IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/earnsa/336043.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluando las condiciones de racionalidad y plausibilidad en la valoración de conservar la biodiversidad de un país megabiodiverso. El caso del Manu en Perú

Author

Listed:
  • Dávila, José
  • Vásquez-Lavín, Felipe
  • Enrique Orihuela, Carlos
  • Ponce Oliva, Roberto D.
  • Lavado-Solis, Karol
  • Paredes-Vilca, Oscar
  • Mogollón Ñañez, Raymundo
  • Díaz, Sabrina

Abstract

[ES] Según la NOAA, los resultados de una valoración económica son aplicables como política pública si cumplen dos condiciones: racionalidad y plausibilidad. En el presente estudio, se realiza la valoración económica de conservar la biodiversidad del Parque Nacional del Manu en Perú (país megabiodiverso), a partir de tres representaciones: especies, hábitat y funcionalidad. Se identificó la presencia de sensibilidad al alcance en la mayor parte de atributos empleados. Al incluir características socioeconómicas se identificó que el género y los niveles salariales afectan las preferencias. Los resultados muestran que las especies de flora amenazada y la funcionalidad cumplen con ambas condiciones. [EN] According to NOAA, the results of an economic valuation are applicable as public policy if they fulfill two conditions: rationality and plausibility. In this study, we carried out the valuation of biodiversity conservation in Manu National Park in Peru (a megabiodiverse country), based on three representations: species, habitat and functionality. We identify sensitivity to scope in most of the attributes used. When we add socioeconomic characteristics, we identify that gender and salary levels affect preferences. Our total analysis shows that number of threatened plant species and functionality better fulfill both conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Dávila, José & Vásquez-Lavín, Felipe & Enrique Orihuela, Carlos & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D. & Lavado-Solis, Karol & Paredes-Vilca, Oscar & Mogollón Ñañez, Raymundo & Díaz, Sabrina, 2023. "Evaluando las condiciones de racionalidad y plausibilidad en la valoración de conservar la biodiversidad de un país megabiodiverso. El caso del Manu en Perú," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 23(01), June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:earnsa:336043
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.336043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/336043/files/document%20%287%29.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.336043?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Jette Jacobsen & John Boiesen & Bo Thorsen & Niels Strange, 2008. "What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 247-263, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    5. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2012. "Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National Values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 347-365, November.
    6. Whitehead, John C., 2016. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 17-22.
    7. 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)

    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. Bakhtiari, Fatemeh & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Strange, Niels & Boman, Mattias, 2018. "Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 11-20.
    2. 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.
    3. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    4. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July.
    5. Patrizia Riganti, 2022. "Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation Applications to Cultural Capital: Does the Nature of the Goods Matter?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    7. Fujino, Masaya & Kuriyama, Koichi & Yoshida, Kentaro, 2017. "An evaluation of the natural environment ecosystem preservation policies in Japan," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 62-67.
    8. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.
    9. Ahi, Jülide Ceren & Aanesen, Margrethe & Kipperberg, Gorm, 2023. "Testing the sensitivity of stated environmental preferences to variations in choice architecture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    10. Martínez-Jauregui, María & White, Piran C.L. & Touza, Julia & Soliño, Mario, 2019. "Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Vidale, E & Pettenella, D & Gatto, P & Secco, L, 23. "What can we sell behind timber production?," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 44, May.
    12. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    13. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf, 2018. "How are Scope and Adding up Relevant for Benefits Transfer?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 483-502, March.
    14. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    15. 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).
    16. Juutinen, Artti & Mitani, Yohei & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Shoji, Yasushi & Siikamäki, Pirkko & Svento, Rauli, 2011. "Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1231-1239, April.
    17. Bartkowski, Bartosz, 2016. "Are diverse ecosystems more valuable? A conceptual framework of the economic value of biodiversity," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236293, Agricultural Economics Society.
    18. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2015. "Capturing More Relevant Measures of Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay: Using an Iterative Grid Search Algorithm to Quantify Proximate Environmental Impacts," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205450, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Søren B. Olsen & Cathrine U. Jensen & Toke E. Panduro, 2020. "Modelling Strategies for Discontinuous Distance Decay in Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 351-386, February.
    20. Tomas Badura & Silvia Ferrini & Michael Burton & Amy Binner & Ian J. Bateman, 2020. "Using Individualised Choice Maps to Capture the Spatial Dimensions of Value Within Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 297-322, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:earnsa:336043. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeeaaea.html .

    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.