IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v147y2018icp114-122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To Bait or Not to Bait: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Public Preferences for Native Wildlife and Conservation Management in Western Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Subroy, Vandana
  • Rogers, Abbie A.
  • Kragt, Marit E.

Abstract

Foxes and feral cats are invasive predators threating biodiversity in many places around the world. Managing these predators to protect threatened species should involve careful consideration of biological, geographic, economic, and social aspects to ensure informed and effective decision-making. This study investigates people's preferences for the ways in which foxes and feral cats are managed at a conservation site in Western Australia using a discrete choice experiment. We further aim to quantify the non-market values of two native threatened species protected by management; Numbats and Woylies. The attributes evaluated in the survey included: increased populations of Numbats and Woylies, cost of management, and a range of invasive feral predator management strategies (1080 baiting, fencing, trapping, and community engagement). Results show that respondents prefer a combination of management strategies over the strategy of 1080 baiting that is currently being implemented, particularly combinations that include trapping and community engagement. There is also strong public support for increased Numbat and Woylie populations. Willingness to pay was, on average, $21.76 for 100 Numbats and $7.95 for 1000 Woylies. Including images of the threatened species in the choice sets does not influence willingness-to-pay estimates. We further discuss how familiarity with the species influences value. Our results feed into the conservation decision making process about feral species management in the region.

