Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:46:46.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing visitors’ preferences for ecosystem features in a desert biodiversity hotspot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2017

CLAUDIA CERDA ,
JUAN PABLO FUENTES ,
CARMEN LUZ DE LA MAZA ,
CARLA LOUIT  and
ANA ARAOS
CLAUDIA CERDA*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Forest Sciences and Conservation of Nature, University of Chile. Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago de Chile, Chile
JUAN PABLO FUENTES
Affiliation:
Faculty of Forest Sciences and Conservation of Nature, University of Chile. Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago de Chile, Chile
CARMEN LUZ DE LA MAZA
Affiliation:
Faculty of Forest Sciences and Conservation of Nature, University of Chile. Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago de Chile, Chile
CARLA LOUIT
Affiliation:
Chilean Forest Corporation, Protected Areas Department, Coquimbo Region, Regimiento Arica 901, Coquimbo, Chile
ANA ARAOS
Affiliation:
Faculty of Forest Sciences and Conservation of Nature, University of Chile. Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago de Chile, Chile
*
*Correspondence: Dr Claudia Cerda email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

We estimated visitors’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a variety of environmental attributes in a protected area of the Atacama Desert, a biodiversity hotspot in northern Chile. By using a choice experiment, WTP was estimated for the protection of the following attributes: animals (mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds), pollinating insects, plants (cacti and woody shrubs), soil quality and pristine landscapes. Visitors placed economic value on all of the attributes. The marginal mean WTP/visitor for the single levels of variation in the attributes ranged from US$4 (for supporting research on foxes) to US$26 (for maintaining soil quality) per visitor per month. These results can contribute to deciding which attributes are likely to be successful at raising funds for conservation. Our approach may be relevant to protected areas of the world with high conservation values, little funding and a lack of large, charismatic species.

Keywords

biodiversitywillingness to payAtacama Desertchoice experimentvisitors
Type
Non-Thematic Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 45 , Issue 1: Thematic section. Humans and Island Environments , March 2018 , pp. 75 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Supplementary material can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892917000200

