Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T12:35:10.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valuing complex environmental goods: landscape and biodiversity in the North Pennines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

JULIE BLACK ,
E.J. MILNER-GULLAND ,
NICK SOTHERTON  and
SUSANA MOURATO
JULIE BLACK*
Affiliation:
Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, UK Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, Mechanical Engineering Building, 3rd Floor, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ, UK
E.J. MILNER-GULLAND
Affiliation:
Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, UK Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, Mechanical Engineering Building, 3rd Floor, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ, UK
NICK SOTHERTON
Affiliation:
Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, Burgate Manor, Fordingbridge, Hampshire SP6 1EF, UK
SUSANA MOURATO
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK
*
*Correspondence: Dr Julie Black, Marine Protected Areas, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Dunnett House, 7 Thistle Place, Aberdeen AB10 1UZ, UK Tel: +44 1224 655711 e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Human activities may have detrimental effects on biodiversity, and appropriate economic valuation of biodiversity can provide additional motivation to protect it. To date, there are no estimates of visitor values for landscape and wildlife changes in the North Pennines (UK) and very few studies have explored competing influences of landscape and biodiversity in public preferences. Contingent valuation estimates of visitor values for the North Pennines landscape and biodiversity, as expressed in voluntary contributions, were used to assess the importance of different factors in influencing these valuations. Policy-linked scenarios were developed, each representing the outcome of a particular policy direction such as grouse-moor specific subsidies, back-to-nature subsidies, or a ban or decline in red grouse shooting. The influence of management information provision was tested and economic values were elicited for a number of alternatives. Landscape and biodiversity were both found to be important in preference formation. In particular, respondents highly valued a mosaic landscape with increases in blanket bog and the associated increases in rare and threatened birds and mammals. Notably, significant negative valuations were obtained for some of the scenarios presented. Provision of land use information did not significantly influence visitors' valuations, a surprising result given the controversial nature of one of the primary land uses, namely red grouse shooting.

Keywords

biodiversity action plan (BAP)conservationcontingent valuationmanagementuplands
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 136 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2010

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.)

