Consequences of omitting non-lethal wildlife impacts from stated preference scenarios

IF 5.5 3区 经济学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Pub Date : 2024-05-21 DOI:10.1016/j.jeem.2024.103011
Robert J. Johnston , Tobias Börger , Nick Hanley , Keila Meginnis , Tom Ndebele , Ghamz E. Ali Siyal , Nicola Beaumont , Frans P. de Vries
{"title":"Consequences of omitting non-lethal wildlife impacts from stated preference scenarios","authors":"Robert J. Johnston ,&nbsp;Tobias Börger ,&nbsp;Nick Hanley ,&nbsp;Keila Meginnis ,&nbsp;Tom Ndebele ,&nbsp;Ghamz E. Ali Siyal ,&nbsp;Nicola Beaumont ,&nbsp;Frans P. de Vries","doi":"10.1016/j.jeem.2024.103011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Stated preference (SP) research on willingness to pay (WTP) for improvements to wildlife populations focuses almost universally on measures related to whether organisms live or die. Preferences for changes in non-lethal harm to wildlife are generally overlooked. To evaluate the consequences, this article develops a theoretical model and corresponding discrete choice experiment (DCE) to evaluate whether and how the omission of information on non-lethal wildlife harm influences WTP estimation, grounded in a case study of marine plastic reductions in the North Atlantic. The theoretical model suggests that when environmental programs have both lethal and non-lethal impacts on wild species, DCEs that omit information on the latter may not produce valid welfare measures. Empirical results show that the omission of this information has multiple impacts on welfare estimates, largely consistent with theoretical predictions. Results suggest that welfare estimates for wildlife improvements can be confounded by the omission of information on non-lethal harm from SP scenarios. Results also demonstrate the hazards of excluding potentially welfare-relevant information from SP scenarios when respondents might assume relationships between omitted information and other material included in the questionnaire.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Economics and Management","volume":"126 ","pages":"Article 103011"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Economics and Management","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069624000858","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Stated preference (SP) research on willingness to pay (WTP) for improvements to wildlife populations focuses almost universally on measures related to whether organisms live or die. Preferences for changes in non-lethal harm to wildlife are generally overlooked. To evaluate the consequences, this article develops a theoretical model and corresponding discrete choice experiment (DCE) to evaluate whether and how the omission of information on non-lethal wildlife harm influences WTP estimation, grounded in a case study of marine plastic reductions in the North Atlantic. The theoretical model suggests that when environmental programs have both lethal and non-lethal impacts on wild species, DCEs that omit information on the latter may not produce valid welfare measures. Empirical results show that the omission of this information has multiple impacts on welfare estimates, largely consistent with theoretical predictions. Results suggest that welfare estimates for wildlife improvements can be confounded by the omission of information on non-lethal harm from SP scenarios. Results also demonstrate the hazards of excluding potentially welfare-relevant information from SP scenarios when respondents might assume relationships between omitted information and other material included in the questionnaire.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在既定偏好情景中忽略非致命性野生动物影响的后果
关于改善野生动物种群的支付意愿(WTP)的陈述偏好(SP)研究几乎普遍关注与生物生存或死亡相关的措施。对野生动物非致命伤害变化的偏好通常被忽视。为了评估其后果,本文建立了一个理论模型和相应的离散选择实验(DCE),以北大西洋海洋塑料减量案例研究为基础,评估忽略野生动物非致命伤害信息是否以及如何影响 WTP 估算。理论模型表明,当环境项目对野生物种既有致命影响又有非致命影响时,省略非致命影响信息的无选择排放试验可能不会产生有效的福利测量结果。实证结果表明,忽略这一信息会对福利估算产生多重影响,这与理论预测基本一致。结果表明,由于在 SP 情景中忽略了非致命伤害的信息,对野生动物改良的福利估算可能会被混淆。结果还表明,当受访者可能认为所遗漏的信息与问卷中的其他材料之间存在关系时,将可能与福利相关的信息排除在SP情景之外会造成危害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management publishes theoretical and empirical papers devoted to specific natural resources and environmental issues. For consideration, papers should (1) contain a substantial element embodying the linkage between economic systems and environmental and natural resources systems or (2) be of substantial importance in understanding the management and/or social control of the economy in its relations with the natural environment. Although the general orientation of the journal is toward economics, interdisciplinary papers by researchers in other fields of interest to resource and environmental economists will be welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Clean innovation, heterogeneous financing costs, and the optimal climate policy mix Blowin’ in the wind: Long-term downwind exposure to air pollution from power plants and adult mortality Unintended environmental consequences of anti-corruption strategies Labor market impacts of eco-development initiatives in protected areas Combining private and common property management: The impact of a hybrid ownership structure on grassland conservation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1