References

REFERENCES

Barrena, J., Nahuelhual, L., Báez, A., Schiappacasse, I. & Cerda, C. (2014) Valuing cultural ecosystem services: agricultural heritage in Chiloé Island, southern Chile. Ecosystem Services 7: 66–75.Google Scholar
Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E. & Pearce, D.W. (2002) Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Technique: A Manual. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing House.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buffa, F. (2015) Young tourists and sustainability. Profiles, attitudes, and implications for destination strategies. Sustainability 7: 14042–14062.Google Scholar
Carson, R.T. & Louviere, J.J. (2011) A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environmental and Resource Economics 49: 539–559.Google Scholar
Cerda, C. & Losada, T. (2013) Assessing the value of species: a case study on the willingness to pay for species protection in Chile. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 185: 10479–10493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cerda, C., Barkmann, J. & Marggraf, R. (2013a) Application of choice experiments to quantify the existence value of an endemic moss: a case study in Chile. Environment and Developing Economies 18: 207–224.Google Scholar
Cerda, C., Ponce, A. & Zappi, M. (2013b) Using choice experiments to understand public demand for the conservation of nature: a case study in a protected area of Chile. Journal for Nature Conservation 21: 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerda, C., Barkmann, J. & Marggraf, R. (2014) Non-market economic valuation of the benefits provided by temperate ecosystems at the extreme south of the Americas. Regional Environmental Change 14: 1517–1531.Google Scholar
Cerda, C. & De la Maza, C.L. (2015) Evaluación de Servicios Ecosistémicos Proporcionados por Áreas Protegidas: Implicancias para Áreas Protegidas Chilenas. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Gráfica Metropolitana.Google Scholar
Di Minin, E., Fraser, I., Slotow, R. & MacMillan, D.C. (2013a) Understanding heterogeneous preference of tourists for big game species: implications for conservation and management. Animal Conservation 16: 249–258.Google Scholar
Di Minin, E., Fraser, I., Slotow, R. & MacMillan, D.C. (2013b) Conservation marketing and education for less charismatic biodiversity and conservation businesses for sustainable development. Animal Conservation 16: 263–264.Google Scholar
Domínguez-Torreiro, M. & Soliño, M. (2011) Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas. Ecological Economics 70: 2523–2531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duarte, M., Guerrero, P.C., Carvallo, G. & Bustamante, R.O. (2014) Conservation network design for endemic cacti under taxonomic uncertainty. Biological Conservation 176: 236–242.Google Scholar
Espinosa, M., Cepeda, A., Louit, C., Meléndez, M. & González-Maya, J. (2014) Pampas cat Leopardus colocolo in the Atacama Desert: first records from Llanos de Challe National Park, Chile. Boletín del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural 63: 111–118.Google Scholar
González, B.A., Palma, R.E., Zapata, B. & Marín, J.C. (2006) Taxonomic and biogeographical status of guanaco Lama guanicoe (Artiodactyla, Camelidae). Mammal Review 36: 157–178.Google Scholar
Hartter, J., Solomon, J., Ryan, S.J. Jacobson, S.K. & Goldman, A. (2014) Contrasting perceptions of ecosystem services of an African forest park. Environmental Conservation 41: 330–340.Google Scholar
Hausmann, A., Slotow, R., Fraser, I. & Di Minin, E. (2017). Ecotourism marketing alternative to charismatic megafauna can also support biodiversity conservation. Animal Conservation 20: 91–100.Google Scholar
Hensher, D., Rose, J. & Greene, W. (2005) Applied Choice Methods – A Primer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorquera-Jaramillo, C. (2008) Agricultura y flora nativa en la Región de Atacama. ¿Es posible producir y conservar? In: Libro Rojo de la Flora Nativa y de los Sitios Prioritarios para su Conservación: Región de Atacama, vol. 17, eds. Squeo, F.A., Arancio, G. & Gutiérrez, J.R., pp. 305–322. La Serena, Chile: Ediciones Universidad de La Serena.Google Scholar
Karlen, D.L. (2012) Soil health: the concept, its role, and strategies for monitoring. In: Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services, eds. Wall, D.H., Bardgett, R.D., Behan-Pelletier, V., Herrick, J.E., Helfin Jones, T., Ritz, K., Six, J., Strong, D.R. & van der Putten, W.H., pp. 331–336. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kotchen, M.J. & Reiling, S.D. (2000) Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics 32: 93–107.Google Scholar
Krinsky, I. & Robb, A.L. (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 715–719.Google Scholar
Krutilla, J. (1967) Conservation reconsidered. The American Economic Review 57: 777–786.Google Scholar
Larridon, I., Shaw, K., Cisternas, M.A., Paizanni Guillén, A., Sharrock, S., Oldfield, S., Goetghebeur, P. & Samain, M. (2014) Is there a future for the Cactaceae genera Copiapoa, Eriosyce and Eulychnia? A status report of a prickly situation. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 1249–1287.Google Scholar
Leader-Williams, N. & Dublin, H.T. (2000) Charismatic megafauna as ‘flagship species’. In: Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Diversity: Has the Panda Had its Day?, eds. Entwistle, A. & Dunstone, N., pp. 53–81, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loomis, J., Kent, P., Strange, L., Fausch, K. & Covich, A. (2000) Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics 33: 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J.B. & Larson, D.M. (1994) Total economic values of increasing gray whale populations: results from a contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Marine Resource Economics 9: 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J.B. & White, D.S. (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 18: 197–206.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A. & Swait, J.D. (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Aplications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maciejewski, K. & Kerley, G.I.H. (2014) Understanding tourists’ preference for mammal species in private protected areas: is there a case for extralimital species for ecotourism? PLoS ONE 9: e88192.Google Scholar
Martín-López, B., Montes, C. & Benayas, J. (2007) The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 139: 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pendergast, D. (2010) Getting to know the Y generation. In: Tourism and Generation Y, eds. Benckendorff, P., Moscardo, G., & Pendergast, D., pp. 1–15. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Ressurreição, A., Gibbons, J., Dentinho, T.P., Kaiser, M., Santos, R.S. & Edwards-Jones, G. (2011) Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea. Ecological Economics 70: 729–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skibins, J.C., Powell, R.B. & Hallo, J.C. (2013) Charisma and conservation: charismatic megafauna's influence on safari and zoo tourists’ pro-conservation behaviors. Biodiversity and Conservation 22: 959–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tisdell, C. & Wilson, C. (2006) Information, wildlife valuation, conservation: experiments and policy. Contemporary Economic Policy 24: 144–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Riper, C.J., Manning, R.E., Monz, C.A. & Goonan, K.A. (2011) Tradeoffs among resource, social, and managerial conditions on mountain summits of the Northern Forest. Leisure Sciences 33: 228–249.Google Scholar
Veríssimo, D., Fraser, I., Groombridge, J., Bristol, R. & MacMillan, D.C. (2009) Birds as tourism flagship species: a case study of tropical islands. Animal Conservation 12: 549–558.Google Scholar
Zamin, T.J., Baillie, J.E.M., Miller, R.M., Rodríguez, J.P., Ardid, A. & Collen, B. (2010) National Red Listing beyond the 2010 target. Conservation Biology 24: 1012–1020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: Image

Cerda supplementary material

Cerda supplementary material 1

Download Cerda supplementary material(Image)
Image 796.3 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Cerda supplementary material

Cerda supplementary material 2

Download Cerda supplementary material(Image)
Image 4.6 MB
Supplementary material: File

Cerda supplementary material

Cerda supplementary material 3

Download Cerda supplementary material(File)
File 342 KB
Supplementary material: File

Cerda supplementary material

Cerda supplementary material 4

Download Cerda supplementary material(File)
File 19.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Cerda supplementary material

Cerda supplementary material 5

Download Cerda supplementary material(File)
File 4.6 MB
Supplementary material: File

Cerda supplementary material

Cerda supplementary material 6

Download Cerda supplementary material(File)
File 18.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Cerda supplementary material

Cerda supplementary material 7

Download Cerda supplementary material(File)
File 16.6 KB