Ecological Economics 70 (2011) 729–739

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n

Analysis

Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea

Adriana Ressurreição a,⁎, James Gibbons b, Tomaz Ponce Dentinho c, Michel Kaiser d,
Ricardo S. Santos a, Gareth Edwards-Jones b
a
Department of Oceanography and Fisheries, University of Azores, Cais de Santa Cruz 9901-862 Horta, Portugal
b
School of the Environment, Natural Resources & Geography, Bangor University, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, United Kingdom
c
Department of Agrarian Sciences, University of Azores, Terra Chã 9701-851 Angra do Heroismo, Portugal
d
School of Ocean Science, Bangor University, Menai Bridge, Anglesey LL59 5AB, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although the oceans cover 70% of the surface of the planet few studies have considered the economic valuation of
Received 29 January 2010 marine biodiversity, despite the importance of such information for marine management and conservation. This
Received in revised form 9 November 2010 study uses a contingent valuation method to estimate the public's willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid loss in the
Accepted 10 November 2010
number of marine species in the waters around the Azores archipelago. We estimated the marginal value
Available online 16 December 2010
associated with increased levels of species loss (10% and 25%) in five marine taxa (mammals, fish, algae, birds and
Keywords:
invertebrates) and all marine species considered as a whole, via a face to face survey of residents and visitors to
Marine biodiversity two Azorean islands. The results suggest small but statistically significant differences in the WTP to prevent losses
Conservation in the different taxa (mammals= fishN birds = invertebrates= algae). The results also suggest a greater WTP to
WTP preserve all marine taxa as a whole, than for a series of individual marine taxa. The valuation of the ecosystem and
Azores taxa may be influenced by the maritime culture of the respondents, but despite this, the findings challenge the
commonly held premise that charismatic taxa have a disproportionately strong influence on WTP, and they
provide important insights into human preferences for biodiversity conservation.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Environmental valuation studies undertaken to date have tended to
focus on terrestrial systems, whereas marine systems have received
relatively little attention (Turner et al., 2003). Marine and coastal systems
cover 70% of the surface of the planet and provide a wide range of direct,
indirect and non-use values (Beaumont et al., 2007). A better under-
standing of the perceived value of marine systems would inform
conservation and other management decisions that affect societal welfare.
Not only are there relatively few studies on the value of marine
biodiversity, but existing studies tend to be restricted with regard to the
taxa and locations they consider. A taxonomic bias is illustrated by a recent
meta-analysis of the economic values of species (Martín-López et al.,
2008) which identified twelve studies on marine mammals (e.g. whales,
otters and seals), six on fish, two on birds and one on reptiles (Table 1). A
large body of literature has concluded a strong public preference for the
allocation of conservation funds to likeable and charismatic individual
species (White et al., 1997, 2001; Metrick and Weitzman, 1996; Loomis
and White, 1996). However, the strength of this preference may be
overestimated by the bias in valuation studies which are largely based on
single and high profile species, and greater attention should be given to
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 292 200 400; fax: +351 292 200 411.
E-mail addresses: aressurreicao@uac.pt (A. Ressurreição), j.gibbons@bangor.ac.uk
(J. Gibbons), tomazdentinho@uac.pt (T.P. Dentinho), michel.kaiser@bangor.ac.uk
(M. Kaiser), ricardo@uac.pt (R.S. Santos), afs03d@bangor.ac.uk (G. Edwards-Jones).
ensure that wider assessments are conducted. The valuation of less
charismatic species is important in order to provide relevant data on all
elements of marine ecosystems to decision-makers. The current bias
towards charismatic species in the literature may lead decision-makers to
make inappropriate allocation of funds for conservation which could lead
to a failure to meet conservation goals.
The geographic bias in the literature on the value of marine
biodiversity arises as much of the research in this field is U.S. focussed
(Martín-López et al., 2008), with few studies being reported for Europe,
and almost none in southern Europe. This is unfortunate as current
European legislation requires that the value of biodiversity is included in
conservation and management decisions (e.g. the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive). The lack of valuation studies that consider all
taxa and represent the cultural and ecological diversity across Europe
presents serious challenges to decision makers seeking to establish
mechanisms for marine conservation within the European Union.
The present study addresses some of the issues introduced earlier
using a contingent valuation method to estimate the public's WTP to avoid
marine species loss in the waters around the Azores archipelago. Coverage
of marine taxa is broad and the aim was to estimate the marginal value
associated with increased levels of species loss (reduction in species
richness) and also to estimate WTP to avoid the loss of species in different
marine taxa. Finally we tested for differences in the WTP between
residents and visitors to the Azores. To the best of our knowledge this is
the first time these issues have been tested in the context of marine
ecosystems.

0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.11.009
730 A. Ressurreição et al. / Ecological Economics 70 (2011) 729–739

Table 1
Summary of published economic values of marine species(a).

Taxa Commom name Scientific name Mean value(b) (US$2005) Reference

Mammal California Sea Otter Enhydra lutris nereis 36.76 Hageman, 1985, 1986
Mammal European Otter Lutra lutra 24.4 White et al., 1997
Mammal Gray seals Halichoerus grypus 13.81 Bosetti and Pearce, 2003
Mammal Hawaiian monk seal Monachus schauinslandi 12.83 Samples and Hollyer, 1990; Brown et al., 1994
Mammal Mediterranean monk seal M. monachus 93.87 Langford et al., 1998
Mammal Northern elephant seal Mirounga angustirostris 17.54 Hageman, 1986
Mammal Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus 31.53 Giraud et al., 2002
Mammal Beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas 73.83 Tkac, 1998
Mammal Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus 14.2 Hageman, 1985, 1986; Bulte and van Kooten, 1999
Mammal Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus 44.57 Hageman, 1986
Mammal Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus 23.17 Hageman, 1985, 1986; Loomis and Larson, 1994
Mammal Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae 128.34 Samples et al., 1986
Birds Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus 11.15 Tkac, 1998
Birds Whooping Crane Grus americana 53.42 Bowker and Stoll, 1988
Reptile Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta 16.98 Whitehead, 1992; Wilson and Tisdell, 2003
Fish Atlantic salmon Salmo salar 9.45 Stevens et al., 1991; Bulte and van Kooten, 1999
Fish Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 126.66 Hanemann et al., 1991; Olsen et al., 1991
Fish Steelhead O. mykiss 64.47 Olsen et al., 1991
Fish Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum 30.86 Kotchen and Reiling, 1998
Fish Kelp bass Paralabrax clathratus 43.35 Carson et al., 1994
Fish White croaker Genyonemus lineatus 43.35 Carson et al., 1994
(a)
Adapted from Martín-López et al. (2008).
(b)
Values refer to the mean of values from the studies cited in Reference column.

1.1. The Azores Case Study
The Azores archipelago (36°–40°N, 24–32°W) is composed of nine
volcanic islands and several small islets, scattered in three main groups
along 600 km of the northern part of the Mid Atlantic Ridge. The
coastline is approximately 790 km in length (Menezes, 2003), and the
marine environment of the Azorean archipelago and its surrounding
Economic Exclusive Zone covers roughly 1 million square kilometres,
with an average depth of 3000 m. The Azores archipelago is of
considerable conservation and marine biological interest due to its
isolated position in the middle of the north eastern Atlantic and its
relatively young age (Santos et al., 1995). Owing to the impracticality of
undertaking a valuation survey in all islands due to time and budget
constraints, two islands of the central group — Pico and Faial — were
chosen as the location for this study (Fig. 1). These islands are closely
associated both physically and socially; they are divided by a strait
8.3 km long and have a strong interchange of residents and visitors.
Communities on both islands have a tradition of engaging in activities

Fig. 1. Azores archipelago.

