Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the empirical relationship between biodiversity conservation values and income. We use random effects panel models to examine the effects of income, and then GDP per capita, on willingness to pay for habitat and biodiversity conservation. In a meta-analysis, 145 Willingness To Pay estimates for biodiversity conservation where existence value plays a major role were collected from 46 contingent valuation studies across six continents. Other effects included in the meta-analysis were the study year; habitat type; continent; scope as presented to respondents; whether WTP bids were for preventing a deterioration or gaining an improvement in conservation, whether a specific species or specific habitat was protected; whether the questionnaire used a dichotomous choice or an open-ended format; distribution format; and the choice of payment vehicle. GDP per capita seemed to perform as well as an explanatory variable as respondent’s mean stated income, indicating that it is wealth in society as a whole which determines variations in WTP. Even if large variation, our main conclusion is, that the demand for biodiversity conservation rises with a nation’s wealth, but the income elasticity of willingness to pay is less than one.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amigues JP, Boulatoff C, Desaigues B, Gauthier C, Keith JE (2002) The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecol Econ 43: 17–31. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00172-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armirnejad H, Khalilian S, Assareh MH, Ahmadian M (2006) Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method. Ecol Econ 58: 665–675. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.08.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bal F, Button KJ, Nijkamp P (2002) Ceteris paribus, meta-analysis and the value transfer. Socioecon Plann Sci 36: 127–138. doi:10.1016/S0038-0121(01)00022-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandera R, Tisdell C (2004) The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study. Ecol Econ 48: 93–107. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB (1997) Introduction to the environmental Kuznets curve. Environ Dev Econ 2: 369–381. doi:10.1017/S1355770X97000193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Langford IH (1997) ‘Non-users’ willingness to pay for a national park: an application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Reg Stud 31: 571–582. doi:10.1080/00343409750131703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Jones AP (2003) Contrasting conventional with multi-level modelling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. Land Econ 79(2): 235–258. doi:10.2307/3146869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Mawby J (2004) First impressions count: interviewer appearance and information effects in stated preference studies. Ecol Econ 49: 47–55. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD (1995) Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecol Econ 12: 161–179. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(94)00044-V

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman I, Carson R, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N et al (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett JW (1984) Using direct questioning to value the existence benefits of preserved natural areas. Aust J Agric Econ 28: 136–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom JC, Dillman BL, Stoll JR (1985) Public environmental amenity benefits of private land: the case of prime agricultural land. South J Agric Econ, July 139–149

  • Boiesen JH, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ, Strange N, Dubgaard A (2005) Værdisætning af de danske lyngheder [Valuation of Danish heathland]. Working paper 14, Forest & Landscape, p 68

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker JM, Stoll JR (1988) Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. Am J Agric Econ 70: 372–381. doi:10.2307/1242078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 18: 243–253. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brander LM, Florax RJGM, Vermaat JE (2006) The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environ Resour Econ 33: 223–250. doi:10.1007/s10640-005-3104-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brander LM, Van Beukering P, Herman SJC (2007) The recreational value of coral reefs: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 63: 209–218. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Bateman I (2001) The temporal stability of contingent WTP values. In: Proceedings from EEARE 11th annual conference, University of Southampton, UK, 28–30 June 2001

  • Brouwer R, Langford IH, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (1999) A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Reg Environ Change 1: 47–57. doi:10.1007/s101130050007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruvoll A, Faehn T, Strom B (2003) Quantifying central hypotheses on environmental Kuznets curves for a rich economy. Scott J Polit Econ 50(2): 149–173. doi:10.1111/1467-9485.5002003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1994) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “Dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire. J Environ Econ Manage 27: 218–234. doi:10.1006/jeem.1994.1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1998) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “Dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire: reply. J Environ Econ Manage 35: 195–199. doi:10.1006/jeem.1998.1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT, Wilks L, Imber D (1994) Valuing the preservation of Australia’s Kakadu conservation zone. Oxf Econ Pap 46: 727–749

