Department of Forest Resource Management, Faculty of Forestry and Conservation of Nature, University of Chile, Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago de Chile, ChileMaster Program on Protected Areas and Conservation of Nature, University of Chile, Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago de Chile, ChileMaster Program on Environmental Management and Planning, University of Chile, Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago de Chile, Chile
r t i c l e i n f o
rticle history:eceived 17 August 2011eceived in revised form6 November 2012ccepted 30 November 2012
eywords:hoice experimentsillingness to pay
enuelas Lake National Reserveentral Chile
a b s t r a c t
We conducted a choice experiment for the economic valuation of benefits of components of biodiversitythat are provided by the natural systems protected in the Penuelas Lake National Reserve, located in theMediterranean zone of Chile. The Mediterranean zone of central Chile is one of the world’s 34 biodiversityhotpots. Furthermore, we estimated the economic benefits of the water supply provided by the reserve.Unlike most of the previous studies on willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation, part of the data thatwe produce refers to: (a) public WTP for unpopular species of fauna (an endemic amphibian currentlyin danger of extinction); and (b) public WTP for flora present at the Reserve (endemic orchid species).Specifically the attributes of the study were the following: existence of endemic orchid species; chancesof observing animals with scenic attraction; additional protection for an endemic amphibian; and, avail-ability of drinkable water in the future. A rate of entry to the area was incorporated to estimate WTP foradditional protection for the selected attributes. WTP data were obtained from a representative sampleof Chilean tourists that visit the area. Factors influencing the visitors’ WTP were also explored.
Three hundred and four Chilean visitors of the reserve were randomly selected for interviews. Multino-
mial Logit and Random Parameter Logit models results show that visitors are willing to pay to protect theselected attributes. Marginal mean WTP/visitor for the single levels of variation of the attributes rangefrom about $1.7 per visitor per visit for securing the existence of five species of endemic orchids to about$8.9 for guaranteeing the availability of drinkable water for 50 years. The analysis of visitors’ WTP fordifferent levels of protection allowed an improved understanding of the sensitivity of the participants tothe scope of the information provided.
ntroduction
conomic valuation of biodiversity benefits
Biodiversity provides a range of goods and services that are ofundamental importance to human beings in terms of health, well-eing, livelihood, and survival (Costanza et al. 1997; Martín-Lópezt al. 2012; MEA 2005). According to the Convention on Biologicaliversity (CBD), the use of economic tools in support of biodi-ersity management is indispensable. In fact, the appreciation of
iodiversity as a public good and the appreciation of its economicalue have been recognised as central to effective conservationfforts in the future (Butchart et al. 2010; Rands et al. 2010). For
the CBD, it is important to assess and better understand the posi-tive economic value of the sustainable use of biodiversity. It is alsoimportant to understand that this economic value may be higherthan the value of alternative resource uses that threaten biodiver-sity (Balmford et al. 2002; Pearce & Moran 1994). Efforts to assessthe economic value of biodiversity play multiple roles in managingthe links between human and natural systems (Rands et al. 2010;TEEB 2010). Estimates of marginal biodiversity benefits (Balmfordet al. 2002) can be used as signals to guide the human use of bio-logical diversity, providing information on the relative scarcity andqualitative condition of the natural environment (Howarth & Farber2002). Valuing biodiversity benefits using economic techniques andincorporating those values into the decision-making process canbe a powerful way to demonstrate the importance of biodiver-sity protection to the broader public (Christie et al. 2008). Thus,
the role of the economic valuation of biodiversity and the servicesit provides is are increasingly being recognised by policy mak-ers. Designing policies that provide or maintain ecosystem servicesat levels that are desirable to society fundamentally requires the
bility to assign economic value to these benefits. Similarly, scien-ists argue that economic criteria need to be part of the design andhe implementation of conservation policies (MEA, 2005). How-ver, this is not an easy task, as many of the benefits of biodiversityonservation are less tangible than other alternative land usesTEEB 2010). Traditionally, Stated Preference Techniques (SPT) aresed for quantifying biodiversity benefits (Bateman et al. 2002;EEB 2010). The monetary concept of Willingness to Pay (WTP)s used for this purpose. Although we do not want to give thempression that the economic valuation of biodiversity is the onlypproach to societal decision-making on the economic side of con-ervation planning (Sagoff 2004), the omission of economic valuesay result in the systematic under-valuation of a species and sys-
ematic under-investment in the natural environment (Kopp 1992).owever, we are aware that economic valuation techniques have
imitations and that these techniques are not independently suffi-ient to address any major policy issue.