 A. Ressurreição et al. / Ecological Economics 70 (2011) 729–739
related to marine biodiversity such as whale watching, scuba diving,
professional and recreational fisheries and scientific research.
2. Contingent Markets and Marine Biodiversity
Conservation: Methodology
Contingent valuation is one of the most accepted methods for
assessing the total economic value (TEV) of species (Richardson and
Loomis, 2009). Contingent valuation offers flexibility as it is (i) capable of
capturing all components of TEV including non-use values; (ii) allows the
valuation of environmental changes that have not yet occurred
(iii) provides a full socio-demographic profile of the target population
(iv) allows contingent scenarios to be designed to directly elicit the value
of the change under scrutiny and (v) allows a better alignment of public
expectations and political initiatives — consistent with the democratic
perspective — as the valuation process is submitted to public discussion.
Although widely used, contingent studies are the subject of strong
criticism related to the validity and reliability of the results
(Venkatachalam, 2004; White et al., 2001 page 163). Extensive
investigation has been dedicated to the identification and quantification
of potential biases in CVM (for review see Venkatachalam, 2004); such as
hypothetical bias (potential divergence between the real and
hypothetical payments (Cummings et al., 1986)) and embedding or
scope effect (valuation being rather insensitive to the scale of the physical
change (Nijkamp et al., 2008)). Contingent markets are typically defined
according to three key elements: (i) the valuation scenarios associated
with different levels of the goods or service to be valued; (ii) the
identification of the target population that are asked to pay for the goods
or service to be valued; and (iii) the design of the questionnaire that
defines the manner in which the goods or service are provided.
2.1. The Definition of Valuation Scenarios
The economic valuation of changes in biodiversity can be affected
by critical choices regarding the level of biological diversity portrayed
to respondents, the scale of the change in that biodiversity and the
type/amount of information conveyed as part of the survey. As such it
is a challenging task to devise survey instruments that enable the
average citizen to understand and appreciate the consequent welfare
implications of changes in marine biodiversity. Christie et al. (2006)
provided an extensive review on how valuation of biodiversity has
been operationalized in previous studies: single species, multiple
species, genetic diversity, diversity within habitats, ecosystem
functions and services are some of the options presented in this
review. Many of these ecological concepts such as genetic diversity
and ecosystem function are complex and it is unlikely that the general
public has a complete understanding of them (Christie et al., 2006;
Nunes and van den Bergh, 2001). Consequently, the value of changes
in biodiversity has often been assessed through a simplified approach
using individual species as proxies of biological diversity. Although the
public may find it easier to understand biodiversity conservation in such
terms, the science of nature conservation is moving away from single
species approaches and towards community or ecosystem-based
approaches.
Economic valuation of biodiversity is also conditioned by the scale of
the hypothesised change in that metric. Valuation is most meaningful
when considering small or marginal changes (Turner et al., 2003).
Hence, in the present study, in order to minimize the embedding effect,
the scale of the change was considered to occur at a regional scale
(Turpie, 2003).
The valuation scenarios considered marine biodiversity in terms of
species richness for five separate taxa: marine mammals, sea birds,
fish, invertebrates and algae. We assessed the willingness to pay
(WTP) expressed by members of the general public to prevent a
decline in these five taxa from their current level of species richness
(Table 2). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of two groups,
731
Table 2
The current level of species richness for 5 different marine taxa in the Azores.
Marine Taxon Current level
Fish 520 Porteiro (2007) Personal communicationa
Sea mammals 24 Gonçalves (2007) Personal communication
Algae 368 Neto et al. (2006)
Sea birds 56 Clarke (2006)
Invertebrates 1700 Gonçalves (2007) Personal communication
The species list for the Azores is not yet complete, and new species are being discovered
in the region on a regular basis.
a
The personal communications were given by marine experts in the University of
the Azores.
and were asked to express a value to avoid either a 10% or 25%
reduction in species richness for each taxon. The split sample design
reduced the cognitive burden of the respondents and decreased the
chance of dependencies between the WTP responses for different
levels of species loss. By using this approach, the responses are
statistically independent and hence this increases greatly the strength
of any predictive relationship between WTP and percentage of species
loss.
Initial valuation scenarios defined for use in the survey were
discussed with an interdisciplinary research team sponsored by EU
Network of Excellence: Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function
(MarBEF), during a training course on valuation methodologies for
marine environments. Comments from these experts served to
improve and refine the scenarios, the instrument survey and the
sampling strategy before the pilot study was conducted.
2.2. Identification of Target Population
Issues relating to the identification of the human population
influenced by changes in biodiversity are contested in the literature.
Nijkamp et al. (2008) suggested that loss of biodiversity can impact
the welfare of distant populations; hence assessments should extend
beyond the local and towards the global scale. In contrast, Whitehead
et al. (1995) differentiated between three types of respondents;
on-site users, off-site users and non-users. These definitions were
based on their familiarity with the resource such that WTP is more
reliable for on-site users, since non-users do not consider their income
constraints when stating their willingness to pay. Paradiso and
Trisorio (2001) also advocated that the validity of the CVM estimates
improved with direct knowledge of the good and that this reduces the
disparity between hypothetical and real WTP. Boyle et al. (1994)
claimed that biases, such as embedding effects are more likely to occur
among non-users. Given these insights, in this study we interviewed
on-site users (residents and visitors) since both constitute the
primary population affected by the loss of marine biodiversity around
the Azorean islands.
2.3. Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire was divided into 6 parts (A–F) and comprised
twenty eight questions in total. The questions were designed to
examine respondents' knowledge about marine biodiversity, details
of their visit (if relevant), respondents' general behaviour and
attitudes towards the conservation of marine biodiversity, the
economic valuation exercise and socio-demographic information.
Section A contained a multiple-choice question which included formal
definitions of the ecological terms ‘ecosystem,’ ‘species richness’ and
‘marine biodiversity.’ Respondents were asked to choose the right
definition of marine biodiversity amongst these alternatives (including
“don't know”). This had the purpose of obtaining an initial indicator of
the respondent's knowledge on biodiversity and to encourage further
discussion if the respondent had any doubts or misconceptions on this
subject. As respondents were preparing to answer the valuation
732 A. Ressurreição et al. / Ecological Economics 70 (2011) 729–739
exercise, they were informed about the number of species currently
present in each marine taxon in the Azores, as well the number of
species that hypothetically would be lost from each taxon under a
scenario of a 10% and 25% reduction in species. The questionnaire also
included explicit warnings about budget constraints and substitutes
that were designed to mitigate positive hypothetical bias in valuation.
As recommended by Arrow et al. (1993) a series of follow up questions
were asked to determine the motives behind the responses and to
diagnose if those refusing to pay indicated a valid representation of their
value (genuine zero bidders) or reflected a protest about some feature of
the simulated market (protest responses) (Mitchell and Carson, 1989).
The role of non-use and use values in supporting the conservation
of marine species was examined by presenting the respondents with
several statements that describe possible reasons for valuing marine
biodiversity. These statements corresponded to direct, indirect,
existence, option and bequest values.1 In addition respondents also
had the opportunity to use their own words to justify their reasons for
paying to prevent the loss of marine species.
Given society's general unfamiliarity with hypothetical transactions
involving marginal changes in marine biodiversity, a payment card was
adopted as the elicitation format. Payment cards avoid the high rate of
item non-responses more common in open-ended valuation questions
(Cameron and Huppert, 1989; Veisten et al., 2004). Possible negative
effects of using payment cards are that the range of values, anchoring
effects and size of intervals displayed on the card may influence the WTP
responses (Cameron and Huppert, 1989). In order to mitigate some of
these problems the range of values displayed on the payment card were
based on the results of the pilot survey (see Section 2.5). This resulted in
a payment card with a range of choices from 0€ to 5000€, displayed
randomly.
Each respondent was asked five different valuation questions, one
each for marine mammals, seabirds, fish, marine invertebrates and
algae. The order in which the questions are asked can lead to
question-order bias (Mitchell and Carson, 1989) or sequencing effect
(Cummings et al., 1986). In the current study, the sequencing of the
five taxa was randomised for each questionnaire. Assuming a
sequencing effect and no interaction between position of presentation
and taxa this approach reduces the bias and increases the variance of
the WTP estimate for each taxon. We believe that this is a reasonable
compromise i.e. it seems plausible that individuals may increase or
decrease their bid under repeated questions but less plausible that the
direction or magnitude of the change would be influenced by taxa.
Following Mitchell and Carson (1989) two further procedures were
also adopted to mitigate this effect (i) respondents were informed
about the survey structure before asking the WTP questions and
(ii) during the interview respondents were permitted to change their
answers. The exact wording of the WTP question for one of the marine
taxons (fish for instance) was as follows: “First let's consider fish,
what would be the maximum amount you would be willing to pay, in
a once only payment, to a conservation trust, in order to avoid a
decline in the number of species of fish by 10%?”.
Photomontages that depicted representative organisms of each
marine taxon being valued were shown to respondents during the
survey. These photomontages were used merely as information tools
and were not intended to represent the different levels of biodiversity
decline. Twenty photos of species in each taxon were presented and
1
The exact wording of the claims presented to the respondents to justify their
support towards the conservation of marine species was: i) The marine biodiversity of
this region provide an option for leisure/recreation, food provision and it is important
for the local economy; ii) The marine biodiversity of this region is precious and it
benefits the human well being (water quality, erosion control, coastal protection, etc.);
iii) I enjoy knowing that marine biodiversity exists in this region even if I never see or
use it: iv) The marine biodiversity of this region has the right to exist even if it does not
appear important to human well being today; v) I enjoy knowing that the future
generations will be able to enjoy marine biodiversity of this region; vi) Other (please
specify).
each photo represented one individual per species. Each taxon was
represented by a range of species, and care was taken to avoid only
including the charismatic, valuable, beautiful or large species (for
example see Fig. 2).
2.4. Study Design and Survey Implementation
The original CVM questionnaire was piloted with a random sample
of 64 residents and visitors from the Pico and Faial islands. This study
enabled evaluation of the acceptability of the payment method and
the plausibility of the valuation scenarios.
The pilot results suggested that a once only payment to a neutral
trust fund was the most favoured option presented.2 The pilot study also
highlighted the desire of most respondents to value changes in the
number of all marine species (i.e. to undertake an assessment of the
whole ecosystem) rather than be confined to valuing only changes in
the number of species of specific marine taxa. This resulted in the
addition of an additional question that offered respondents the option to
value all species in the marine ecosystem around Pico and Faial islands.
The format of this additional valuation question was left open-ended
(OE) as the potential range of bids had not been pre-tested. Different
elicitation methods may, in theory, influence the WTP responses.
Because of this theoretical possibility caution must be taken when
making direct comparisons between WTP derived for taxa using the
payment card and for the entire marine ecosystem, which was elicited
with an open ended bid question. While this issue does complicate
interpretation of the results, those respondents who participated in the
pilot study explicitly expressed a desire to value the entire ecosystem. It
was for this reason that the open-ended question about ecosystem
values was included in the final questionnaire.
Residents were randomly recruited from among pedestrians in
market places, the airport, commercial ports, streets, marinas on Pico
and Faial islands. However, in order to ensure that visitors were
interviewed only after their visit, the majority of the interviews were
carried out in the departure lounge of the airport on Faial. Interviews
were carried out in Portuguese for national citizens and in English for
foreign people. The majority of the interviews were performed when
respondents were apparently relaxed, unoccupied or waiting for
transportation. At the beginning of the survey respondents were
asked to identify themselves as residents or visitors and the sampling
procedure was defined to allow any adult who claimed to be a
household head to be the spokesperson for the household. Respondents
were randomly allocated to one of two groups relating to the scenarios
that valued a 10% species loss and a 25% species loss.
A total of 507 (255 visitors and 252 residents)3 interviews were
undertaken by three trained interviewers over 20 days between
August and September 2007. The overall response rate was greater
than 90%.
2.5. Data Analysis
Differences in demographics between respondents of the four
subsamples were tested using a Mann–Whitney test. Of the 507
respondents 392 (77%) were willing to pay and 115 (23%) refused; 66
(13% of the total responses) of the refusals were considered protest
responses and 49 (10% of the total responses) genuine zero bidders.
As is common in most CVM studies protest responses were excluded
from the analysis of WTP (Adams et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2008;
2
The frequency and payment vehicles pre-tested in the pilot survey included: (i) an
increase in your income tax (2%); (ii) creation of an extra regional tax (2%); (iii) an
annual donation to a regional NGO (33%); (iv) a donation, in a once only payment, to a
regional NGO (10%); (v) a donation to a neutral trust fund (53%) and (vi) Other (0%).
3
The sample was split into 4 subsamples accordingly: residents 10% (n = 126);
residents 25% (n = 126); visitors 10% (n = 126) and visitors 25% (n = 129).
 A. Ressurreição et al. / Ecological Economics 70 (2011) 729–739
Fig. 2. Photomontage presented for fish.
Kotchen and Reiling, 2000; Mitchell and Carson, 1989; Spash et al.,
2009; Zhongmin et al., 2003).
Data analysis followed the approach of Cameron and Huppert
(1989) and estimated log(WTP) from socio-demographic and attitu-
dinal variables. The use of the payment card meant that the
respondents' true valuation (Yi) is unobserved but lies between the
payment card limits tli and tui, hence log (Yi) lies between log (tli) and
log (tui). Assuming that log (Yi) is a linear function of individual
covariates (xi), then log (Yi) = xi′β + ui with ui normally distributed
with mean 0 and standard deviation σ. The alternative approaches of
fixing Yi at the payment card intervals or the midpoint between them
introduces bias in the coefficient estimates Following Cameron and
Huppert (1989) we avoided this bias by estimating the parameters
that maximised the likelihood function:
n  
 

