IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v76y2012icp79-86.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing the mortality risk of wildlife reintroduction: Heterogeneous risk preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Kawata, Yukichika
  • Watanabe, Masahide

Abstract

This study is the first to value the mortality risk incurred from wildlife reintroduction. We conducted choice experiments on wolf reintroduction in Hokkaido, Japan, in order to value the resulting mortality risk. This process involves three unique factors: the mortality risk is zero before the reintroduction, the increment of the risk caused by the reintroduction is substantially small, and the risk largely depends on citizens' individual characteristics concerning reintroduction. Because of these factors, the heterogeneity of risk preference is expected to be large. In order to examine these heterogeneous risk preferences, we use a random parameter logit model. The estimation results confirm that considerable heterogeneous risk preferences exist. Finally, the mean marginal willingness to pay to prevent the loss of one person per one billion people because of wolf reintroduction is several hundred yen.

Suggested Citation

  • Kawata, Yukichika & Watanabe, Masahide, 2012. "Valuing the mortality risk of wildlife reintroduction: Heterogeneous risk preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 79-86.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:76:y:2012:i:c:p:79-86
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912000481
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.002?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. Göran Bostedt & Mattias Boman, 1996. "Nonresponse in Contingent Valuation-reducing uncertainty in value inference," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(1), pages 119-124, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1987. "An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 89-114, February.
    4. John B. Loomis & Pierre H. duVair, 1993. "Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results from a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(3), pages 287-298.
    5. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Wilson, Mathew A. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 2001. "Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 133-148, January.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    7. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Dupont, Diane & Krupnick, Alan & Zhang, Jing, 2011. "Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: An analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-226, March.
    8. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
    9. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    10. Kenshi Itaoka & Aya Saito & Alan Krupnick & Wiktor Adamowicz & Taketoshi Taniguchi, 2006. "The Effect of Risk Characteristics on the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions from Electric Power Generation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(3), pages 371-398, March.
    11. Mary Riddel & W. Shaw, 2006. "A theoretically-consistent empirical model of non-expected utility: An application to nuclear-waste transport," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 131-150, March.
    12. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    2. Masahide Watanabe & Toshio Fujimi, 2015. "Evaluating Change in Objective Ambiguous Mortality Probability: Valuing Reduction in Ambiguity Size and Risk Level," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(1), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    4. Solomon Tarfasa & Roy Brouwer, 2013. "Estimation of the public benefits of urban water supply improvements in Ethiopia: a choice experiment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(9), pages 1099-1108, March.
    5. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    7. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    8. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    9. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    10. Nannan Kang & Erda Wang & Yang Yu, 2019. "Valuing forest park attributes by giving consideration to the tourist satisfaction," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(5), pages 711-733, August.
    11. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    12. Vondolia, Godwin K. & Hynes, Stephen & Armstrong, Claire W. & Chen, Wenting, 2021. "Subjective well-being and stated preferences: Explorations from a choice experiment in Norway," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    13. Abou-Ali, Hala & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2004. "Evaluating the welfare effects of improved water quality using the choice experiment method," Working Papers in Economics 131, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    14. Patrick Lloyd-Smith & Craig Schram & Wiktor Adamowicz & Diane Dupont, 2018. "Endogeneity of Risk Perceptions in Averting Behavior Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 217-246, February.
    15. Joseph F. Wyer, 2018. "Urban Transportation Mode Choice And Trip Complexity: Bicyclists Stick To Their Gears," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(3), pages 1777-1787, July.
    16. Chhandita Das & Christopher M. Anderson & Stephen K. Swallow, 2009. "Estimating Distributions of Willingness to Pay for Heterogeneous Populations," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 593-610, January.
    17. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    18. Santos, Rui & Clemente, Pedro & Brouwer, Roy & Antunes, Paula & Pinto, Rute, 2015. "Landowner preferences for agri-environmental agreements to conserve the montado ecosystem in Portugal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 159-167.
    19. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    20. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.

    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:76:y:2012:i:c:p:79-86. 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.