IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v111y2015icp76-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A stated preference valuation of the non-market benefits of pollination services in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Breeze, T.D.
  • Bailey, A.P.
  • Potts, S.G.
  • Balcombe, K.G.

Abstract

Using a choice experiment survey this study examines the UK public's willingness to pay to conserve insect pollinators in relation to the levels of two pollination service benefits: maintaining local produce supplies and the aesthetic benefits of diverse wildflower assemblages. Willingness to pay was estimated using a Bayesian mixed logit with two contrasting controls for attribute non-attendance, exclusion and shrinkage. The results suggest that the UK public have an extremely strong preference to avoid a status quo scenario where pollinator populations and pollination services decline. Total willingness to pay was high and did not significantly vary between the two pollination service outputs, producing a conservative total of £379M over a sample of the tax-paying population of the UK, equivalent to £13.4 per UK taxpayer. Using a basic production function approach, the marginal value of pollination services to these attributes is also extrapolated. The study discusses the implications of these findings and directions for related future research into the non-market value of pollination and other ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Breeze, T.D. & Bailey, A.P. & Potts, S.G. & Balcombe, K.G., 2015. "A stated preference valuation of the non-market benefits of pollination services in the UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 76-85.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:111:y:2015:i:c:p:76-85
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915000087
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.022?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
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    3. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    4. Christie, Mike & Gibbons, James, 2011. "The effect of individual ‘ability to choose’ (scale heterogeneity) on the valuation of environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2250-2257.
    5. Zander, Kerstin K. & Straton, Anna, 2010. "An economic assessment of the value of tropical river ecosystem services: Heterogeneous preferences among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2417-2426, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    8. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
    9. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Georgiou, Stavros & Lake, Iain, 2006. "The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 450-460, December.
    10. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1140-1148, February.
    11. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    12. 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.
    13. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    14. 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.
    15. MacKerron, George J. & Egerton, Catrin & Gaskell, Christopher & Parpia, Aimie & Mourato, Susana, 2009. "Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high-)flying young adults in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1372-1381, April.
    16. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2009. "The Payment Vehicle Used in CV Studies of Environmental Goods Does Matter," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 1-14, December.
    17. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
    18. Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen, 2007. "Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 75-102, August.
    19. Balcombe, Kelvin & Burton, Michael & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Skew and attribute non-attendance within the Bayesian mixed logit model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 446-461.
    20. Balcombe, Kelvin & Chalak, Ali & Fraser, Iain, 2009. "Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-237, March.
    21. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    22. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    23. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    24. Winfree, Rachael & Gross, Brian J. & Kremen, Claire, 2011. "Valuing pollination services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-88.
    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. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia L. Rihn & Benjamin Campbell & Chengyan Yue & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe, 2017. "Visual Attention to Eco-Labels Predicts Consumer Preferences for Pollinator Friendly Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Campbell, Ben & Khachatryan, Hayk & Rihn, Alicia, 2017. "Pollinator Friendly Plants: Reasons for and Barriers to Purchase," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252763, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M. & Alcon, Francisco, 2021. "Integrated valuation of semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem services and disservices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    4. Khachatryan, Hayk & Rihn, Alicia, 2018. "Defining U. S. Consumers' (mis)perceptions of Pollinator Friendly Labels: An Exploratory Study," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(3), February.
    5. Manuela Plutino & Elisa Bianchetto & Alessandra Durazzo & Massimo Lucarini & Luigi Lucini & Ilaria Negri, 2022. "Rethinking the Connections between Ecosystem Services, Pollinators, Pollution, and Health: Focus on Air Pollution and Its Impacts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Mwebaze, Paul & Marris, Gay C. & Brown, Mike & MacLeod, Alan & Jones, Glyn & Budge, Giles E., 2018. "Measuring public perception and preferences for ecosystem services: A case study of bee pollination in the UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 355-362.
    7. Rafaella Guimarães Porto & Rita Fernandes Almeida & Oswaldo Cruz-Neto & Marcelo Tabarelli & Blandina Felipe Viana & Carlos A. Peres & Ariadna Valentina Lopes, 2020. "Pollination ecosystem services: A comprehensive review of economic values, research funding and policy actions," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1425-1442, December.
    8. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2019. "Heterogeneity and attribute non-attendance in preferences for peatland conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 45-55.
    9. Céline Moreaux & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Bo Dalsgaard & Carsten Rahbek & Niels Strange, 2023. "Distance and Regional Effects on the Value of Wild Bee Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 37-63, January.

    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Gonçalves, Tânia & Lourenço-Gomes, Lina & Pinto, Lígia M. Costa, 2022. "The role of attribute non-attendance on consumer decision-making: Theoretical insights and empirical evidence," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 788-805.
    3. Tienhaara, Annika & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2017. "Operationalization of ecosystem services for choice experiments: the effect of relevance in the valuation of agrienvironmental policies," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261433, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Mohammed Alemu & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen & Carsten Jensen, 2013. "Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-attendance in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 333-359, March.
    5. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    6. Tomas Badura & Silvia Ferrini & Michael Burton & Amy Binner & Ian J. Bateman, 2020. "Using Individualised Choice Maps to Capture the Spatial Dimensions of Value Within Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 297-322, February.
    7. Weller, Priska & Oehlmann, Malte & Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2014. "Stated and inferred attribute non-attendance in a design of designs approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 43-56.
    8. Kelvin Balcombe & Michail Bitzios & Iain Fraser & Janet Haddock-Fraser, 2014. "Using Attribute Importance Rankings Within Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Valuing Bread Attributes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 446-462, June.
    9. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    10. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    11. Sandra Notaro & Maria De Salvo & Roberta Raffaelli, 2022. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Alpine Pastures: A Discrete Choice Experiment Accounting for Attribute Non-Attendance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    13. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    14. 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.
    15. Fleischer, Aliza & Shafir, Sharoni & Mandelik, Yael, 2013. "A proactive approach for assessing alternative management programs for an invasive alien pollinator species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 126-132.
    16. Marit E. Kragt, 2013. "Stated and Inferred Attribute Attendance Models: A Comparison with Environmental Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 719-736, September.
    17. Mavra Stithou & Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Danny Campbell, 2012. "Estimating the Value of Achieving “Good Ecological Status”in the Boyne River Catchmentin Ireland Using Choice Experiments," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 397-422.
    18. Enni Roukamo & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & A. Juutinen & R. Svento, 2016. "Linking perceived choice complexity with scale heterogeneity in discrete choice experiments: home heating in Finland," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2016-16, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    19. Mwebaze, Paul & Marris, Gay C. & Brown, Mike & MacLeod, Alan & Jones, Glyn & Budge, Giles E., 2018. "Measuring public perception and preferences for ecosystem services: A case study of bee pollination in the UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 355-362.
    20. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.

    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:111:y:2015:i:c:p:76-85. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.