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang K, Ying YH (2005) ‘External benefits of preserving agricultural land: Taiwan’s rice fields. Soc Sci J 42: 285–293. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2005.03.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie M, Hanley N, Warren J, Murphy K, Wright R, Hyde T (2006) Valuing diversity of biodiversity. Ecol Econ 58: 304–317. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deacon RT, Norman CS (2006) Does the environmental Kuznets Curve describe how countries behave. Land Econ 82(2): 291–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert U (2003) Environmental goods and the distribution of income. Environ Resour Econ 25: 435–459. doi:10.1023/A:1025052225929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores NE, Carson RT (1997) The Relationship between the income elasticities of demand and willingness to pay. J Environ Econ Manage 33: 287–295. doi:10.1006/jeem.1997.0998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco D, Franco D, Mannino I, Zanetto G (2001) The role of agroforestry networks in landscape socioeconomic processes: the potential and limits of the contingent valuation method. Landsc Urban Plan 55: 239–256. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00158-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Lopez G (2006) Evaluating the validity of the benefit transfer approach: the case of manatee protection in Florida and Puerto Rico. Masters Thesis, Department of Land Economy, Cambridge University

  • Giraud KL, Loomis JB, Johnson RL (1999) Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. J Environ Manage 56: 221–229. doi:10.1006/jema.1999.0277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giraud K, Turcin B, Loomis J, Cooper J (2002) Economic benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion. Mar Policy 26: 451–458. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(02)00025-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong Y (2003) Opportunity cost of local people and WTP of off-site residents for biodiversity conservation in Fanjingshan National Nature Reserve in China. CCAP Working Paper 04-E1, 39 pp

  • Greene WH (2002) Econometric analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p 1026

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110: 353–377. doi:10.2307/2118443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadker N, Sharma S, David A, Muraleedharan TR (1997) Willingness-to-pay for Borivli National Park: evidence from a contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 21: 105–122. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00094-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hailu A, Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC (2000) Complements, substitutes, budget constraints and valuation. Environ Resour Econ 16: 51–58. doi:10.1023/A:1008328920083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt J, Liu J-T, Liu J-L (2001) Contingent valuation of a Taiwanese wetland. Environ Dev Econ 6: 259–268. doi:10.1017/S1355770X01000146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Macmillan D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D et al (1998a) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agric Econ 49: 1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998b) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11: 413–428. doi:10.1023/A:1008287310583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Macmillan D, Patterson I, Wright RE (2003) Economics and the design of nature conservation policy: a case study of wild goose conservation in Scotland using choice experiments. Anim Conserv 6: 123–129. doi:10.1017/S1367943003003160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein TA, Matthew MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer NC (2005) Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 50: 1–22. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2004.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hökby S, Söderqvist T (2003) Elasticities of demand and willingness to pay for environmental services in Sweden. Environ Resour Econ 26: 361–383. doi:10.1023/B:EARE.0000003581.97411.75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes TP, Bergstrom JC, Huszar E, Kask SB, Orr F (2004) Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecol Econ 49: 19–30. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter JE, Schmidt FL (2004) Methods of meta-analysis, correcting error and bias in research findings, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, London, p 582

    Google Scholar 

  • IMF (2007a) World economic outlook database, September 2006 edition. Downloaded from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/download.aspx on 5 January 2007

  • IMF (2007b) World Economic Outlook, October 2007, Globalization and inequality. International Monetary Fund, Washington, 275 pp

  • Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2008) Where to put a national park and what to put in it? An a priori study of the willingness-to-pay for coming national parks. Working paper, Forest & Landscape, Copenhagen University, p 31

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ, Boiesen JH, Anthon S, Tranberg J (2006) Værdisætning af syv mulige nationalparker i Danmark [Valuation of seven potential national parks in Denmark], Summary in English, Arbejdsrapport 28. Forest & Landscape KVL, Frederiksberg, p 63