Most of the empirical experience regarding the economicaluation of biodiversity benefits has focused on elements of bio-iversity, primarily species valuation, and the evidence has beenollected in the developed world but rarely applied to the contextf developing countries. Thus, the literature on the economic valuef biodiversity is geographically biased, as much of the research isS-focused, with a few studies reported for Europe (Christie et al.008). To the best of our knowledge, research in Latin America thatpecifically assesses issues related to the economic valuation ofiodiversity benefits is very limited. This is a concern because ineveloping countries, biodiversity is at risk from rapid processesf land use conversion and land cover change such as deforesta-ion, urbanisation and agricultural abandonment (Carmona et al.010; Díaz et al. 2011; Schiappacase et al. 2012). We recognise thatconomic valuation is not an easy task because biodiversity is aomplex issue. Sometimes, for example, the species in question arenknown – or perhaps too well known – to the public. In this way,ith the exception of some high profile bird species and a few fish
pecies, most of the work on WTP for biodiversity conservation haseen concerned with mammals (White et al. 2001). Existing stud-
es tend to be restricted with regard to the taxa and locations theyonsider. The current bias toward mammals in the literature mayead decision-makers to inappropriately allocate funds for conser-ation, which could lead to a failure to meet conservation goalsMartín-López et al. 2011).
Empirically, SPT can quantify the economic value associatedith the protection of biological resources. In a theoretical anal-
sis of the non-market benefits of biological resources, changesn use and non-use benefits are measured using changes in util-ty. In the empirical analysis, these underlying utility changes arepproximated using the monetary concept of WTP. This showshe maximum amount of money people are willing to pay to gainn increase in use or non-use values. SPT have been designed foruch purpose. SPT such as Contingent Valuation (CV) and Choicexperiments (CE) (Bateman et al. 2002) provide instruments tolicit WTP in the environmental context. Both CV and CE use sur-ey questions to elicit statements of values and WTP from surveyespondents. The most well-known methodology to assess eco-omic values of natural resources is CV, which has broadly beensed to value the benefits of biodiversity conservation. However,he use of CE is growing, and it is likely to become more prominentn the economic valuation of biodiversity in the future because ofts ability to estimate values for multiple services. Biodiversity pro-ides multiple services, and the ability to estimate marginal valuesor specific services is important for policy analysis (Bateman et al.
002; Kanninen 2010).
In this work, we conducted a CE for the economic valuation ofenefits of components of biodiversity that are provided by theatural systems protected in the Penuelas Lake National Reserve,
nservation 21 (2013) 143– 153
located in central Chile. Furthermore, we estimated the economicbenefits of the water supply provided by the reserve. Unlike mostof the previous studies on WTP for conservation, part of the datathat we produce refers to: (a) public WTP for unpopular speciesof fauna, an endemic amphibian currently in danger of extinction(Díaz-Páez & Ortíz 2003); and (b) public WTP for flora present at thereserve (endemic orchid species). The endemic orchids of Penuelasare one of the main findings of recent years in the area (CONAF2008). WTP data were obtained from a representative sample ofChilean tourists that visit the area. Factors influencing the visitors’WTP were also explored.
The results of the study contribute to filling gaps in the existingliterature on the economic value of biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in developing countries. Because the study area is a UNESCOBiosphere Reserve, the research has global relevance.
Methods
Study area
The Penuelas Lake National Reserve (PLNR) is part of the ChileanSystem of Protected Areas. It is located in central Chile, in the fifthRegion, in the province of Valparaíso (see Fig. 1).
