: Aug 2005
Date of revision:
Biodiversity; behavioral economics; contingent valuation; experimental economics; travel cost method.; Environmental Economics and Policy; Institutional and Behavioral Economics;
Other versions of this item:
- Clem Tisdell, 2005. "Linking Policies For Biodiversity Conservation With Advances In Behavioral Economics," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 50(sp), pages 449-462.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-61, November.
- Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001.
"Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
- Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Jennifer Tkac, 1998. "The Effects of Information on Willingness-to-Pay Values of Endangered Species," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1214-1220.
- 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.
- Nick Hanley, 1990.
"Are There Environmental Limits to Cost Benefit Analysis?,"
Working Papers Series
90/6, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
- Nick Hanley, 1992. "Are there environmental limits to cost benefit analysis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 33-59, January.
- Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Tisdell, Clem, 2003.
"Socioeconomic causes of loss of animal genetic diversity: analysis and assessment,"
Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 365-376, July.
- Tisdell, Clement A., 2002. "Socioeconomic Causes of Loss of Animal Genetic Diversity: Analysis and Assessment," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48741, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
- Karl C. Samples & John A. Dixon & KMarcia M. Gowen, 1986. "Information Disclosure and Endangered Species Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(3), pages 306-312.
- Sent, Esther-Mirjam, 2002. "Advances in Behavioral Economics: Essays in Honor of Horst Todt; Friedel Bolle and Michael Carlberg (Eds.); Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg & New York, 2001; pp. viii + 234, ISBN 3 7909 1358 3 ([UK pound]2," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 287-289, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.