4.7 Article

The worth of wildlife: A meta-analysis of global non-market values of threatened species

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 164, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106374

关键词

Choice experiment; Contingent valuation; Endangered species; Species' charisma; Species' endangerment level

资金

  1. Australian Government's Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship
  2. University of Western Australia (UWA)
  3. National Environmental Science Programme's Threatened Species Research Hub (NESP-TSR)
  4. NESP-TSR
  5. ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clustered robust meta-regression analysis is applied to 109 willingness to pay (WTP) estimates for threatened species from 47 stated-preference studies in 19 countries. Our study updates previous meta-analyses on the topic and tests the effect of important variables not previously considered-species' threat status, use of coloured photographs of species in a survey, and a country's development status, on WTP. We also compared model results obtained from weighting observations by the inverse standard error of WTP and inverse sample size values. Inverse-standard error-weighted model results were more aligned with published research and economic theory and had a better fit than inverse-sample size-weighted model results. Average total present value of WTP was $414/household,(1 )but variation in reported values was large owing to the survey context. WTP was significantly higher for charismatic and threatened species. Using coloured photographs, or a country's development status did not significantly affect WTP. Average absolute within-sample and out-of-sample transfer errors were estimated to be 17% and 48%, respectively. One-fourth out-of-sample transfers had an error of 10% or less. We discuss limitations and issues in current literature and propose recommendations that will allow future studies to be used in meta-analyses and benefit transfer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据