The central zone of Chile, also called Mediterranean (Pisano1956), spans the territory approximately between 32◦ and 37◦S.It has a Mediterranean climate, characterised by regular periodsof rain during the winter and a well-marked dry season, whichcorresponds to other Mediterranean areas such as California andsouthern Europe in the northern hemisphere and southwesternAustralia and southwestern Africa in the southern hemisphere(Arroyo et al. 1995; Grau 1992).
Mediterranean ecosystems are considered to be a worldwidepriority for conservation (Mittermeier et al. 2005), as they have highconcentrations of endemic species that have experienced acceler-ated rates of habitat destruction (Ceballos & Ehrlich 2006; Medail& Quezel 1997; Myers et al. 2000). This Mediterranean ecoregionin South America is known for its high levels of endemism, witha high diversity of plant genera and high species richness (Arroyo1999). This region is home to more than 39% of Chilean mammalspecies, 47% of the region’s species are endemic to Chile, and 65%of the region’s species are threatened (Simonetti 1999).
One of the protected areas that maintains wild Mediterranean-type ecosystems in Chile is the PLNR. The PLNR and the CampanaNational Park (CNP) together constitute the UNESCO BiosphereReserve La Campana-Penuelas, which is 17,905 ha in total.
The PLNR has an area of 9260 ha, 2473 ha of which have naturalvegetative cover, 1900 ha of which are covered by Lake Penuelas,with the rest covered by exotic plantations of Pinus radiata andEucalyptus globulus (CONAF 2008). The natural vegetation withinthe reserve is a mixture of sclerophyll forest and scrub, which bothform an important centre of diversity of fauna and vegetation thatconstitute an ecologically sensitive area in the reserve (Munoz-Pedreros et al. 2010). The variety of herbaceous flora is notable inthese formations, with over 200 species represented. There is greatspecies richness of orchids, many of which are endemic to Chile inthe reserve (Hauenstein et al. 2009).
Although the reserve protects this type of vegetation, the appar-ent degree of deterioration of these environments threatens thediversity within the reserve (Munoz et al. 1996; Smith-Ramírezet al. 2005). Thus, it is necessary to promote the conservation ofsclerophyll forest areas to ensure the viability of this type of native
vegetation and associated fauna.
Within the reserve, 85 sub-basins have been identified basedon the presence of a main channel that carries the water toLake Penuelas. The basin and lake represent a major source and
C. Cerda et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 21 (2013) 143– 153 145
F relatR
ro
aattia1
eaertg
pcsp
ooTbatmap
T
eamf
and the benefits of the water supply.Taking the concept of Total Economic Value2 (TEV) and its value
types (Pearce & Moran 1994) as a reference, Table 1 shows a
2 According to Pearce and Moran (1994), conceptually, the TEV of an environmen-tal resource consists of its use values (UV) and non-use values (NUV). A use value isa value arising from the actual use made of a given resource. Use values are furtherdivided into direct use values (DUV), which refer to actual uses such as fishing andtimber extraction; indirect use values (IUV), which refer to the benefits deriving
ig. 1. (a) Spatial location of Penuelas National Reserve (see “Penuelas” in the map) inegion in Chile.
eservoir of drinking water for the region, particularly for the citiesf Valparaiso and Vina del Mar (CONAF 2008).
One of the most salient features of the reserve is that it is the onlyrea with a significant bird concentration between the fifth Regionnd the Metropolitan Region. The Penuelas Lake forms a wetlandhat is important for migratory, occasional or resident birds. Morehan 125 species of water, land and shore birds have been recordedn this lake (Strang 1983). Eight species currently protected by NRLPre threatened by some level of conservation problem (Meza et al.998).
Among mammals, Munoz-Pedreros et al. (2010) report the pres-nce of 16 species of mammals, five of which are introduced speciesnd 11 of which are native species. Four of these species are threat-ned by some level of conservation problem, and ten species ofodents and two species of lagomorphs support a variety of preda-ors, such as Pseudalopex culpaeus (culpeo fox) and Pseudalopexriseus (chilla fox).
There are species of amphibians with serious conservationroblems (CONAF 2008), such as the Chilean frog (Caudiververaaudiververa). Currently, specific actions to establish ecologicallyensitive areas have been scheduled to implement measures torotect this species and other amphibians (CONAF 2008).