L= Π ϕ log ðtui Þ−xi′β = σ −ϕ log ðtli Þ−xi′β =σ
i=1
Where ϕ is the cumulative standard normal density function.
Genuine zero bidders were assigned a value on the interval [0; 0.01]. If
σ N 0 then estimating E[Yi] from exp(log(Yi)) is biased, being closer to
the median. These “conditional” medians can be considered a valid
measure of the central tendency of the unobserved dependent
variable Y (Cameron and Huppert, 1989). To estimate Yi from
estimates of log(Yi) we used the non-parametric smearing estimate
proposed by Duan (1983).
3. Results
3.1. Empirical Findings
3.1.1. Socio-demographic Profile of the Sample
The socio-economic profile of the sample was calculated using the
entire sample of 507 questionnaires since the protest responses and/or
null WTP do not interfere with the results (Adams et al., 2008).
Non-parametric tests for differences in means did not suggest any
significant differences between the profiles of respondents of the two
733
survey versions for the level of loss within each group (visitors:
age = 0.680; household= 0.292; income = 0.340; education = 0.535;
residents: age = 0.423; household = 0.424; income = 0.954;
education = 0.468) nor even between the profiles of respondent groups
for each survey version (age p = 0.405; household p = 0.202; income
p = 0.545; education p = 0.487). This is expected as respondents were
randomly allocated to one of the two questionnaire alternatives. As
there were no demographic differences between these two sample
groups, it was possible to evaluate the effect of the degree of loss on
WTP.
Respondents had an average income of 2345€ per month per
household (visitors 2894€; residents 1789€: P b 0.001). The level of
education profile revealed that 27% of the respondents were educated
to the elementary level, 29% obtained a high school diploma, 37% were
undergraduate and 7% had postgraduate level education. Visitors had
a higher level of education than residents (visitors 2.6; residents 1.9:
P b 0.001). In general, the size of the household varied between 1 and
4, with a mean of 2.9 per household (visitors 2.8; residents 3.1;
P = 0.002). About 49% of those interviewed were male and the mean
age of the sample was 39 years (visitors 39.5; residents 37.7:
P = 0.139). Visitors had been to Pico and Faial islands a mean of
three times prior to the survey and the standard duration for the visit
was two weeks. The main motivation for visiting these islands was
(i) local landscape and natural features (ii) peacefulness and
(iii) aquatic activities (e.g. whale watching, scuba diving, snorkelling,
recreational fishing, etc.). A common statement from many visitors
was, that even though marine biodiversity had not been a major factor
in deciding to visit the Azores, during the course of their visit they had
realised that the diversity of marine life in the Azores was one of the
most impressive features of the islands. Surprisingly, despite the
complexity of the concept of biodiversity, approximately 73% of the
respondents chose the correct definition of marine biodiversity
among the available options.
3.1.2. Acceptance of the Valuation Scenario
In total 84% of respondents declared that marine biodiversity
conservation should be a priority for governments at a national and
734 A. Ressurreição et al. / Ecological Economics 70 (2011) 729–739

