IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wai/econwp/08-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand

Author

Abstract

The value of biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand was estimated from a survey sample of 457 residents. We determined the willingness of respondents to financially support biodiversity programs on private and public lands, as well as determining which factors influence this willingness-to-pay. Our data indicates that an average respondent was willing-to-pay $42 (2007 NZD) annually in their rates (taxes) to support a government initiated private land biodiversity programme and $82 (2007 NZD) annually to support a biodiversity programme on public lands.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato.
  • Handle: RePEc:wai:econwp:08/07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://wms-webprod1.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/RePEc/wai/econwp/0807.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Montgomery, Claire A. & Pollak, Robert A. & Freemark, Kathryn & White, Denis, 1999. "Pricing Biodiversity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 1-19, July.
    2. John W. Duffield & David A. Patterson, 1991. "Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(2), pages 225-239.
    3. Joe Kerkvliet, 1997. "A Randomized Response Approach to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 252-266.
    4. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    5. Dixie Reaves & Randall Kramer & Thomas Holmes, 1999. "Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 365-383, October.
    6. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-177, March.
    7. Creel, Michael, 1998. "A Note on Consistent Estimation of Mean WTP Using a Misspecified Logit Contingent Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 277-284, May.
    8. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    9. 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.
    10. Sellar, Christine & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Stoll, John R., 1986. "Specification of the logit model: The case of valuation of nonmarket goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 382-390, December.
    11. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    12. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2001. "Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 203-222, November.
    15. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    16. Daniel A. Haqen & James W. Vincent & Patrick G. Welle, 1992. "Benefits Of Preserving Old-Growth Forests And The Spotted Owl," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 10(2), pages 13-26, April.
    17. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    18. STÅLE Navrud & GERALD Pruckner, 1997. "Environmental Valuation – To Use or Not to Use? A Comparative Study of the United States and Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(1), pages 1-26, July.
    19. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    20. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    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. Pamela Kaval & Matthew Roskruge, 2009. "The Value of Native Bird Conservation: A New Zealand Case Study," Working Papers in Economics 09/11, University of Waikato.
    2. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2009. "Evaluating the Welfare Effects of Biodiversity on Private Lands: A Choice Modelling Application," Working Papers in Economics 09/04, University of Waikato.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    biodiversity; contingent valuation; native species; household residents; New Zealand;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    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:wai:econwp:08/07. 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: (Brian Silverstone). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaknz.html .

    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.