Penuelas provides direct and indirect benefits to the inhabitantsf various nearby cities and towns. In addition to the provisionf potable water, these benefits include recreation and tourism.his unit is one of the protected areas that has the highest num-er of fires nationwide, which affects a large amount of wildlifend one of the few representative stands of sclerophyll forest inhe central zone of Chile (CONAF 2008). Thus, regional decision-
akers involved in the management of the reserve have expressedn urgent need to value the reserve by incorporating the widestossible range of economic benefits in the valuation.
he valuation approach
This study uses the CE method to estimate WTP to assess public
conomic preferences for the conservation of biodiversity elementsnd for the water supply provided by the PLNR in Chile. CEs can esti-ate the WTP for a particular change in the provision of services
rom the status quo. CEs can also assess the trade-offs between
ion to Santiago and Valparaíso cities. Source: Google Maps; (b) Location of Valparaíso
various attributes of a particular good, service or impact, and theyfacilitate the disaggregation of values between different compo-nents (Adamowicz et al. 1998). In addition, CEs can improve theappropriateness of the information obtained for evaluating pol-icy instruments (Perrings et al. 1995). The technique also avoidsbiases that usually arise with CV, namely, “embedding effects” and“yea-saying” (Hanley et al. 1998).
Recent examples of CE studies include research on preferencesfor sustainable forest management (Berniger et al. 2010). Hoyos(2010) showed a state-of-the-art environmental valuation withCEs. Regarding protected areas, most CE studies have been appliedin the context of sustainable tourism development (e.g., Jacobsen &Thorsen 2010). A recent study valued marine protected areas usingCE (Wattage et al. 2011). García-Llorente et al. (2012) applied achoice experiment for land use scenarios in semi-arid watershedenvironments in Spain.
The design and application of the choice experiment
In stated preference valuation, biodiversity needs to be pre-sented in a way that facilitates the elicitation of preferences. Toaccomplish this, the attributes were selected using the criterion ofBlamey et al. (2000), who state that one criterion for the selectionof attributes in a CE is their policy relevance. Focus groups withadministrators from the area were conducted to elicit an adequatedefinition and description of the attributes to be valued. With thisinput, we focused on elements of biodiversity (primarily species)
from ecosystem functions, such as a forest’s function in protecting the watershed;and option values (OV), which is a value approximating an individual’s willing-ness to pay to safeguard an asset for the option of using it at a future date. Non-usevalues are usually divided between a bequest value (BQ) and an existence value (EV).Bequest values measure the benefit accruing to any individual from the knowledge
146 C. Cerda et al. / Journal for Nature Co
Table 1Values analysed in the study and purpose of valuation.
Typology of values(TEV)
CE attribute Purpose of valuation
Direct use Chances of observingdifferent types of animalsin a visit
Assessing the estheticvalue of different types ofanimals
Direct use/option Availability of drinkablewater
Assessing the value ofdirect benefits
Non-use Existence of endemicorchids
Assessing the existencevalue of endemic species
Non-use Existence of an endemicamphibian (Caudiverberacaudiverbera)
Assessing the value ofendemic species withconservation problems,usually unknown by the
C
cta
-
-
tba
in the entry rate as a realistic change. Thus, as a payment vehicle,we used two entrance fees to the area that are higher than the
4 Insensitivity to scope occurs when one good is valued differently if it is includedin a bundle of other goods as compared to an individual valuation of the good
general public
E: choice experiment.
lassification of the values assessed by the study and the purpose ofhe valuation. The selection and design of the attributes of Table 1re described in detail as follows.
Possibility of observing animals in a visit: Viewing wildlife is oneof the main environmental conditions that are meaningful tovisitors of protected areas (Moore & Polley 2007). Visitors’ per-ceptions of meaningful environmental conditions can provideessential information for sustainable management at naturalareas (Manning & Lawson 2002; Moore & Polley 2007). The PLNRprovides refuge to a variety of animal species that have scenicpotential, such as birds, reptiles and mammals. The managersof the reserve have concentrated tourism activities in areas sur-rounding the Penuelas Lake (fishing area), which corresponds tothe public use area of the reserve (CONAF 2008). At this area, vis-itors can primarily observe birds (CONAF 2008), but they havelimited opportunity to observe mammals or reptiles that are eas-ily found in the sclerophyllous forest and mixed scrub, areas thatthe public cannot access as they are ecologically more sensitive.