global level. Of the 392 respondents that expressed a positive Overall, the analysis of the stated WTP distribution suggested that
willingness to pay, at least 71% declared both use and non-use values some respondents expressed what seem to be implausibly high WTPs.
to support marine species preservation. While the presence of outliers may increase average WTP dramatically
leading to an overestimation of the worth of a public good (Chaudhry
et al., 2007), identifying the differences between a genuinely well
3.1.3. Reasons for rejection of the Valuation Scenario and
thought-out high WTP and an erroneous high WTP is a subjective
Protest Responses
process. In an attempt to obtain conservative estimates of the WTP we
One hundred and fifteen respondents refused to pay for species
removed respondents who had bid above a threshold that we felt was
preservation in the Azores. Analysis of these refusals was based on the
unrealistic, and valuation functions were re-estimated. The threshold
follow up questions that showed that among genuine zero bidders, 23
for removal was when the WTP bid was greater than 1% of household
respondents considered that society has more important problems
monthly income (equivalent to approximately 0.083% of the annual
than protecting marine biodiversity, 20 could not afford to pay, while
salary) multiplied for a working life period of 40 years (in order to
only six respondents declared that they would not receive sufficient
reflect the one-off nature of the bid process) (i.e. for a person on a
benefit from any such payment. The examination of protest responses
monthly salary of US$2000 the threshold that would trigger rejection
revealed that the majority of the refusals (46 responses) were based
from the analysis would be a WTP bid greater than US$800). We
on the belief that environmental conservation is the responsibility of
acknowledge that the validity of this, and any other subjective
the government rather than the individual. The remainder of the
threshold, is subject for debate.
protest responses reflected disagreements with particular elements of
Applying the threshold for outliers resulted in 67 respondents being
the valuation process such as: insufficient information (two
dropped from the database. The elimination of extreme observations was
responses), objection towards the valuation question (five
based on α-trimmed means proposed by Mitchell and Carson (1989) as
responses), refusal to put a price on marine biodiversity (eight
robust estimators with OE CVM data in the presence of outliers. The main
responses), while five respondents stated “other” reasons to protest
difference lies on the correction criterion, which is a probability level for
against the valuation survey. These protest responses, although
Mitchell and Carson and a bid/income level in our study.
representing valid concerns, are usually not considered as valid
representations of the individual WTP (Giraud et al., 2002).
3.3. Test of Theoretical Validity: The Bid Curve for Marine
Species Conservation
3.2. Analysis of Stated Willingness to Pay
Statistical regression models that express the functional relationships
The WTP bids for specific taxa were similar in their distribution between willingness to pay responses and other variables that normally
(Fig. 3). The distribution of the WTP data for individual taxa was affect demand are commonly known as bid curves or valuation functions
truncated to zero and the maximum amount pledged for the (Jones et al., 2008). Three categories of variables were included in the
preservation of a specific marine taxon was 5000€. Data on the value regression models based on theoretical expectations from classical
of all marine species, which was given in response to an open-ended economics (Samnaliev et al., 2006): (i) valuation scenario (marine taxa
question, was relatively more skewed to the right and the maximum and level of decrease); (ii) attitudes and concerns towards marine
value was 50,000€, with a mode of 500€. biodiversity conservation and (iii) socio-demographic characteristics.

70

60

50 Fish
Frequency

Mammals
40
Algae
30
Birds
20
Inverts
10

0
0€
1€
2€
5€
10 €
15 €
20 €
25 €
30 €
40 €
50 €
75 €
100 €
125 €
150 €
175 €
200 €
250 €
500 €
1.000 €
1.500 €
2.000 €
2.500 €
3.000 €
5.000 €

WTP bid amount (lower bounds) - PC data

60
50 All Azorean marine species
Frequency

40
30
20
10
0
0
2
3
5
10
15
20
25
40
50
60
70
75
80
100
120
125
150
175
200
250
255
275
300
350
400
500
600
625
650
700
750
1.000
1.200
1.250
1.500
2.000
2.500
2.900
3.000
3.200
5.000
7.500
10.000
15.000
25.000
30.000
50.000

WTP (€) bid amount - Open Ended data

Fig. 3. The frequency distribution of respondents by bid amount for specific marine taxon groups (payment card data) and for all marine species preservation (open ended data).
 A. Ressurreição et al. / Ecological Economics 70 (2011) 729–739 735

