IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v61y2017i1p95-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community acceptance of biodiversity offsets: evidence from a choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Burton
  • Abbie Rogers
  • Claire Richert

Abstract

This study of the community’s acceptance of biodiversity offsets in Australia provides insights relevant to future revisions of offset policies of both State and Commonwealth Governments. A choice experiment was used to measure preferences for the general acceptability of offsetting, and for a number of attributes that define how an offset can be implemented. Based on a sample of 204 respondents from Perth, WA, we found that the majority of respondents did not object to the practice of biodiversity offsetting in general. A minority of respondents preferred that offset actions be direct, but most accepted a combination of direct and indirect actions. Individuals generally preferred that the offset be located near the site of impact, and it became more unacceptable the further away that it was located. However, there was heterogeneity in preferences for protecting the impacted species or a more endangered one.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Burton & Abbie Rogers & Claire Richert, 2017. "Community acceptance of biodiversity offsets: evidence from a choice experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(1), pages 95-114, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:61:y:2017:i:1:p:95-114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-8489.12151
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adelina Gshwandtner & Cheul Jang & Richard McManus, 2017. "Improving Drinking Quality in South Korea: A Choice Experiment," Studies in Economics 1720, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    2. Adelina Gschwandtner & Jose Eduardo Ribeiro & Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Michael Burton, 2021. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preferences for valuing Organic Chicken Meat," Studies in Economics 2113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    3. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    4. Jane L. Harrison & Alexandra Naumenko & John C. Whitehead, 2021. "Attribute Nonattendance And Citizen Preferences For Ecosystem‐Based Fisheries Management: The Case Of Atlantic Menhaden," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 310-324, April.
    5. Gschwandtner, Adelina & Jang, Cheul & McManus, Richard, 2018. "Improving Drinking Water Quality in South Korea: A Choice Experiment," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273472, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. Velvart, Joëlle & Dato, Prudence & Kuhlmey, Florian, 2022. "Tailored interventions in a major life decision: A home relocation discrete choice experiment," Working papers 2022/03, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    7. Quynh, Chi Nguyen Thi & Schilizzi, Steven & Hailu, Atakelty & Iftekhar, Sayed, 2018. "Fishers' Preference Heterogeneity and Trade-offs Between Design Options for More Effective Monitoring of Fisheries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 22-33.
    8. Gastineau, Pascal & Mossay, Pascal & Taugourdeau, Emmanuelle, 2021. "Ecological compensation: How much and where?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    9. Cole, Scott & Hasselström, Linus & Jönsson, K. Ingemar & Lindblom, Erik & Söderqvist, Tore, 2022. "Expert guidance for environmental compensation is consistent with public preferences – Evidence from a choice experiment in Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    10. Higashida, Keisaku & Tanaka, Kenta & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "The efficiency of conservation banking schemes with inter-regionally tradable credits and the role of mediators," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 175-186.
    11. Adelina Gschwandtner & Michael Burton, 2017. "The Willingness to Pay for Organic Attributes in the UK," Studies in Economics 1702, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    12. Bull, Joseph William & Abatayo, Anna Lou & Strange, Niels, 2017. "Counterintuitive Proposals for Trans-boundary Ecological Compensation Under ‘No Net Loss’ Biodiversity Policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 185-193.
    13. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "How to design more effective REDD+ projects – The importance of targeted approach in Indonesia," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 25-32.

    More about this item

    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:bla:ajarec:v:61:y:2017:i:1:p:95-114. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.