IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v79y2012icp97-104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Service providing units, existence values and the valuation of endangered species: A methodological test

Author

Listed:
  • Kontogianni, A.
  • Tourkolias, C.
  • Machleras, A.
  • Skourtos, M.

Abstract

Non-market valuation approaches for estimating the social value of biodiversity and individual species need to enhance their policy relevance. The concept of service-providing unit (SPU) may help achieve this objective by promoting the systematic quantification of the key components of nature that provide services for human wellbeing. The present paper is the first application of the SPU concept in stated preference surveys. The object of valuation is the highly endangered Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus). A split-sample is used testing the hypotheses that the SPU framework would: 1) minimize the part of non-use values that is due to a ‘warm glow’ effect and therefore 2) encourage respondents in reallocating part of their total economic value towards use values. Our results indicate that the difference between the means of existence values in the two sub-samples is statistically insignificant: in both cases respondents attribute a significant percentage of their total economic value to existence value. On the other hand though, the non-use value component of WTP decreases in the sub-sample with SPU in relation to the sub-sample without it. We conclude that existence values in our sample are based on solid preferences related to the species since they persisted in both sub-samples.

Suggested Citation

  • Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, C. & Machleras, A. & Skourtos, M., 2012. "Service providing units, existence values and the valuation of endangered species: A methodological test," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 97-104.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:79:y:2012:i:c:p:97-104
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912001917
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Vesely, Eva-Terezia, 2007. "Green for green: The perceived value of a quantitative change in the urban tree estate of New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 605-615, August.
    2. Tanya O’Garra, 2009. "Bequest Values for Marine Resources: How Important for Indigenous Communities in Less-Developed Economies?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(2), pages 179-202, October.
    3. Ian Langford* & Areti Kontogianni & Mihalis Skourtos & Stavros Georgiou & Ian Bateman, 1998. "Multivariate Mixed Models for Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Data: Willingness To Pay For Conservation of Monk Seals," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(4), pages 443-456, December.
    4. 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.
    5. David Pearce, 2008. "Do We Really Care About Biodiversity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 611-611, August.
    6. Ian H Langford & Mihalis S Skourtos & Areti Kontogianni & Rosemary J Day & Stavros Georgiou & Ian J Bateman, 2001. "Use and Nonuse Values for Conserving Endangered Species: The Case of the Mediterranean Monk Seal," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(12), pages 2219-2233, December.
    7. Ming, Jiang & Xian-guo, Lu & Lin-shu, Xu & Li-juan, Chu & Shouzheng, Tong, 2007. "Flood mitigation benefit of wetland soil -- A case study in Momoge National Nature Reserve in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 217-223, March.
    8. Sattout, E.J. & Talhouk, S.N. & Caligari, P.D.S., 2007. "Economic value of cedar relics in Lebanon: An application of contingent valuation method for conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 315-322, March.
    9. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    14. Tianhong, Li & Wenkai, Li & Zhenghan, Qian, 2010. "Variations in ecosystem service value in response to land use changes in Shenzhen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1427-1435, May.
    15. Tanguay, Mark & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 1995. "An Economic Evaluation of Woodland Caribou Conservation Programs in Northwestern Saskatchewan," Project Report Series 24039, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    16. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    17. Hougner, Cajsa & Colding, Johan & Soderqvist, Tore, 2006. "Economic valuation of a seed dispersal service in the Stockholm National Urban Park, Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 364-374, September.
    18. Giraud, Kelly & Turcin, Branka & Loomis, John & Cooper, Joseph, 2002. "Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 451-458, November.
    19. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Wratten, Stephen D. & Cullen, Ross & Case, Brad, 2008. "The future of farming: The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 835-848, February.
    20. Ian Bateman & Ian Langford, 1997. "Non-users' Willingness to Pay for a National Park: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 571-582.
    21. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    22. A. Damodaran, 2007. "The Project Tiger Crisis in India: Moving Away from the Policy and Economics of Selectivity," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 16(1), pages 61-77, February.
    23. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2000. "A note on the warm glow of giving and scope sensitivity in contingent valuation studies," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 343-349, August.
    24. Kontogianni, Areti & Luck, Gary W. & Skourtos, Michalis, 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the 'endpoint problem' and improve stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1479-1487, May.
    25. Videras Julio R & Owen Ann L, 2006. "Public Goods Provision and Well-Being: Empirical Evidence Consistent with the Warm Glow Theory," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-40, April.
    26. M. Common & I. Reid & R. Blamey, 1997. "Do existence values for cost benefit analysis exist?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 225-238, March.
    27. Yoshiaki Kaoru, 1993. "Differentiating use and nonuse values for coastal pond water quality improvements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(5), pages 487-494, October.
    28. Ronald Cummings & Glenn Harrison, 1995. "The measurement and decomposition of nonuse values: A critical review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(3), pages 225-247, April.
    29. King, David A. & Flynn, Deborah J. & Shaw, William W., 1988. "Total and Existence Values of a Herd of Desert Bighorn Sheep," Western Region Archives 303518, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    30. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Bartkowski, Bartosz, 2017. "Existence value, biodiversity, and the utilitarian dilemma," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2017, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    2. M. Skourtos & D. Damigos & D. Tsitakis & A. Kontogianni & C. Tourkolias & N. Streftaris, 2015. "In Search of Marine Ecosystem Services Values: The V-MESSES Database," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1-27, December.
    3. Seul-Ye Lim & Se-Jun Jin & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2017. "The Economic Benefits of the Dokdo Seals Restoration Project in Korea: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(6), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani & Dritsas, Sophoclis, 2017. "Exploring social values for marine protected areas: The case of Mediterranean monk seal," MPRA Paper 82490, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:79:y:2012:i:c:p:97-104. 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: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.