All the demographic variables, with the exception of occupation, algae. Respondents seemed to distinguish between different levels of
were included as continuous variables. Log income was included as a species loss and to reflect it in the valuation function of specific marine
linear term and the other demographic continuous variables as linear taxa. Log Income had a significant positive effect on log WTP, consistent
and quadratic terms allowing a curvilinear relationship between these with the standard theory of budget constrained consumer choice. Men
variables and the dependent variable. Hence we assume that log had a significantly higher WTP than women. Previous findings from CVM
(WTP) is a smooth continuous function of the demographic data studies indicated that the impact of gender on WTP is mixed (Berrens
while, for model parsimony, restricting the parameter number. For et al., 1997; Bord and O'Connor, 1997; Brown and Taylor, 2000; in Birol
the ordinal variables age data were included as mid-points and et al., 2006). From the nine professional occupation categories (farmer
education levels from 1 (basic) to 4 (postgraduate). was the baseline category) only two were significant predictors of WTP.
Following Cameron and Huppert (1989) a maximum likelihood Respondents that were fishermen had a significantly higher WTP
interval regression approach was used. The models were fitted using the compared with other professions (Table 3). This finding is not surprising
survival package in R (R Development Core Team, 2008). Two separate given that a decrease in marine species richness may have a direct impact
valuation functions were estimated and presented, one for the payment on fishermens' livelihoods. In contrast, the occupation “student” had a
card (PC) data regarding the valuation of specific marine taxa and the significant and negative impact on WTP. The results suggested that age
other for the open ended (OE) value responses for the preservation of all has a negative effect on WTP as found elsewhere (Adams et al., 2008;
marine species. Table 3 shows the parameter estimates for the bid Chaudhry et al., 2007; Jorgensen et al., 2001). The results also suggest that
function for the PC data. Interval regression parameter estimates can be the number of the household members and level of education are not
interpreted as in OLS regression (Blaine et al., 2005). The results showed significant predictors of WTP.
that significant differences occurred between WTP values for algae and The regression results highlighted significant differences between
fish and between algae and marine mammals (pb 0.05). No significant the WTP of residents and visitors. Although there is evidence that
differences were found between bids for birds, marine invertebrates and visitors' incomes and education were higher than those of residents
(Section 3.1.1), when comparing residents and visitors with the same
Table 3
socio-demographic profile, residents were more likely to attach higher
The factors influencing the WTP responses to avoid two levels of species loss of five values to prevent species loss in the sea around Pico and Faial islands. In
marine taxa: interval regression results — payment card data. this case, the degree of attachment to the place is probably the main
Dependent variable: WTP to prevent a decline in specific marine taxon
driver in valuation. In order to preserve local marine species, residents
are willing to forego a greater proportion of their income than visitors
Number of observations: 1870 X2 = 726.23
(Table 3). Respondents that engaged in positive environmental
Log-likelihood model: −5149.4 D.F: 33
Log-likelihood (intercept only): −5512.5 p=0 behaviours or attitudes tend to give higher values for environmental
Log normal distribution Scale = 1.63 conservation than non-environmentalists (Carson et al., 2001; Kotchen
and Reiling, 2000). Of the behaviours associated with the respondents'
Variable labels Parameter Standard z p Sig.c
environmental awareness or commitment tested in our study, three had
estimates error
a positive and significant effect on WTP: (i) ‘read or watch TV about
Intercept −2.81 0.72 −3.89 0.000 ***
environmental education’; (ii) ‘selected one product over another
25% or 10% level of 0.21 0.08 −2.59 0.010 ***
species loss (1.0) because it's more environmentally friendly’ and (iii) ‘actively
Scenario: birdsa 0.07 0.12 0.59 0.554 n.s. campaigned about an environmental issue.’ The behaviour ‘subscribed
Scenario: fisha 0.26 0.12 2.14 0.032 ** to a magazine concerned with environment conservation’ had a
Scenario: invertsa 0.03 0.12 0.23 0.819 n.s. negative effect on WTP. There is no apparent explanation for this result.
Scenario: mammalsa 0.25 0.12 2.09 0.037 **
Log monthly income (€) 0.88 0.07 1.22 0.000 ***
The questionnaire also explored peoples' views on marine
Male/female (1.0) 0.35 0.08 4.21 0.000 *** biodiversity conservation. The possible alternative responses ranged
Fisherman 1.01 0.31 3.22 0.001 *** between considering biodiversity conservation as (i) a priority for
Public employee −0.03 0.24 −0.13 0.899 n.s. governments; (ii) important but not a priority and finally (iii) as not
Private employee −0.02 0.24 −0.08 0.938 n.s.
important. A ‘don't know’ category was also specified. As expected
Self employed −0.18 0.25 −0.71 0.476 n.s.
Student −0.53 0.29 −1.81 0.070 * those respondents that did not regard biodiversity conservation as a
Retired −0.15 0.33 −0.44 0.659 n.s. priority were less likely to pay for marine species preservation.
Unemployed 0.65 0.45 1.46 0.145 n.s. Overall the parameter estimates are consistent with economic theory
Homemaker 0.55 0.33 1.64 0.100 n.s. which supports the theoretical validity of the WTP estimates.
Household — linear term −0.13 0.11 −1.16 0.246 n.s.
Household — quadratic term 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.843 n.s.
Table 4 includes the results of the open-ended portion of the survey to
Age — linear term −0.06 0.02 −2.73 0.006 *** prevent a loss in the number of all marine species in the region. In general,
Age — quadratic term 0.00 0.00 2.01 0.044 ** similar patterns are found on the effect of the socio-demographic variables
Resident/visitor condition (1.0) 0.24 0.09 2.55 0.011 ** on the WTP: log income and gender have a positive and significant impact
Biodiversity not priorityb −1.77 0.13 −1.37 0.000 ***
while age had a predominantly linear and negative effect. However, none
Biodiversity not importantb −2.77 0.45 −6.10 0.000 ***
Don't knowb −0.43 0.33 −1.32 0.188 n.s. of the professional occupations had a significant influence on WTP and
Education — linear term −0.03 0.24 −0.11 0.916 n.s. there were no significant differences between residents and visitors which
Education — quadratic term 0.07 0.05 1.33 0.185 n.s. suggested that there were no intrinsic differences beyond the other
Read/TV env. conservation (1.0) 0.21 0.12 1.78 0.076 * demographic variables. Although the WTP of respondents to avoid 25% of
Recycling of household goods (1.0) −0.12 0.10 −1.16 0.245 n.s.
loss of all marine species was greater than to avoid a 10% loss, the trend
Subscribe a magazine (10) −0.33 0.13 −2.56 0.010 **
Products env. friendly (1.0) 0.42 0.09 4.67 0.000 *** was not significant (Table 4), a result which merits further investigation.
Donations for charities (1.0) 0.03 0.13 0.25 0.803 n.s. The consideration of all marine species may render the valuation exercise
Actively campaigned (1.0) 0.55 0.22 2.47 0.014 ** too complex for respondents to translate marginal changes into WTP
Membership conserv. group (1.0) 0.27 0.18 1.51 0.131 n.s.
values. This scope insensitivity may be affected by cognitive limitations,
Log scale 0.49 0.02 26.31 0.000 ***
but also by warm glow (charitable behaviour) (Kahneman et al., 1993) or
a
The coefficients for the specific marine taxon are relative to taxon Algae which fixed expenses constraints (respondents identify an amount from their
implicitly has a coefficient of zero.
b
The coefficients are relative to respondents that consider that biodiversity
budget that they feel that they can afford to spend on the good in question
conservation should be a priority for governments. which is invariant with the amount of the good offered) (Chilton and
c
p b 0.01 (***); p b 0.05(**); p b 0.1 (*); n.s.: non significant. Hutchinson, 2003).
736 A. Ressurreição et al. / Ecological Economics 70 (2011) 729–739

Table 4
The factors influencing the WTP responses to avoid two levels of species loss of all marine species: interval regression results — open ended data.

Dependent variable: WTP to prevent a decline in all marine species

Number of observations: 374 X2 = 156.71

Log-likelihood model: −3834.8 D.F: 29
Log-likelihood (intercept only): −3913.2 p=0
Log normal distribution scale = 2.02

Variable labels Parameter estimates Standard error z p Sig.a

Intercept −2.28 1.98 −1.16 0.248 n.s.

25% or 10% level of species loss(1.0) 0.24 0.22 −1.10 0.273 n.s.
Log monthly income (€) 1.17 0.20 5.85 0.000 ***
Male/female (1.0) 0.45 0.23 1.95 0.051 *
Fisherman 0.91 0.86 1.06 0.290 n.s.
Public employee −0.41 0.67 −0.60 0.546 n.s.
Private employee −0.41 0.66 −0.62 0.535 n.s.
Self employed −0.47 0.70 −0.68 0.498 n.s.
Student −1.16 0.81 −1.44 0.149 n.s.
Retired −0.90 0.92 −0.99 0.323 n.s.
Unemployed 0.50 1.24 0.41 0.684 n.s.
Homemaker 0.39 0.92 0.42 0.675 n.s.
Household — linear term −0.09 0.32 −0.30 0.765 n.s.
Household — quadratic term −0.01 0.04 −0.30 0.762 n.s.
Age — linear term −0.12 0.06 −1.82 0.070 *
Age — quadratic term 0.00 0.00 1.48 0.138 n.s.
Resident/visitor condition (1.0) 0.38 0.26 1.45 0.148 n.s.
Biodiversity not priorityb −2.34 0.35 −6.61 0.000 ***
Biodiversity not importantb −3.99 1.25 −3.21 0.001 **
Don't knowb −0.64 0.90 −0.71 0.479 n.s.
Education — linear term 0.08 0.66 0.13 0.900 n.s.
Education — quadratic term 0.06 0.14 0.45 0.656 n.s.
Read/TV env. conservation (1.0) 0.47 0.33 1.41 0.160 n.s.
Recycling of household goods (1.0) −0.20 0.27 −0.74 0.460 n.s.
Subscribe a magazine (1.0) −0.22 0.36 −0.62 0.537 n.s.
Products env. friendly (1.0) 0.47 0.25 1.89 0.059 *
Donations for charities (1.0) −0.18 0.36 −0.49 0.627 n.s.
Actively campaigned(1.0) 0.76 0.61 1.24 0.215 n.s.
Membership conserv. group (1.0) 0.11 0.50 0.23 0.818 n.s.
Log scale 0.70 0.04 17.14 0.000 ***
a
p b 0.01 (***); p b 0.05(**); p b 0.1 (*); n.s.: non significant.
b
The coefficients are relative to respondents that consider that biodiversity conservation should be a priority for governments.