References

Alberini, A. & Kahn, J., eds (2006) Handbook on Contingent Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, G., Day, B., Mourato, S. & Palmer, C. (2004) Amenity or eye sore? Negative willingness to pay to replace electricity transmission towers. Applied Economic Letters 11: 203–208.Google Scholar
Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Hanley, N., Day, B.H., Hanemann, M., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R. & Swanson, J. (2002) Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques A Manual. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrens, R., Jenkins-Smith, H., Bohara, A. & Silva, C. (2002) Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (1): 144–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. (2009) Conservation value of the North Pennines. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College, London, UK [www document]. URL http://www.iccs.org.uk/thesis/phd-black,julie09Google Scholar
Boyle, K.J. & Bishop, R.C. (1987) Valuing wildlife in benefit-cost analysis: a case study involving endangered species. Water Resources Research 23: 943–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, D.C. (2004) Causal inference and the Heckman Model. Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics 29: 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broberg, T. & Brännlund, R. (2008) On the value of large predators in Sweden: a regional stratified contingent valuation analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 88 (4): 1066–1077.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Champ, P.A. & Bishop, R.C. (2001) Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: An empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental and Resource Economics 19: 383–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J. & Brown, T.C., eds. (2003) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R. & Hyde, T. (2006) Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics 58: 304–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinch, J.P. & Murphy, A. (2001) Modelling winners and losers in contingent valuation of public goods: appropriate welfare measures and econometric analysis. Economic Journal 111: 420–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, R.G. & Taylor, L.O. (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review 89: 649–665.Google Scholar
Edwards-Jones, G., Edwards-Jones, E.S. & Mitchell, K. (1995) A comparison of contingent valuation methodology and ecological assessment as techniques for incorporating ecological goods into land-use decisions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 38: 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estrin, S. & Laidler, D. (1995) Introduction to Microeconomics, Fourth edition. Edinburgh, UK: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Ltd.Google Scholar
Groning, J., Krause, S. & Hochkirch, A. (2007) Habitat preferences of an endangered insect species, Cepero's ground-hopper (Tetrix ceperoi). Ecological Research 22: 767–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guisan, A. & Zimmermann, N.E. (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling 135: 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, N. & Craig, S. (1991) Wilderness development decisions and the Krutilla-Fisher model: the case of Scotland's ‘flow country’. Ecological Economics 4: 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, N., Colombo, S., Mason, P. & Johns, H. (2007) The reform of support mechanisms for upland farming: paying for public goods in the severely disadvantaged areas of England. Journal of Agricultural Economics 58 (3): 433–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R.E., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parsisson, D. & Crabtree, B. (1998) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 49 (1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, N., Colombo, S., Kristrom, B. & Watson, F. (2009) Accounting for negative, zero and positive willingness to pay for landscape change. Journal of Agricultural Economics 60 (1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J. (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47: 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, D.W. & Lemeshow, S. (2000) Applied Logistic Regression, Second edition. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.L., Raunikar, R. & Misra, S. (1991) The application and economic interpretation of selectivity models. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 496–501.Google Scholar
Hudson, P. & Newborn, D. (1995) A Manual of Red Grouse and Moorland Management. Fordingbridge, UK: The Game Conservancy Trust.Google Scholar
Jacobs, (2004) An economic assessment of the costs and benefits of Natura 2000 sites in Scotland. Report for the Scottish Executive, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Kenyon, W. & Edwards-Jones, G. (1998) What level of information enables the public to act like experts when evaluating ecological goods? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41: 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, S. (2003) Tourism and the Environment; Perspectives from the Nepal Himalaya. Innsbruck and Wien, Austria/Munchen, Germany: Himal Books and Studienverlag.Google Scholar
Lapka, M. & Cudlinova, E. (2004) Perception of landscapes: possible integrating tool for landscape research. Ekologia-Bratislava 23: 170–178.Google Scholar
Lienhoop, N. & MacMillan, D. (2007) Valuing wilderness in Iceland: estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy 24: 289–295.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L. (2003) Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness to pay for golden rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 840–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMillan, D., Hanley, N. & Daw, M. (2004) Costs and benefits of wild goose conservation in Scotland. Biological Conservation 119: 475–485.Google Scholar
MacMillan, D., Hanley, N. & Lienhoop, N. (2006) Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine? Ecological Economics 60 (1): 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMillan, D.C., Smart, T.S. & Thorburn, A.P (1999) A field experiment involving cash and hypothetical charitable donations. Environmental and Resource Economics 14 (3): 399–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D. (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. Zarembka, P., pp. 105–142. New York, USA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Michel, N., Burel, F., Legendre, P. & Butet, A. (2007) Role of habitat and landscape in structuring small mammal assemblages in hedgerow networks of contrasted farming landscapes in Brittany, France. Landscape Ecology 22: 1241–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R.C. & Carson, R.T. (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington DC, USA: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Moilanen, A., Franco, A.M.A., Early, R.I., Fox, B.W. & Thomas, C.D. (2005) Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multispecies planning problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 272: 1885–1891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, A. & Hanley, N. (1999) Information, uncertainty and contingent valuation. In: Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU and Developing Countries, ed. Bateman, I.J. & Willis, K.G., pp. 258–279. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, J.J., Stevens, T.H. & Weatherhead, D. (2005) Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? Environmental and Resource Economics 30: 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, D. (2001) Valuing biological diversity: issues and overview. In: Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits: Selected Studies, ed. OECD, pp. 27–44. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. & Moran, D. (1994) The Economic Value of Biodiversity. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Pilgrim, S., Smith, D. & Pretty, J. (2007) A cross-regional assessment of the factors affecting ecoliteracy: implications for policy and practice. Ecological Applications 17: 1742–1751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poe, G.L., Clark, J.E, Rondeau, D. & Schulze, W.D. (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 23: 105–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remoundou, K., Koundouri, P., Kontogianni, A., Nunes, P.A.L.D. & Slourtos, M. (2009) Valuation of natural marine ecosystems: an economic perspective. Environmental Science and Policy 12: 1040–1051.Google Scholar
Robertson, P.A., Park, K.J. & Barton, J.F. (2001) Loss of heather moorland in the Scottish uplands: the role of red grouse management. Wildlife Biology 7:11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schama, S. (1991) Homelands. Social Research 58: 11–30.Google Scholar
Schama, S. (1996) Landscape and Memory.USA: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Schofield, L. (2005) Public attitude toward mammal reintroductions: a Highland case study. Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Imperial College, London, UK [www document]. URL http://www.iccs.org.uk/thesis/Schofield%20MscThesis.pdfGoogle Scholar
Spash, C.L. (2000) Ecosystems, contingent valuation and ethics: the case of wetland re-creation. Ecological Economics 34: 195–215.Google Scholar
Spash, C.L. (2002) Informing and forming preferences in environmental valuation: coral reef biodiversity. Journal of Economic Psychology 23: 665–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, L., van Kooten, G.C. & Voss, G.M. (2009) What accounts for the divergence between ranchers WTA and WTP for public forage? Forest Policy and Economics 11 (4): 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanwick, C., Hanley, N. & Termansen, M. (2007) Scoping study on agricultural landscape valuation. Report to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK.Google Scholar
Tharme, A.P., Green, R.E., Baines, D., Bainbridge, I.P. & O'Brien, M. (2001) The effect of management for red grouse shooting on the population density of breeding birds on heather-dominated moorland Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 439–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D.B.A., MacDonald, A.J., Marsden, J.H. & Galbraith, C.A. (1995) Upland heather moorland in Great Britain: a review of international importance, vegetation change, and some objectives for nature conservation. Biological Conservation 71: 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tisdell, C. & Nantha, H.S. (2007) Management, conservation and farming of saltwater crocodiles: an Australian case study of sustainable commercial use. Perspectives in Animal Ecology and Reproduction 4: 233–263.Google Scholar
Tisdell, C. & Wilson, C. (2006) Information, wildlife valuation, conservation: experiments and policy. Contemporary Economic Policy 24: 144–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, G. (2003) Review of the impacts if heather and grassland burning in the uplands on soils, hydrology and biodiversity. English Nature Research Report 550, Natural England, Peterborough, UK.Google Scholar
White, P.C.L., Bennet, A.C. & Hayes, E.J.V. (2001) The use of willingness-to-pay approaches in mammal conservation. Mammal Review 31: 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, P.C.L., Gregory, K.W., Lindley, P.J. & Richards, G. (1997) Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: a case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. Biological Conservation 82: 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whynes, D.K. & Sach, T.H. (2007) WTP and WTA: do people think differently? Social Science and Medicine 65 (5): 946–957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willis, K.G., Garrod, G.D. & Saunders, C.M. (1995) Benefits of environmentally sensitive area policy in England: a contingent valuation assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 44: 105–125.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Black supplementary material

Black supplementary material

Download Black supplementary material(File)
File 629.8 KB