Controlled tourist access to more ecologically sensitive areas isbeing planned. Thus, in terms of a visitor’s chance of observinganimals in one visit, the attribute was varied on two levels withrespect to the current situation (safely3 observed birds, becausepeople can only visit the fishing area): safely birds and mam-mals (level 1) and safely birds, mammals and reptiles (level 2).It was explained to respondents that in addition to the birdsthat they observe in the fishing area, the reserve contains otherinteresting species in the sclerophyllous forest and shrub zones.Photographs of examples of animals that can be seen in otherareas of the reserve were shown to respondents. For mammals,we presented two emblematic foxes (Pseudalopex culpeo andPseudalopex griseus) as an example. For reptiles, a photograph ofthree striking lizards was shown. For birds, we used photographsof two birds, the Columba araucana and the Falco peregrinus asexamples.
Existence of different orchid endemic species: Most of the studies onWTP for conservation focus on animals, leaving gaps for the eco-nomic benefits of protecting flora and vegetation (Martín-Lópezet al. 2011). In the vegetative formations of Penuelas the richnessof orchid species stands. Approximately ten species of orchids
have recently been identified in the reserve (CONAF 2008). Somespecies of orchids that were previously thought to be extinct
hat others might benefit from a resource in the future. Existence values refer to theenefit derived from the mere knowledge of the existence of any particular asset,s opposed to having direct use of that asset.3 Indicates the chances of observing a particular kind of animal.
nservation 21 (2013) 143– 153
but have been recently found in the area by researchers (CONAF2008).
The attribute was varied on three levels with respect to the cur-rent situation: no species has secured its existence in the reserve,five species have their existence secured in the reserve (level1) and ten species have their existence secured in the reserve(level 2). This operationalisation of the levels also allows for theassessment of sensitivity to scope.4
A poster containing the ten orchid species present in thereserve, which was recently used by the administrators to pro-mote the area, was presented to survey respondents to explainthe endemic orchid attributes and the levels of variation for theattribute.
- Extra protection for an endemic amphibian: With this attribute,we empirically assessed the existence value of an unpopu-lar/unknown species to visitors of the reserve. We chose theChilean frog (Caudiverbera caudiverbera Linné) which is endemicto Chile and is currently in danger of extinction (Díaz-Páez & Ortíz2003). Since the 1990s, the species has declined to an estimated30% of the population that existed ten years ago (Díaz-Páez & Ortíz2003). One of the places where the species is protected in Chileis the Penuelas National Reserve. The attribute levels were var-ied according to specific actions within the reserve to protect itshabitat. These actions focused on improving the level of scientificknowledge of the species and its habitat, which would contributeto ensuring its existence. The attribute levels were the following:no specific actions within the reserve to protect its habitat (sta-tus quo), a moderate research effort that would include sporadicmonitoring of its habitat, and a large research effort that wouldinclude continuous monitoring of its habitat.
To describe the attribute for the “existence of an endemicamphibian,” a black and white photograph of the species waspresented to respondents.5
- Availability of drinking water in the future: This attribute focuses ondetermining the future benefit for visitors of ensuring the avail-ability of drinking water from Penuelas Lake for communities inthe fifth region that are currently using the resource. There weretwo levels of variation for the attribute with respect to the statusquo, in which drinking water is not guaranteed for any part of thepopulation. In Level 1, the availability of water is guaranteed for25 years, and in Level 2, the availability of water is guaranteed tothe population that currently uses it for 50 years.