3.4. Individual WTP Estimates for Hypothetical Scenarios of Loss in the sum of its components. These values may be interpreted as lower
Marine Species bound estimates since respondents were faced with hypothetical
losses in species richness without prior information of either the
Applied welfare economics does not exclusively require the use of particular stresses affecting the marine environment of the region or
sample mean values (Cameron and Huppert, 1989). When σ N 0 mean
WTP and median WTP will take different values. Some authors have Table 5
suggested that the median, rather than the mean, should be used as an WTP point estimates for hypothetical scenarios of species loss.
indicator of the central tendency of WTP, as the former is more robust
Valuation scenario Level of loss Sample group Median Mean
to outlier observations (Hanemann, 1984; Harrison and Kriström,
1995). However, although the median does have this desirable Algae 10% Visitors 23 € 66 €
Birds 10% Visitors 25 € 71 €
statistical property, mean WTP is more appropriate for benefit–cost Fish 10% Visitors 30 € 86 €
analysis (Loomis and White, 1996). For the perspective of the Inverts 10% Visitors 24 € 68 €
decision-makers that wish to make an option based on efficiency Mammals 10% Visitors 30 € 85 €
criteria, the mean is then the most appropriate measure (Brent, 1998). All marine species 10% Visitor 138 € 581 €
Algae 10% Residents 16 € 45 €
In this study both mean and median WTP were estimated as central
Birds 10% Residents 17 € 48 €
tendency measures of WTP. As significant differences were found Fish 10% Residents 20 € 58 €
between the levels of loss and between visitors and residents, means Inverts 10% Residents 16 € 46 €
and medians were calculated separately for each group within the Mammals 10% Residents 20 € 58 €
sample (Table 5). All marine species 10% Resident 96 € 405 €
Algae 25% Visitors 27 € 77 €
Overall, the results of this contingent valuation study indicated Birds 25% Visitors 29 € 83 €
that the visitors and residents of Pico and Faial islands attached Fish 25% Visitors 35 € 100 €
positive and significant values to the conservation of marine species. Inverts 25% Visitors 28 € 79 €
Although different payment vehicles were used, which restricts the Mammals 25% Visitors 35 € 99 €
All marine species 25% Visitor 158 € 665 €
direct comparison of results, it is interesting to note that the
Algae 25% Residents 18 € 51 €
willingness to pay to avoid a loss in the number of all marine species Birds 25% Residents 19 € 55 €
(ranging from 405€ to 605€/only payment) was higher than the sum Fish 25% Residents 23 € 66 €
of the individual taxa (for individual marine taxa the maximum Inverts 25% Residents 18 € 52 €
payments range from 45€ to 100€). This suggests respondents valued Mammals 25% Residents 23 € 66 €
All marine species 25% Resident 110 € 463 €
the conservation of the ecosystem as a whole rather than simply as
 A. Ressurreição et al. / Ecological Economics 70 (2011) 729–739
the degree of endangerment concerning species; aspects that usually
affect the public's investment in biodiversity conservation (Bandara
and Tisdell, 2005; Loomis and white, 1996).
4. Discussion and Conclusions
This study was designed to estimate the public's willingness to pay
(WTP) to avoid loss in the number of marine species in the waters
around the Azores archipelago and to investigate people's knowledge,
perceptions and economic preferences for marine conservation. This
involved critical choices regarding the level of biological diversity, the
scale of the change and the information conveyed to the respondents.
The results suggested that, contrary to the statement of Christie et al.
(2006) that the “general public has a low level of understanding of
what biodiversity is and why it matters,” in this survey the vast
majority (73%) of respondents chose the correct definition of marine
biodiversity from among the available options. Although, it should be
noted, that choosing the right definition among a defined set of
options is a simplified exercise and respondents may tend to choose
the most complete or complex one. Such a choice may not mean that
they possess a real understanding of the concept of biodiversity, or
even complete awareness of why conservation of biodiversity is
important to human welfare; nevertheless it is an indicator that the
society is aware that biodiversity is much more expansive concept
than simple measures of species richness.
Both use and non-use values were referred to by respondents
when forming their willingness to pay for marine biodiversity
conservation. This indicates that valuations of aspects of biodiversity
should examine all components of total economic value rather than
individual elements of TEV. In addition, the results demonstrated
that the majority of respondents are willing to pay for marine
biodiversity conservation, and that respondents generally acknowl-
edged that marine biodiversity conservation should be a priority for
governments.
The present study provided important new insights into human
preferences for aspects of biodiversity. Previous studies have shown that
likeable, valuable and charismatic species dominate the WTP for species
preservation (White et al., 1997, 2001; Metrick and Weitzman, 1996;
Loomis and White, 1996). The present results demonstrate that
although there were significant differences in the valuations of marine
mammals and fish compared with birds, algae and invertebrates, these
differences are not as large as expected. Moreover, despite the
significant direct use of fish to humans generally “fishes are not
considered charismatic mega fauna” (Richardson and Loomis, 2009)
and usually attract lower WTP when compared with marine mammals
and birds (Loomis and White, 1996; Martín-López et al., 2008). The
difference in the values of the taxa reported here for the Azores and
those reported elsewhere in the literature may be due to the intimate
and frequent contact between respondents and marine mammals near
the coast, making whale watching in the Azores an expanding and more
significant activity compared to bird watching. Furthermore, both scuba
diving and fisheries (recreational and professional) are activities with
high economic and cultural relevance at the regional level where the
integrity and diversity of fish populations plays an important role. This
may explain why being a fisherman (signified by the variable name
“occupation fishermen”) was a positive and significant predictor of WTP
for the individual marine taxa model. Thus there is evidence of context
dependent valuation of individual components of marine biodiversity.
The present study also offers novel insights regarding the
economic preferences of visitors and residents. Loomis and White
(1996) claimed that visitors allocated higher values to species
preservation than resident households, since visitors are likely to
have a large recreational component to their total value and are likely
to be more knowledgeable about the species. A higher allocation of
funds for visitors was also found by Loomis and Larson (1994), Martín-
López et al. (2008) and Richardson and Loomis (2009). In our study,
737
although the measures of the central tendency of WTP (mean and
median) are higher for visitors, econometric evidence suggested that
when comparing residents and visitors with similar socio-demographic
profiles, residents are more likely to attach higher values to prevent
species loss in the sea around Pico and Faial islands than visitors. In this
case, the degree of attachment to the study site is possibly a driver of
valuation rather than level of income or education.
Economically consistent measures of WTP are expected to adjust
with the scale of the change (Smith and Osborne, 1996). In other
words, respondents are assumed to be able to distinguish between
different quantities/qualities of the good and reflect this variability in
their valuation function (Chilton and Hutchinson, 2003). The results
suggest that the level of loss of species richness only had a significant
effect on WTP when considering an individual marine taxon, and not
when all marine species were considered. In some ways this is
surprising, as the results of the pilot survey clearly demonstrated a
desire by respondents to value all species in the marine environment
as a holistic whole (cf as an ecosystem). This may indicate that asking
respondents to consider changes in the number of all marine species,
even at a regional scale, may be “beyond the margin of analysis”
(Turner et al., 2003) imposing difficulties on accurate assessments of
such changes on human welfare. Poor understanding about the
welfare implications of such biodiversity loss among members of the
public is excusable given that there is limited science about the
ecological consequences of marginal or severe biodiversity loss. From
a scientific perspective, several aspects regarding the relationship
between marine biodiversity and ecosystem functions still need