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK (1996) Contingent valuation and endangered species. Methodological issues and applications. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 269

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK (2001) The worth of a Possom: valuing species with the contingent valuation method. Environ Resour Econ 19: 211–227. doi:10.1023/A:1011128620388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RL, Bregenzer NS, Shelby B (1990) Contingent valuation question formats: dichotomous choice versus open-ended responses, pp 193–204. In: Johnson RL, Johnson GV(eds) Economic valuation of natural resources. Issues, theory and applications. Social Behaviour and Natural Resource Series. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA, p 220

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriström B, Riera P (1996) Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?. Environ Resour Econ 7: 45–55. doi:10.1007/BF00420426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krutilla JV, Fisher AC (1975) The economics of natural environments. Studies in the valuation of commodity and amenity resources, resources for the future. Colorado, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznets, (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review 49: 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwak S-J, Yoo S-H, Han S-Y (2003) Estimating the public’s value for urban forest in the Seoul metropolitan area of korea: a contingent valuation study. Urban Stud 40: 2207–2221. doi:10.1080/0042098032000123259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen E, Kuulivainen J, Pouta E, Rekola M, Chian-Zhong L (2003) Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environ Sci Policy 6: 195–204. doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(03)00035-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • León CJ (1996) Double bounded survival values for preserving the landscape of natural parks. J Environ Manage 46: 103–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindhjem H (2007) 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. J For Econ 12: 251–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood M, Carberry D (1998) Stated preference surveys of remnant native vegetation conservation. Johnstone Centre, Report No. 104, Albury, 30 pp

  • Loomis JB (1987) Expanding contingent value sample estimates to aggregate benefit estimates: current practices and proposed solutions. Land Econ 63: 396–402. doi:10.2307/3146296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis JB, White DS (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 18: 197–206. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(96)00029-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis JB, Gonzales-Caban A (1998) A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire. Ecol Econ 25: 315–322. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00044-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis J, Lockwood M, DeLacy T (1993) Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. J Environ Econ Manage 24: 45–55. doi:10.1006/jeem.1993.1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis JB, 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. Ecol Econ 33: 103–117. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00131-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan DC, Duff EI, Elston DA (2001) Modelling the non-market environmental costs and benefits of biodiversity projects using contingent valuation data. Environ Resour Econ 18: 391–410. doi:10.1023/A:1011169413639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson MA, Nieswiadomy ML (2005) Environmental Kuznets curve: threatened species and spatial effects. Ecol Econ 55: 395–407. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metrick A, Weitzman ML (1994) Patterns of behavior in biodiversity preservation. The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 1358, 36 pp

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods, The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC, 463 pp

  • Munro A (2005) Household willingness to pay equals individual willingness to pay if and only if the household income pools. Econ Lett 88: 227–230. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2005.02.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyborg K (2000) Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values. J Econ Behav Organ 42: 305–322. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00091-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pang F, Drummond M, Song F (1999) The use of meta-analysis in economic valuation. Discussion Paper 173, Centre for Health Economics, The University of York, 25 pp

  • Pate J, Loomis L (1997) The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol Econ 20: 199–207. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00080-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poe GL, Boyle KJ, Bergstrom JC (2000) A meta analysis of contingent values for groundwater quality in the United States. In: 10th Annual conference of the European association of environmental and resource economists, 30 June–2 July, University of Crete, Greece

  • Reaves DW, Kramer RA, Holmes TP (1999) Does question format matter? Valuing endangeres species. Environ Resour Econ 14: 365–383. doi:10.1023/A:1008320621720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richer J (1995) Willingness to pay for desert protection. Contemp Econ Policy 13: 93–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riera P, Mogas J, Bennett J (2008) Forest value inference using contingent valuation and choice experiments. In: Birol E, Koundouri P(eds) Choice experiments informing European environmental policy. Edward–Elgar Publishing, Wally Oates and Henk Folmer’s ‘New Horizons in Environmental Economics’ Series. Cheltenham, UK, p 368