As improvements to the attributes were offered with respectto the status quo, WTP was used to quantify the benefits of theattributes considered in the study. In a valuation scenario thatinvolved protected areas, Elsasser (1996) stated that a plausiblepayment vehicle for participants is an increase in the entry ratefor access to the area. Because visitors pay for using the recre-ational service of the place, they are likely to perceive an increase
(Kahneman & Knetsch 1992). This means insensitivity to the quantity informationpresented to respondents.
5 The use of a black and white photograph justifies itself on research goals thatgo beyond the scope of this article. In this sense, the economic quantification ofexistence values has been subjected to severe criticism in the literature. For example,it is difficult to separate existence values from other economic value categories(Walsh et al. 1984). Thus, for a successful utilisation of an endemic species as aCE attribute operationalising existence value, it is necessary that respondents knowthe species, but they should not be able to attribute any specific direct use or indirectuse value to it. To minimise any effect on the esthetic aspect of the species (directuse value), we decided to use a black and white photograph of the species.
C. Cerda et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 21 (2013) 143– 153 147
Table 2Attributes, levels of variation and coding used in the study.
Attribute and levels Coding of the levels Expected effect on the welfare
Dummy 1 Dummy 2
Chances of observing animals in a visit(a) Safely: only birds (Status Quo) 0 0
current price of CHP6 1500/person/visit ($3): $3000/person/visit($6); and, $4500/person/visit ($9), respectively.
Table 2 shows the attributes, their levels of variation and codingor the econometric analysis.
Using the attributes and variation levels of Table 2, sixteen con-ervation options were obtained from an orthogonal main-effectsesign (Louviere et al. 2000), which was performed using SPSS (ver-ion 19.0). Throughout the mix and match procedure (Chrzan &rme 2000), these options were combined into election sets withlternatives A and B and a status quo (Fig. 2). The options werellocated to four blocks of four election sets each. The blocks wereandomly distributed among the participants (Hensher et al. 2005).ig. 2 shows an example set of choices.
he design and structure of the valuation questionnaire
The questionnaire itself consisted of four parts.7 The first partontained an introductory section to explain the objective of thetudy. In this section, it was clearly explained to respondentshat the information would be delivered to local decision makers.he second section consisted of a thorough explanation of eachttribute and its levels. To avoid confusion and to reduce the cogni-ive demand on respondents, photographs related to the attributeshemselves were used.8
The choice sets were presented to respondents in the third partf the questionnaire. Each respondent was asked to complete thehoice experiment section by selecting one of the three availableptions for each of the four attributes (Fig. 2).
The next section included questions related to participants’
erceptions about the government’s use of taxpayer money andhether the respondents felt they were able to pay an increasedrice to enter the reserve. These data reflect standard practices
n the application of stated preference research methods in the
6 CHP: Chilean pesos.7 An English translation of the questionnaire is available from the authors upon
equest.8 The validity of using photographic representations to assess perception of natureas established by different studies (e.g., Kaplan & Kaplan 1989).
CHP 4500 person/visit
context of biodiversity and biodiversity services, including usingattitudinal variables to link attitudes and intended behaviour(Bateman et al. 2002). These data help (i) to explain individuals’variations in preferences and (ii) to relate these preferences tounderlying respondent values in order to support the validityof results generated from hypothetical stated preference surveys(Bateman et al. 2002).
Socio-economic information (the gender, age, educational sta-tus, monthly income of the individual, and the location of theindividual’s residence) was also collected from respondents. Thesequestions were included in the last part of the survey instrument.
Administration of the choice experiment questionnaire
This study focuses on Chilean visitors to the reserve. A pilotstudy was conducted with 100 visitors during September 2010,involving minor adjustments to the instrument. The main surveywas distributed in person inside the reserve by three previouslytrained university students during the months of November 2010and January 2011 (the summer season in Chile). To determinethe number of surveys to be conducted, statistics of adult Chileanvisitors that entered the reserve between 1996 and 2010 wereused. The total average population was 18,000 adult Chilean vis-itors. Considering a 95% confidence interval, an estimated sampleof 270 visitors needed to be interviewed. However, 304 surveyscould be conducted by random sampling. The process of data col-lection was organised during the weekends because it is possibleto find a greater presence of visitors, using two interviewers perday. To encourage individuals to answer the questionnaire, eachadult visitor received a letter at the reserve entrance in which weoutlined the purposes of the study and requested their cooperationin the event of being selected as participant. All interviews wereconducted at the fishing area between 10:30 am and 16:00 pmwhile visitors were carrying out recreational activities, primarily
picnic activities and fishing.9 The average time it took to fill outthe questionnaire per visitor was approximately 15–20 min. Inter-viewers had an average daily rate of 6–7 interviews. Each day, the
