Search

Accounting for the values placed on nature by the public is key to successful policies in reversing ongoing biodiversity declines. However, biodiversity values are rarely included in policy decisions, resulting in poorer outcomes for people and nature.Our paper addresses an important evidence gap related to the non‐availability of values for appraising large‐scale policies and investment programmes for species recovery and habitat improvement at the national level.We use a stated preference choice modelling approach to estimate household preferences and Willingness to Pay for species recovery and habitat improvement over a wide range of habitats in England.The framing of our stated preference study is crucial to the evidence we develop. Within the study, we define species recovery as incremental improvements to habitat quality and present respondents with choices between conservation policy options that improve different habitat types. We then use the response data to estimate values for habitat quality improvements, and the associated improvements to species presence and abundance. We are thus able to estimate economic benefits for 'wild species recovery' simultaneously across a wide range of habitat types.Willingness to pay values for habitat improvement was found to be highest for improvements from 'moderate' to 'full' species recovery by 2042; and for habitat types which have relatively low current extents in England, such as lowland fens.Policy Implications: biodiversity policy designers can make use of stated preference methods to guide decisions over which aspects of biodiversity targets to focus more resources on, since this enables policy to reflect public preferences, and thus engages higher public support for conservation. In our specific data and context, this implies prioritising the restoration of species recovery to high levels and focussing resources on scarcer rather than more abundant habitat types. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2005, Environmental Stewardship ( ES) has been the principal agri-environment scheme for England and is the key instrument for the delivery of increased environmental benefits from agricultural landscapes. The main objective of this study is to investigate the hypothesis that individuals have greater relative preferences for the environmental benefits associated with agri-environment schemes when they are delivered within those landscapes closest to where they live. A choice experiment approach based on a national survey provides the data and a mixed logit approach is used to model relative preferences for the environmental benefits of ES across five generic landscape types. Results show that most respondents have a preference for benefits delivered in those areas closest and most accessible to where they live. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Public rights of way (PROW) in England provide a range of social and economic benefits by allowing people to follow prescribed routes across land belonging to others. In urban areas they provide networks of mobility and interaction, helping to reduce reliance on motorised transport. In the rural context they define access to the countryside, critically linked to recreation and tourism, as well as providing mobility networks for local residents. In England, as in many other countries, local government authorities (LGAs) have statutory responsibility for maintaining PROW, committing considerable taxpayer funds for this purpose. LGAs are under increasing pressure, however, to demonstrate that funds committed to PROW give good value for money in terms of the outcomes obtained. In this context, this study set out to determine preferences and willingness to pay for different standards of provision of PROW. The choice experiment technique was used in a face-to-face survey of 327 citizens in the Bedfordshire LGA area, England. Analysis confirmed the importance of PROW attributes such as physical surface conditions, signage and connectivity, with the importance of these varying amongst different users. Implicit prices were derived that showed willingness to pay by households through local taxation for marginal improvements in each attribute. The majority of respondents, however, showed a strong preference for the maintenance of current standards of provision and fiscal charges. The approach has potential general application, enabling estimates of PROW for other regions, helping to justify and prioritise expenditure and operational activities on this important public good. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This paper explores whether expert judgements can be taken as a proxy for citizen preferences for determining investment strategies for public goods. As an illustration, we focus on the provision of Public Rights Of Way (PROW) by Local Government Authorities in England. These provide rights of passage over property to those other than the owners, and little information is available on the welfare effects of changes in the provision and use of PROW. Given limited funds, reliance on expert judgement could be a cost effective alternative for decision-making compared with stated preference surveys of citizens. Two methods are compared. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to elicit expert judgement to proxy citizen preferences for different attributes of PROW. The Choice Experiment (CE) technique is then used to derive preferences directly through personal interviews with citizens. Overall it was found that judicious use of AHP by experts can, in this instance, be used to represent citizen views. However, this result may not be easily generalisable to other settings. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Recent decades have seen a wide range of pollutant spills affecting natural, industrial, urban and rural areas (Exxon Valdez, Amoco Cadiz, Erika, Prestige, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, and the Aznalcóllar mines in Spain, to name a few). The extent of damage covers both time and space. Therefore, in order to mitigate the effects of pollution, it is necessary to adopt integrated management of both productive and natural areas. However, to be effective it is necessary to consider not only the health or biophysical effects of the countermeasures, but also the response of individuals to these changes. The purpose of this study is to assess the potential social and environmental impacts derived from the implementation of restoration strategies resulting from spills. Our approach is based on a choice experiment applied within the context of a citizens'' valuation workshop or market stall in Cumbria (UK) and Zaragoza (Spain). The results highlight the advantages of this participatory technique versus traditional surveys. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Stated preference (SP) survey responses may not predict actual behavior, leading to hypothetical bias. We developed an approach that harnesses large-scale routine data to help SP surveys provide more accurate estimates of revealed preferences (RPs), within a study which elicited preferences for alternative changes to the blood service in England. The SP survey responses were used to predict the mean number of annual whole blood donations. Ex ante, the iterative survey design estimated hypothetical bias by contrasting pilot SP survey responses (N = 1254), with individually linked data on RPs, to inform the main SP survey design (N = 25,187). Ex post, the analysis recognized mediation of the relationship between SP and RP when blood donation is deferred. The pilot survey reported that donors' intended donation frequency of 3.2 (men) and 2.6 (women) times per year, exceeded their actual frequency by 41% and 30% respectively. Choice scenario attributes for the main SP survey were then modified, and over-prediction subsequently decreased to 34% for men and 16% for women. The mediating effect of deferrals explained 29% (men) and 86% (women) of the residual discrepancy between SP and RP. Future studies can use this approach to reduce hypothetical bias, and provide more accurate predictions for decision-making., (© 2021 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)