IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v14y1999i1p119-130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Marginal Valuation of Charismatic Species: Implications for Conservation

Author

Listed:
  • Erwin Bulte
  • G. van Kooten

Abstract

Most contingent valuation studies focus on total willingness to pay (WTP) as a measure of welfare change. For policy involving species preservation, however, it is important to distinguish between the benefits of preventing a species from going extinct and the benefits of preserving numbers above the minimum viable population (MVP) level. Once MVP is exceeded, marginal WTP becomes relevant. These propositions are illustrated for the case of one charismatic species whose management is much debated, minke whales in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. It is shown that, for a given estimate of total preservation value, strict conservation and extinction can both be optimal. This finding highlights the importance of collecting marginal values in contingent valuation surveys. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:14:y:1999:i:1:p:119-130
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008309816658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1008309816658
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Bulte, Erwin & Folmer, Henk & Heijman, Wim, 1998. "Dynamic and Static Approaches to Mixed Good Management: The Case of Minke Whales in the Northeast Atlantic," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 25(1), pages 73-91.
    2. Kevin J. Boyle & Gregory L. Poe & John C. Bergstrom, 1994. "What Do We Know About Groundwater Values? Preliminary Implications from a Meta Analysis of Contingent-Valuation Studies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1055-1061.
    3. 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.
    4. Montgomery Claire A. & Brown Jr. , Gardner M. & Adams Darius M., 1994. "The Marginal Cost of Species Preservation: The Northern Spotted Owl," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 111-128, March.
    5. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
    6. Tanguay, M. & Adamowicz, W. & Boxall, P. & Phillips, W. & White, W., 1993. "A Socio-Economic Evaluation of Woodland Caribou in Northwestern Saskatchewan," Project Report Series 232366, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    7. Clark, Colin W, 1973. "Profit Maximization and the Extinction of Animal Species," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(4), pages 950-961, July-Aug..
    8. Smith, V. Kerry & Osborne, Laura L., 1996. "Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 287-301, November.
    9. Brown, G. & Layton, D. & Lazo, J., 1994. "Valuing Habitat and Endangered Species," Working Papers 94-1, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    10. Cropper, M. L., 1988. "A note on the extinction of renewable resources," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 64-70, March.
    11. Brown, G. & Layton, D. & Lazo, J., 1994. "Valuing Habitat and Endangered Species," Discussion Papers in Economics at the University of Washington 94-1, Department of Economics at the University of Washington.
    12. Loomis, John B. & White, Douglas S., 1996. "Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 197-206, September.
    13. Heidi Albers & Anthony Fisher & W. Hanemann, 1996. "Valuation and management of tropical forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(1), pages 39-61, July.
    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. Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2001. "The role of economics in global management of whales: re-forming or re-founding IWC?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 205-221, February.
    2. Ressurreição, Adriana & Gibbons, James & Dentinho, Tomaz Ponce & Kaiser, Michel & Santos, Ricardo S. & Edwards-Jones, Gareth, 2011. "Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 729-739, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Jin, Jianjun & Indab, Anabeth & Nabangchang, Orapan & Thuy, Truong Dang & Harder, Dieldre & Subade, Rodelio F., 2010. "Valuing marine turtle conservation: A cross-country study in Asian cities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 2020-2026, August.
    5. Eiswerth, Mark E. & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2009. "The ghost of extinction: Preservation values and minimum viable population in wildlife models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2129-2136, May.
    6. Bulte, Erwin H. & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2001. "Harvesting and conserving a species when numbers are low: population viability and gambler's ruin in bioeconomic models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 87-100, April.
    7. Brei, Michael & Pérez-Barahona, Agustín & Strobl, Eric, 2016. "Environmental pollution and biodiversity: Light pollution and sea turtles in the Caribbean," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 95-116.
    8. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    9. Nikita Lyssenko & Roberto Martínez-Espiñeira, 2012. "Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(15), pages 1911-1930, May.
    10. Schwoerer, Tobias & Knowler, Duncan & Garcia-Martinez, Salvador, 2016. "The value of whale watching to local communities in Baja, Mexico: A case study using applied economic rent theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 90-101.
    11. Hjerpe, Evan & Hussain, Anwar & Phillips, Spencer, 2015. "Valuing type and scope of ecosystem conservation: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 32-50.
    12. Delang, Claudio O., 2006. "Not just minor forest products: The economic rationale for the consumption of wild food plants by subsistence farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 64-73, August.
    13. Loureiro, Maria L. & Ojea, Elena, 2008. "Valuing local endangered species: The role of intra-species substitutes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 362-369, December.
    14. Hansen, Lars Gårn & Jensen, Frank & Russell, Clifford, 2013. "Instrument choice when regulators are concerned about resource extinction," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 135-147.
    15. Elena Ojea & Maria L. Loureiro, 2009. "Valuation Of Wildlife: Revising Some Additional Considerations For Scope Tests," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 27(2), pages 236-250, April.
    16. Nir Becker & Yael Choresh & Ofer Bahat & Moshe Inbar, 2010. "Cost benefit analysis of conservation efforts to preserve an endangered species: The Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus) in Israel," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 55-70, April.

    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:kap:enreec:v:14:y:1999:i:1:p:119-130. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.