further clarification; e.g. (i) ecological processes that need to be
included in the assessment of the ecosystem services supported or
provided by marine biodiversity (ii) ecological indicators to measure
marginal changes (iii) critical thresholds, etc.. Ecological uncertainty
may contribute to ambiguity on the valuation figures enhancing the
probability for responses insensitive to the scope of the change, such
as charitable behaviour and fixed (self imposed) budget constraints,
rather than responses that are economically rational in the traditional
sense.
Overall, the conclusion from this study is that visitors and
residents of Pico and Faial islands attach positive and significant
values to the local conservation of marine species. Although different
payment vehicles were used and, therefore, direct comparisons
between the results should be taken cautiously, it is worth noting
that the willingness to pay to avoid a decrease in the number of all
marine species is higher than the sum of the individual taxa. Bearing
in mind that biodiversity around Pico and Faial islands is much more
extensive than the five taxa under valuation; this result suggests that
respondents were actually assessing what they were being asked and
not simply providing symbolic responses. Furthermore, it also
substantiates the observation that the public is able to perceive
biodiversity conservation in wider terms than the single species/
group approaches, and that greater benefits are attached to the
conservation of all ecosystem rather than partial conservations plans.
Finally, this study also provides some insight into methodological
considerations about the conceptual framework used to assess the
valuation of marine biodiversity changes, namely the level of
biological diversity and the scale of the change. Using multi-species
or multi-groups of species as proxies of biological diversity may be
more sensible than the alternative approach of valuing individual
species. Despite public preferences for high profile species, multi species/
groups valuations improve public perceptions and awareness about the
ecological and functional inter-relationships among organisms
highlighting that the conservation of charismatic mega fauna implies
the conservation of base-line taxa. In order words, the entire ecosystem
needs to be protected. This finding is relevant and may help to correct
inherent bias associated with species preservation. Another aspect that
mainly conditioned the economic valuation of biodiversity is the scale of
the change under scrutiny. Small and well defined changes provide more
738 A. Ressurreição et al. / Ecological Economics 70 (2011) 729–739
reliable values. Judging what is and what is not a marginal change is far
from straightforward (Turner et al., 1998). However we assumed that the
embedding effect would be minimized by considering the changes at a
regional scale, when considering losses in the number of all marine species
people fail to distinguish between two levels of loss — 10% and 25%.
Whether the size of the change or the split sample experimental design
conditioned these findings remains unclear. It should be noted that tests
for scope sensitivity have traditionally relied on split sample designs
(Carson and Mitchell, 1993; Loomis et al., 1993). More recent studies have
tested scope sensitivity within sample design (see Chilton and Hutch-
inson, 2003) suggesting that testing this same questionnaire within the
same sample could provide further insights about human motivations for
marine species conservation.
It could be argued that the complexity of biodiversity and
problems like embedding or hypothetical bias undermine the use of
stated preferences methods to assess the value of biodiversity
changes. On the other hand, it could pragmatically be alleged that in
a world of scarce resources and conflicting demands some informa-
tion on public preferences for marine biodiversity conservation is
better than no information, especially if society wishes to make
sensible and politically inclusive choice (Christie et al., 2006). We
believe that stated preferences methods, such as contingent valuation,
provide useful information about individual consumer preferences
that complement biological information/research contributing for the
design of projects and policy measures that seek sustainable use of
marine resources. Further research and interdisciplinary work is still
necessary both to provide some contributions towards the definition of
feasible approaches to capture the value of complex environmental goods
as marine biodiversity and also to shed some light on the uncertainty
underlying biodiversity loss and human welfare implications. This will
certainly contribute to more reliable and valid valuation figures.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e
Tecnologia (FCT), through PhD grant SFRH/BD/31286/2006 (Adriana
Ressurreição). The authors would like to thank the 3 anonymous
reviewers for their helpful suggestions on an early version of the
paper; and all MarBEF Theme 3 members and students, especially
Melanie Austen, Stephen Mangi, Humberta Silva and Adelaide Costa,
for their input and support. The authors also acknowledge the support
by the MarBEF Network of Excellence ‘Marine Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Functioning’ which is funded by the Sustainable Develop-
ment, Global Change and Ecosystems RTD Programme of the EU's
Sixth Framework Programme (contract no.GOCE-CT-2003-505446).
References
Adams, C., Seroa da Motta, R., Ortiz, R.A., Reid, J., Ebersbach Aznar, C., de Almeida
Sinisgalli, P.A., 2008. The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas
in the developing world: economic valuation of Morro do Diabo State Park, Atlantic
Rainforest, São Paulo State (Brazil). Ecological Economics 66, 359–370.
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the
NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58 (10), 4602–4614
Washington DC..
Bandara, R., Tisdell, C., 2005. Changing abundance of elephants and willingness to pay
for their conservation. Journal of Environmental Management 76, 47–59.
Beaumont, N.J., Austen, M.C., Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., Degraer, S., Dentinho, T.P., Derous,
S., Holm, P., Horton, T., van Ierland, E., Marboe, A.H., Starkey, D.J., Townsend, M.,
Zarzycki, T., 2007. Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services
provided by marine biodiversity: implications for the ecosystem approach. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 54, 253–265.
Berrens, R.P., Bohara, A., Kerkvliet, J., 1997. A randomized response approach to
dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 79, 252–266.
Birol, E., Karousakis, K., Koundouri, P., 2006. Using economic valuation techniques to
inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available
techniques and an application. Science of The Total Environment 365, 105–122.
Blaine, T.W., Lichtkoppler, F.R., Jones, K.R., Zondag, R.H., 2005. An assessment of
household willingness to pay for curbside recycling: a comparison of payment card
and referendum approaches. Journal of Environmental Management 76, 15–22.
Bord, R.J., O'Connor, R.E., 1997. The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case of
perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly 78, 830–840.
Bosetti, V., Pearce, D., 2003. A study of environmental conflict: the economic value of
grey seals in Southwest England. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 2361–2392.
Bowker, J.M., Stoll, J.R., 1988. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value
the whooping crane resource. Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, 327–381.
Boyle, K.J., Desvousges, W.H., Johnson, F.R., Dunford, R.W., Hudson, S.P., 1994. An
investigation of part–whole biases in contingent-valuation studies. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 27, 64–83.
Brent, R., 1998. Cost–Benefit Analysis for Developing Countries. Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK.
Brown, K., Taylor, L., 2000. Do as you say, say as you do: evidence on gender differences
in actual and stated contributions to public goods. Economic Behaviour and
Organization 43, 127–139.
Brown, G., Layton, D., Lazo, J., 1994. Valuing Habitat and Endangered Species. Institute
for Economic Research, University of Washington.
Bulte, E.H., van Kooten, G.C., 1999. Marginal valuation of charismatic species: implications
for conservation. Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 119–130.
Cameron, T.A., Huppert, D.D., 1989. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource
values with payment card interval data. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 17, 230–246.
Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., 1993. The value of clean water: the public's willingness to
pay for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water. Water Resources Research
29, 2445–2454.
Carson, R.T., Wilks, L., Imber, D., 1994. Valuing the preservation of Australia's Kakadu
