IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare20/305246.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are anthropogenic pressures on biodiversity valued differently than natural ones? A meta-analysis of the non-use valuation literature

Author

Listed:
  • Nobel, Anne
  • Lizin, Sebastien
  • Brouwer, Roy
  • Stern, David
  • B. Bruns, Stephan
  • Malina, Robert

Abstract

Anthropogenic climate change is expected to be a major driver of worldwide biodiversity losses. Non-use values can play an important role in the evaluation of strategies to combat these losses or to reduce anthropogenic climate change. However, non-use values may not be transferrable across contexts with different pressures on biodiversity. Contrary to expectations in economic theory, they may be determined not only by outcomes, but also by what causes the outcomes. Given that no extant studies have specifically estimated the willingness to pay (WTP) for reducing the impact of climate change on biodiversity, we compare the WTP more generally for reducing anthropogenic and natural pressures on biodiversity. We conduct a meta-regression analysis informed by data obtained from stated preferences studies focusing on non-use values of biodiversity conservation. We assess whether non-use values for improving or avoiding losses of habitats and species are affected by policy responses addressing anthropogenic or natural pressures. We estimate meta-regression models in which we explain the variation in biodiversity non-use values by accounting for the observed heterogeneity in good, methodology, sample, and context characteristics. We estimate meta-regression models using 159 observations from 62 publications. The models suggest that non-use values for biodiversity conservation addressing anthropogenic pressures may be 95–131 percent larger than those facing natural pressures. We also find that non-use values are generally not sensitive to habitat types or the scope of species preservation. The evaluation of climate policy in terms of biodiversity non-use values should be based on valuations of the effect of anthropogenic pressures on biodiversity, instead of inferring these benefits from a wide variety of existing studies. Furthermore, there is a clear need for additional valuation research focusing on estimating non-use values, specifically for climate change-induced biodiversity losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Nobel, Anne & Lizin, Sebastien & Brouwer, Roy & Stern, David & B. Bruns, Stephan & Malina, Robert, 2020. "Are anthropogenic pressures on biodiversity valued differently than natural ones? A meta-analysis of the non-use valuation literature," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305246, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare20:305246
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.305246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aare20:305246. 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: AgEcon Search (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.