 Valuing type and scope of ecosystem conservation: A meta-analysisEvan Hjerpe, Anwar Hussain and Spencer Phillips Journal of Forest Economics, 2015, vol. 21, issue 1, 32-50 Abstract: Ecosystem conservation programs are increasingly incorporating both preservation and restoration strategies for ensuring the flow of ecosystem services from public lands. While preservation and restoration have similar end ecological objectives, differences in these conservation types may create systematic variation in willingness to pay (WTP) for their benefits. There has also been conflicting evidence of whether or not the amount, or scope, of conservation influences the demand for environmental improvements in manners consistent with neoclassical economics (greater value for more conservation). To investigate the sensitivity of conservation values to type and scope, we conducted a meta-analysis of existing evidence. We synthesized 127 data points from 22 primary studies that provided WTP estimates for preservation, forest restoration, and freshwater restoration conducted primarily on public lands. Estimates were derived from choice experiments, contingent rankings, and dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies for conservation programs in Europe, Canada, and the U.S. from 1987 to 2013. We found strong evidence for systematic variation of WTP depending on conservation type and scope. Values for preservation were greater than both forest and freshwater restoration; and freshwater restoration was valued greater than forest restoration. Meta-estimates were found to be sensitive to scope effects, as value increased with conservation intensity but at diminishing marginal rates. We provide quantitative policy analysis in the form of within-sample predictions of mean WTP for each conservation type and scope and conclude with recommendations. Keywords: Conservation economics; Willingness to pay; Meta-analysis; Preservation; Ecological restoration; Ecosystem services (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:foreco:v:21:y:2015:i:1:p:32-50 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2014.12.001 Access Statistics for this article Journal of Forest Economics is currently edited by P. Gong and R. Brännlund More articles in Journal of Forest Economics from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.