Suggested Citation

  • Subroy, Vandana & Rogers, Abbie A. & Kragt, Marit E., 2018. "To Bait or Not to Bait: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Public Preferences for Native Wildlife and Conservation Management in Western Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 114-122.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:147:y:2018:i:c:p:114-122
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800917311825
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.031?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. Morse-Jones, Sian & Bateman, Ian J. & Kontoleon, Andreas & Ferrini, Silvia & Burgess, Neil D. & Turner, R. Kerry, 2012. "Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 9-18.
    2. 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.
    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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    5. Rex Labao & Herminia Francisco & Dieldre Harder & Florence Santos, 2008. "Do Colored Photographs Affect Willingness to Pay Responses for Endangered Species Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 251-264, June.
    6. Ian H Langford & Mihalis S Skourtos & Areti Kontogianni & Rosemary J Day & Stavros Georgiou & Ian J Bateman, 2001. "Use and Nonuse Values for Conserving Endangered Species: The Case of the Mediterranean Monk Seal," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(12), pages 2219-2233, December.
    7. Abbie A. Rogers, 2013. "Social Welfare and Marine Reserves: Is Willingness to Pay for Conservation Dependent on Management Process? A Discrete Choice Experiment of the Ningaloo Marine Park in Australia," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 61(2), pages 217-238, June.
    8. Busch, Jonah & Cullen, Ross, 2009. "Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of yellow-eyed penguin recovery," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 762-776, January.
    9. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    10. Clevo Wilson & Clem Tisdell, 2007. "How Knowledge Affects Payment To Conserve An Endangered Bird," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 25(2), pages 226-237, April.
    11. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2012. "Restricted versus Unrestricted Choice in Labeled Choice Experiments: Exploring the Trade‐Offs of Expanding Choice Dimensions," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 60(1), pages 53-70, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Raja Chakir & Maia David & Estelle Gozlan & Aminata Sangare, 2016. "Valuing the Impacts of An Invasive Biological Control Agent: A Choice Experiment on the Asian Ladybird in France," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 619-638, September.
    14. Oleg Sheremet & John R. Healey & Christopher P. Quine & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Public Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Forest Disease Control in the UK," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 781-800, September.
    15. Hanley, Nick & Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley-Nickolls, Rose & Redpath, Steve, 2010. "Economic values of species management options in human-wildlife conflicts: Hen Harriers in Scotland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 107-113, November.
    16. Robert J. Johnston & Joshua M. Duke, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1098-1115.
    17. Boxall, P.C. & Adamowicz, W.L. & Olar, M. & West, G.E. & Cantin, G., 2012. "Analysis of the economic benefits associated with the recovery of threatened marine mammal species in the Canadian St. Lawrence Estuary," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 189-197, January.
    18. Adams, Damian C. & Bwenge, Anafrida N. & Lee, Donna J. & Larkin, Sherry L. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2011. "Public preferences for controlling upland invasive plants in state parks: Application of a choice model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 465-472, July.
    19. 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.
    20. Loomis, John B. & Ekstrand, Earl, 1997. "Economic Benefits Of Critical Habitat For The Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using A Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-11, December.
    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. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2018. "A More Flexible Model or Simply More Effort? On the Use of Correlated Random Parameters in Applied Choice Studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 419-429.
    2. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    3. Estifanos, Tafesse Kefyalew & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2020. "Managing conflicts between local land use and the protection of the Ethiopian wolf: Residents’ preferences for conservation program design features," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    4. Zawojska, Ewa & Gastineau, Pascal & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Cheze, Benoit & Paris, Anthony, 2021. "Measuring policy consequentiality perceptions in stated preference surveys," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313977, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Mzek, Tareq & Samdin, Zaiton & W. Mohamad, Wan Norhidayah, 2022. "Assessing visitors' preferences and willingness to pay for the Malayan Tiger conservation in a Malaysian National Park: A choice experiment method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    6. Takuro Uehara & Alayna Ynacay-Nye, 2018. "How Water Bottle Refill Stations Contribute to Campus Sustainability: A Case Study in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, August.
    7. Subroy, Vandana & Gunawardena, Asha & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Pannell, David J., 2019. "The worth of wildlife: A meta-analysis of global non-market values of threatened species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Ahi, Jülide Ceren & Aanesen, Margrethe & Kipperberg, Gorm, 2023. "Testing the sensitivity of stated environmental preferences to variations in choice architecture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(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. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    2. Brander, Luke & Eppink, Florian & Hof, Christine Madden & Bishop, Joshua & Riskas, Kimberly & Goñi, Victoria Guisado & Teh, Lydia & Teh, Louise, 2024. "Turtle Economic Value: The non-use value of marine turtles in the Asia-Pacific region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    3. Sheremet, Oleg & Ruokamo, Enni & Juutinen, Artti & Svento, Rauli & Hanley, Nick, 2018. "Incentivising Participation and Spatial Coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Service Schemes: Forest Disease Control Programs in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 260-272.
    4. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    5. Ju-Hee Kim & Kyung-Ran Choi & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2020. "Public Perspective on Increasing the Numbers of an Endangered Species, Loggerhead Turtles in South Korea: A Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, May.
    6. Gong, Yazhen & Bi, Xiang & Wu, Jian, 2020. "Willingness to pay for the conservation of the endangered Red-crowned Crane in China: Roles of conservation attitudes and income," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. Rosenberg, Andrew B. & Newburn, David & Towe, Charles A., 2018. "Household Willingness to Pay for Stream Restoration on Private and Public Lands: Evidence from the Baltimore Metropolitan Region," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274031, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Subroy, Vandana & Gunawardena, Asha & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Pannell, David J., 2019. "The worth of wildlife: A meta-analysis of global non-market values of threatened species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Börger, Tobias & Beaumont, Nicola J. & Pendleton, Linwood & Boyle, Kevin J. & Cooper, Philip & Fletcher, Stephen & Haab, Tim & Hanemann, Michael & Hooper, Tara L. & Hussain, S. Salman & Portela, Rosim, 2014. "Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: The role of valuation," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 161-170.
    10. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. Bakhtiari, Fatemeh & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Strange, Niels & Boman, Mattias, 2018. "Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 11-20.
    12. Grilli, Gianluca & Notaro, Sandra & Campbell, Danny, 2018. "Including Value Orientations in Choice Models to Estimate Benefits of Wildlife Management Policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 70-81.
    13. 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).
    14. Tzu-Ming Liu, 2019. "Using RPL Model to Probe Trade-Offs among Negative Externalities of Controlling Invasive Species," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-17, November.
    15. Danley, Brian & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Campbell, Danny, 2021. "Putting your best fish forward: Investigating distance decay and relative preferences for fish conservation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    16. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    17. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    18. Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y., 2011. "Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn’t Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Liu, Zhaoyang & Hanley, Nick & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Linking urban air pollution with residents’ willingness to pay for greenspace: A choice experiment study in Beijing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    20. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    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:147:y:2018:i:c:p:114-122. 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.