conservation zone. Oxford Economic Papers 46, 727–749.
Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Meade, N.F., 2001. Contingent valuation: controversies and
evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 19, 173–210.
Chaudhry, P., Singh, B., Tewari, V.P., 2007. Non-market economic valuation in
developing countries: role of participant observation method in CVM analysis.
Journal of Forest Economics 13, 259–275.
Chilton, S.M., Hutchinson, W.G., 2003. A qualitative examination of how respondents in
a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the
quantity of the environmental good. Journal of Economic Psychology 24, 65–75.
Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R., Hyde, T., 2006. Valuing the
diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics 58, 304–317.
Clarke, T., 2006. Birds of the Atlantic Islands. Canary Islands, Madeira, Azores, & Cape
Verde. Christopher Helm, London.
Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., Schulze, W.D., 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods:
An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Rowan & Allanheld, Totowa.
Development, Core, Team, 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing3-900051-07-0. URL: http://
www.R-project.org. Vienna, Austria.
Duan, N., 1983. Smearing estimate: a nonparametric retransformation method. Journal
of the American Statistical Association 78, 605–610.
Giraud, K., Turcin, B., Loomis, J., Cooper, J., 2002. Economic benefit of the protection
program for the Steller sea lion. Marine Policy 26, 451–458.
Hageman, R., 1985. Valuing Marine Mammal Populations: Benefits Valuations in a
Multi-species Ecosystem. Administrative Report LJ-85-22. Southwest Fisheries
Center — National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, California.
Hageman, R., 1986. Economic Valuation of Marine Wildlife: Existence Value Exist? Marine
Pollution Environmental Damage Assessment Report EE-0121. National Center for
Environmental Economics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
Hanemann, M., 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with
discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, 332–341.
Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., Kanninen, B., 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bound
dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 73, 1255–1263.
Harrison, G.W., Kriström, B., 1995. On the interpretation of responses in contingent
valuation surveys. In: Johansson, P., Kriström, B., Maler, K.G. (Eds.), Current Issues
in Environmental Economics. Manchester University Press, UK.
Jones, N., Sophoulis, C.M., Malesios, C., 2008. Economic valuation of coastal water
quality and protest responses: a case study in Mitilini, Greece. Journal of Socio-
Economics 37, 2478–2491.
Jorgensen, B.S., Wilson, M.A., Heberlein, T.A., 2001. Fairness in the contingent valuation
of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmental
improvements at two levels of scope. Ecological Economics 36, 133–148.
Kahneman, D., Ritov, L., Jacowitz, K.E., Grant, P., 1993. Stated willingness to pay for
public goods. Psychological Science 4, 310–315.
Kotchen, M.J., Reiling, S.D., 1998. Estimation and questioning economic values for endangered
species: an application and discussion. Endangered Species Update 15, 77–83.
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.
Langford, I.H., Kontogianni, A., Skourtos, M.S., Georgiou, S., Bateman, I.J., 1998.
Multivariate mixed models for open-ended contingent valuation data: willingness
to pay for conservation of monk seals. Environmental and Resource Economics 12,
443–456.
Loomis, J.B., Larson, D.M., 1994. Total economic value of increasing gray whale
populations: results from a contingent valuation survey of visitors and households.
Marine Resource Economics 9, 275–286.
Loomis, J.B., White, D.S., 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species:
summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 18, 197–206.
Loomis, J., Lockwood, M., DeLacy, T., 1993. Some empirical evidence on embedding
effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 25, 45–55.
 A. Ressurreição et al. / Ecological Economics 70 (2011) 729–739
Martín-López, B., Montes, C., Benayas, J., 2008. Economic valuation of biodiversity
conservation: the meaning of numbers. Conservation Biology 22, 624–635.
Menezes, G., 2003. Demersal Fish Assemblages in the Atlantic Archipelagos of the
Azores, Madeira and Cape Verde, Department of Oceanography and Fisheries.
University of the Azores.
Metrick, A., Weitzman, M.L., 1996. Patterns of behavior in endangered species
preservation. Land Economics 72, 1–16.
Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent
Valuation Method. Resource for the Future Washington, DC.
Neto, A.I., Tittley, I., Raposeiro, P.M., 2006. Rocky Shore Marine Flora of the Azores.
Regional Council of the Environment and the Sea.
Nijkamp, P., Vindigni, G., Nunes, P.A.L.D., 2008. Economic valuation of biodiversity: a
comparative study. Ecological Economics 67, 217–231.
Nunes, P.A.L.D., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2001. Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense
or nonsense? Ecological Economics 39, 203–222.
Olsen, D., Richards, J., Scott, D., 1991. Existence and sport values for doubling the size of
Columbia river basin salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers 2, 44–56.
Paradiso, M., Trisorio, A., 2001. The effect of knowledge on the disparity between
hypothetical and real willingness to pay. Applied Economics 33, 1359–1364.
Richardson, L., Loomis, J., 2009. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and
rare species: an updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 68, 1535–1548.
Samnaliev, M., Stevens, T.H., More, T., 2006. A comparison of alternative certainty
calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 57, 507–519.
Samples, K., Hollyer, J., 1990. Contingent valuation of wildlife resources in the presence
of substitutes and complements. In: Johnson, R., Johnson, G. (Eds.), Economic
Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory and Application. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado, pp. 177–192.
Samples, K., Dixon, J., Gowenand, M., 1986. Information disclosure and endangered
species valuation. Land Economics 62, 306–312.
Santos, R.S., Hawkins, S., Monteiro, L.R., Alves, M., Isidro, E.J., 1995. Marine research,
resources and conservation in the Azores. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems 5, 311–354.
Smith, V.K., Osborne, L.L., 1996. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a “scope” test?
A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31,
287–301.
Spash, C.L., Urama, K., Burton, R., Kenyon, W., Shannon, P., Hill, G., 2009. Motives behind
willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: economics,
ethics and social psychology. Ecological Economics 68, 955–964.
739
Stevens, T., Echeverría, J., Glass, R., Hager, T., More, T., 1991. Measuring the existence
value of wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show. Land Economics 67,
390–400.
Tkac, J., 1998. The effects of information on willingness-to-pay values of endangered
species. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 1214–1220.
Turner, R.K., Adger, W.N., Brouwer, R., 1998. Ecosystem services value, research needs,
and policy relevance: a commentary. Ecological Economics 25, 61–65.
Turner, R.K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., Georgiou, S., 2003. Valuing
nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics 46,
493–510.
Turpie, J.K., 2003. The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest,
experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local
willingness to pay. Ecological Economics 46, 199–216.
Veisten, K., Fredrik Hoen, H., Navrud, S., Strand, J., 2004. Scope insensitivity in
contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of Environ-
mental Management 73, 317–331.
Venkatachalam, L., 2004. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review 24, 89–124.
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.
White, P.C.L., Bennett, A.C., Hayes, E.J.V., 2001. The use of willingness-to-pay
approaches in mammal conservation. Mammal Review 31, 151–167.
Whitehead, J.C., 1992. Ex ante willingness to pay with supply and demand uncertainty:
implications for valuing a sea turtle protection programme. Applied Economics 24,
981–988.
Whitehead, J.C., Blomquist, G.C., Hoban, T.J., Clifford, W.B., 1995. Assessing the validity
and reliability of contingent values: a comparison of on-site users, off-site users,
and non-users. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 238–251.
Wilson, C., Tisdell, C., 2003. Conservation and economic benefits of wildlife-based
marine tourism: sea turtles and whales as case studies. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 8, 49–58.
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. Ecological Economics 44, 345–358.