IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nzar09/97128.html

Valuing indigenous biodiversity in the freshwater environment

Author

Listed:
  • Bell, Brian A.
  • Yap, Michael
  • Cudby, Charlotte

Abstract

Biosecurity incursion response decisions require timely, high quality information involving science and economics. The value of the impact on indigenous biodiversity is a key aspect of the economics typically involving cost-benefit analysis. The hypothetical incursion of Biosecurity New Zealand’s top priority weed hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) in a typical New Zealand lake (Lake Rotoroa otherwise known as Hamilton Lake) elicits dollar values of impacts on indigenous biodiversity in a freshwater environment. Using the stated preference tool, Choice Modelling, the experimental design was maximised for efficiency of Willingness to Pay (WTP) estimation. The survey method of community meetings of four population samples at varying distances to the incursion site is a cross between a mail survey and an individual interview survey. Results show an efficient design with minimal sample size and biodiversity attributes that have values statistically different from zero but not statistically different between locations.

Suggested Citation

  • Bell, Brian A. & Yap, Michael & Cudby, Charlotte, 2009. "Valuing indigenous biodiversity in the freshwater environment," 2009 Conference, August 27-28, 2009, Nelson, New Zealand 97128, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:nzar09:97128
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.97128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/97128/files/2009_2%20_Valuing%20indigenous%20biodiversity_Bell%20etal_1_.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.97128?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. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    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. Yao, Richard T. & Wallace, Lisa, 2024. "A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    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. Espinosa, Maria & Rodriguez, Macario & Madureira, Livia Maria Costa & Santos, Jose Lima & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2014. "Are models and respondents talking the same language: evidence from stated and inferred discontinuous preferences in a choice experiment valuing public goods?," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182668, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Ariane Kehlbacher & Kelvin Balcombe & Richard Bennett, 2013. "Stated Attribute Non-attendance in Successive Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 693-706, September.
    3. Gschwandtner, Adelina & Jang, Cheul & McManus, Richard, "undated". "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.
    4. Abbie A. Rogers, 2013. "Public and Expert Preference Divergence: Evidence from a Choice Experiment of Marine Reserves in Australia," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 346-370.
    5. Nikita Arora & Matthew Quaife & Kara Hanson & Mylene Lagarde & Dorka Woldesenbet & Abiy Seifu & Romain Crastes dit Sourd, 2022. "Discrete choice analysis of health worker job preferences in Ethiopia: Separating attribute non‐attendance from taste heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 806-819, May.
    6. Brian Chi-ang Lin & Siqi Zheng & Eleftherios Giovanis & Oznur Ozdamar, 2016. "Structural Equation Modelling And The Causal Effect Of Permanent Income On Life Satisfaction: The Case Of Air Pollution Valuation In Switzerland," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 430-459, July.
    7. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    8. Rossella Berni & Fabrizia Mealli, 2013. "Mode choice analysis of mobility in Florence. A choice experiment," Studi e approfondimenti 328, Istituto Regionale per la Programmazione Economica della Toscana.
    9. David Hensher & Andrew Collins & William Greene, 2013. "Accounting for attribute non-attendance and common-metric aggregation in a probabilistic decision process mixed multinomial logit model: a warning on potential confounding," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1003-1020, September.
    10. Thiene, Mara & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & De Salvo, Maria, 2012. "Scale and taste heterogeneity for forest biodiversity: Models of serial nonparticipation and their effects," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 355-369.
    11. Caputo, Vincenzina & Loo, Ellen J. Van & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "“Using Experiments to Address Attribute Non-attendance in Consumer Food Choices”," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 177173, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Enni Ruokamo & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Artti Juutinen & Rauli Svento, 2016. "Linking perceived choice complexity with scale heterogeneity in discrete choice experiments: home heating in Finland," Working Papers 2016-30, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    13. Gschwandtner, Adelina & Burton, Michael, "undated". "The Willingness to Pay for Organic Attributes in the UK," 91st Annual Conference, April 24-26, 2017, Royal Dublin Society, Dublin, Ireland 258644, Agricultural Economics Society.
    14. Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Ruto, Eric, 2009. "Modeling Farmers Prefences For Agrienvironmental Scheme Design: A Spanish Case Study," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50328, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2010. "Comparing the performance of different approaches to deal with attribute non-attendance in discrete choice experiments: a simulation experiment," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    16. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    17. Schumacher, Ingmar & Zou, Benteng, 2015. "Threshold preferences and the environment," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 17-27.
    18. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & David A. Hensher, 2010. "Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 817-839.
    19. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2010. "Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 65-89, September.
    20. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Danny Campbell, 2019. "Accommodating satisficing behaviour in stated choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 133-162.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:nzar09:97128. 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/nzareea.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.