IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nzar09/97128.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    11. Petcharat, Areeyapat & Lee, Yohan, 2020. "Measuring the non-use value of the Dugong (Dugong dugon) in Thailand," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305232, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    12. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    13. Danny Campbell & Seda Erdem, 2015. "Position Bias in Best-worst Scaling Surveys: A Case Study on Trust in Institutions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(2), pages 526-545.
    14. Nick Hanley & Simanti Banerjee & Gareth D. Lennox & Paul R. Armsworth, 2012. "How should we incentivize private landowners to ‘produce’ more biodiversity?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 93-113, Spring.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L., 2022. "Regulating menu information: What do consumers care and not care about at casual and fine dining restaurants for seafood consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    18. Achtnicht, Martin & Madlener, Reinhard, 2014. "Factors influencing German house owners' preferences on energy retrofits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 254-263.
    19. Christie, Michael & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas, 2011. "What are the consequences of ignoring attributes in choice experiments? An application to ecosystem service values," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2011-20, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    20. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2018. "The effect of attribute-alternative matrix displays on preferences and processing strategies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 113-132.

    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.