    Google Scholar 

  • Rondeau D, Schulze W, Poe G (1999) Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism. J Public Econ 72: 455–470. doi:10.1016/S0047-2727(98)00104-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberger RS, Loomis JB (2000) Panel stratification in meta-analysis of economic studies: an investigation of its effects in the recreation valuation literature. J Agric Appl Econ 32: 459–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Schläpfer F (2006) Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 57: 415–429. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shechter M, Reiser B, Zaitsev N (1998) Measuring passive use value, pledges, donations and CV responses in connection with an important natural resource. Environ Resour Econ 12: 457–478. doi:10.1023/A:1008397411466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Kaoru Y (1990) Signals or noise? Explaining the variation in recreation benefit estimates. Am J Agric Econ 72: 419–433. doi:10.2307/1242344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Osborne LL (1996) Do contingent valuation estimates pass a “scope” test? A meta-analysis. J Environ Econ Manage 31: 287–301. doi:10.1006/jeem.1996.0045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon BD, Corey-Luse CM, Halvorsen KE (2004) The Florida manatee and eco-tourism: toward a safe minimum standard. Ecol Econ 50: 101–115. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanniks F, Hoevenagel R (1995) Temporal embedding in contingent valuation: evidence from a study investigating the value of Wildlife Management in Agricultural Areas. In: Proceedings from the Sixth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Umeå, Sweden, June 18–20, 1995

  • Streever WJ, Callaghan-Perry M, Searles A, Stevens T, Svoboda P (1998) Public attitudes and values for wetland conservation in New South Wales, Australia. J Environ Manage 54: 1–14. doi:10.1006/jema.1998.0224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subade RF (2005) Valuing biodiversity conservation in a world heritage site. Citizens Non-use B values for Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park, Philippines. Economy and Environmental Program for Southeast Asia, Research Report No. 2005-RP4, 68 pp

  • Tsuge T, Washida T (2003) Economic valuation of the Seto Inland Sea by using an Internet CV survey. Mar Pollut Bull 47: 230–236. doi:10.1016/S0025-326X(03)00058-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turpie JK (2003) The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay. Ecol Econ 46: 199–216. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00122-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bergh J, Button KJ, Nijkamp P, Pepping GC (1997) Meta-analysis in environmental economics. Economy & Environment, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p 240

    Google Scholar 

  • Veisten K, Hoen HF, Navrud S, Strand J (2004) Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. J Environ Manage 73: 317–331. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh RG, Loomis JB, Gillman RA (1984) Valuing option, existence, and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Econ 60: 14–29. doi:10.2307/3146089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh MP, Poe GL (1998) Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ Manage 36: 170–185. doi:10.1006/jeem.1998.1043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PCL, Gregory KW, Lindley PJ, Richards G (1997) Economic values of threatened mammals in Britain: a case study of the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. Biol Conserv 82: 345–354. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00036-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White PCL, Bennett AC, Hayes EJV (2001) The use of willingness-to-pay approaches in mammal conservation. Mammal Rev 31: 151–167. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2907.2001.00083.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward RT, Wui Y-S (2001) The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 37: 257–270. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00276-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhongmin X, Guodong C, Zhiqiang Z, Zhiyong S, Loomis J (2003) Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecol Econ 44: 345–358. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00280-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Policy and Management Planning, Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958, Frederiksberg C., Denmark

    Jette Bredahl Jacobsen

  2. Department of Economics, University of Stirling, Stirling, Fk94 LA, Scotland, UK

    Nick Hanley

Authors
  1. Jette Bredahl Jacobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nick Hanley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jette Bredahl Jacobsen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jacobsen, J.B., Hanley, N. Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?. Environ Resource Econ 43, 137–160 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9226-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9226-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation