Search

Given that funds for biodiversity conservation are limited, there is a need to understand people's preferences for its different components. To date, such preferences have largely been measured in monetary terms. However, how people value biodiversity may differ from economic theory, and there is little consensus over whether monetary metrics are always appropriate or the degree to which other methods offer alternative and complementary perspectives on value. We used a choice experiment to compare monetary amounts recreational visitors to urban green spaces were willing to pay for biodiversity enhancement (increases in species richness for birds, plants, and aquatic macroinvertebrates) with self-reported psychological gains in well-being derived from visiting the same sites. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates were significant and positive, and respondents reported high gains in well-being across 3 axes derived from environmental psychology theories (reflection, attachment, continuity with past). The 2 metrics were broadly congruent. Participants with above-median self-reported well-being scores were willing to pay significantly higher amounts for enhancing species richness than those with below-median scores, regardless of taxon. The socio-economic and demographic background of participants played little role in determining either their well-being or the probability of choosing a paying option within the choice experiment. Site-level environmental characteristics were only somewhat related to WTP, but showed strong associations with self-reported well-being. Both approaches are likely to reflect a combination of the environmental properties of a site and unobserved individual preference heterogeneity for the natural world. Our results suggest that either metric will deliver mutually consistent results in an assessment of environmental preferences, although which approach is preferable depends on why one wishes to measure values for the natural world. Preferencias de Cuantificación para el Mundo Natural Usando Estudios de Valor Monetario y No Monetario. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The unit of trade in ecosystem services is usually the use of a proportion of the parcels of land associated with a given service. Valuing small changes in the provision of an ecosystem service presents obstacles, particularly when the service provides non-use benefits, as is the case with conservation of most plants and animals. Quantifying non-use values requires stated-preference valuations. Stated-preference valuations can provide estimates of the public's willingness to pay for a broad conservation goal. Nevertheless, stated-preference valuations can be expensive and do not produce consistent measures for varying levels of provision of a service. Additionally, the unit of trade, land use, is not always linearly related to the level of ecosystem services the land might provide. To overcome these obstacles, we developed a method to estimate the value of a marginal change in the provision of a non-use ecosystem service-in this case conservation of plants or animals associated with a given land-cover type. Our method serves as a tool for calculating transferable valuations of small changes in the provision of ecosystem services relative to the existing provision. Valuation is achieved through stated-preference investigations, calculation of a unit value for a parcel of land, and the weighting of this parcel by its ability to provide the desired ecosystem service and its effect on the ability of the surrounding land parcels to provide the desired service. We used the water vole (Arvicola terrestris ) as a case study to illustrate the method. The average present value of a meter of water vole habitat was estimated at UK£12, but the marginal value of a meter (based on our methods) could range between £0 and £40 or more. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]