Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Non Use Economic Values of Marine Protected Areas in the South-West Marine Region

Contents:

Author Info

  • Robert Gillespie

    (Gillespie Economics, a resource and environmental economics consultancy practice)

  • Jeff Bennett

    ()
    (Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University)

Abstract

Australian governments are committed to the expansion of marine protected areas (MPAs) in Australian waters and have already established over 200 MPAs. However, this policy direction has a range of costs and benefits for the community which have largely remained unquantified. One of the main benefits of establishing MPAs are the non use values that the community for the protection of marine biodiversity. This study uses a dichotomous choice contingent valuation format with follow-up open-ended willingness to pay question to estimate these non use values for the establishment of MPAs in South-west Marine Region of Australia. It was found that on average Australian households would be WTP $104 for the establishment of MPAs that cover 10% of the South-west Marine Region. Aggregating this mean WTP estimate to 50% of the population of Australian households gives an aggregate WTP of $400M. However, whether the establishment of MPAs in the South-west Marine Region is economically efficient requires a consideration of all the potential costs and benefits. Other relevant costs and benefits for inclusion in a benefit cost analysis would include those associated with displacement of commercial and non-commercial uses, additional planning, compliance and monitoring costs as well as any predicted increases in commercial and non-commercial use values. If the net costs of establishing MPA over 10% of the South-west Marine Region are less than $400M, then the non-use benefits of establishing MPAs would exceed the other net costs and it would be considered to be economically efficient and desirable from a community welfare perspective. Given the difficulties of estimating precise WTP values from dichotomous choice data, any BCA of MPAs in the South-west Marine Region, incorporating the results of this study, should undertake sensitivity testing that includes the range of values reported including dichotomous choice and openended means to determine the robustness of BCA results to variations in the welfare estimate.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR83.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University in its series Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports with number 1083.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Dec 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:1083

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Crawford Building, Lennox Crossing, Building #132, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: +61 2 6125 4705
Fax: +61 2 6125 5448
Email:
Web page: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Donald Green & Karen Jacowitz & Daniel Kahneman & Daniel McFadden, 1995. "Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods," Working Papers _010, University of California at Berkeley, Econometrics Laboratory Software Archive.
  2. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Assessing national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1072, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
  3. Trudy Ann Cameron & John Quiggin, 1992. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data From a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire," UCLA Economics Working Papers 653, UCLA Department of Economics.
  4. Morrison, Mark, 2000. "Aggregation Biases in Stated Preference Studies," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 215-30, June.
  5. Richard O‘Conor & Magnus Johannesson & Per-Olov Johansson, 1999. "Stated Preferences, Real Behaviour and Anchoring: Some Empirical Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 235-248, March.
  6. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2010. "Assessing national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef," Research Reports 96384, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
  7. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
  8. McCartney, Abbie, 2009. "The Policy Relevance of Choice Modelling: An Application to the Ningaloo and Proposed Capes Marine Parks," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48033, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  9. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
  10. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2008. "Designing choice experiments to Test for Anchoring and Framing Effects," Research Reports 94810, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
  11. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15.
  12. repec:idb:brikps:47098 is not listed on IDEAS
  13. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-62, July.
  14. Polski, Margaret, 2005. "The institutional economics of biodiversity, biological materials, and bioprospecting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 543-557, June.
  15. Dixie Reaves & Randall Kramer & Thomas Holmes, 1999. "Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 365-383, October.
  16. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
  17. Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:1083. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Crawford Webmaster).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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