9 Visitors cannot stay on the reserve. During this season, the reserve is open everyday from 9:00 am to 17:30 am.
148 C. Cerda et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 21 (2013) 143– 153
urveys were distributed randomly at the fishing area among thearties visiting the reserve; therefore, the sampling unit was theamily group or party,10 and the unit of analysis was the personnterviewed. Because the survey requested information on fam-ly income and expenditures, the respondent must have been inharge of the group. It was observed in Penuelas that the headsf families were typically responsible for managing this type ofnformation (CONAF 2008). Generally, the respondents’ attitudesor responding to the questionnaire were satisfactory. The inter-iewers obtained an average rate of rejection for responding to thenterview of approximately 20% per day.
he econometric analysis of data and estimation of the WTP
heoretical frameworkIn a CE study, respondents state their preferences through
epeated choices regarding different alternatives or goods. Theoods are transformed into attributes from which the consumers assumed to derive utility (Lancaster 1966). In an environmentalE study, the alternatives are often described as different devel-pment or policy options (Bateman et al. 2002; Kanninen 2010)
hat are associated with changes in the quality of the good in ques-ion. Utility is divided into a deterministic, systematic component,nd a random part of utility “reflecting the unobserved individual
10 Most of the Chilean visitors who come to the reserve do so in a family group.
tly as presented to participants.
idiosyncrasies of taste” (Louviere et al. 2000) given by the followingexpression:
Uij = Vij(Xij, Si) + εij ∀j ∈ Ci (1)
In this equation, Uij is the utility an individual i is assumed to obtainfrom alternative j in choice set Ci. The parameter Vij is the deter-ministic component, described as a function of the attributes ofalternatives Xij, which is a vector of attributes that are perceivedby individual i for alternative j and characteristics of individual Si.The random error term is εij. Because εij is unobservable to the ana-lyst, s/he cannot determine exactly why an individual chooses analternative j out of a set of competing options Ci ∀ j, k ∈ Ci and i = 1,. . ., I. The systematic component Vij only allows her/him to makeprobabilistic statements about the choice. Assuming utility max-imisation, the probability that alternative j is chosen by individuali over any alternative k out of choice set Ci can be expressed as theprobability that the utility associated with alternative j exceeds thatassociated with all other alternatives including k. To estimate theprobabilities, assumptions have to be made regarding the nature ofthe random error term. A convenient assumption is that they areindependently and identically distributed with an extreme-value(Weibull) distribution. The conditional probability that generatesthe Multinomial Logit model (MNL, McFadden 1973) is given by
the following expression:
P(j|Ci) = exp�Vji∑k ∈ Ci
exp�Vki(2)
re Conservation 21 (2013) 143– 153 149
Ii(a
V
InTjaottdAeo
pl2aai(
I
Iaacms2
T
iuiase
peaaofdhgHwtno(r
Table 3Socio-economic characteristics of the sample at Penuelas National Reserve.
Characteristics Frequency in the sample Percent (%)
GenderFemale 83 27Male 221 73
Educational statusPrimary school 15 5Secondary school 82 27Technical education 81 27University 107 35Post degree 19 6
Age16–30 years 69 2631–45 years 146 4846–60 years 61 2061 years and above 18 6
Individual monthly income (CHP)CHP 300,000 and less 0 0CHP 301,000–400,000 24 8CHP 401,000–500,000 36 12CHP 501,000–600,000 61 20CHP 601,000–700,000 85 28CHP 701,000–800,000 55 18CHP 801,000–900,000 30 10CHP 901,000 and more 12 4
Residence location
C. Cerda et al. / Journal for Natu
n Eq. (2), � is a scale parameter that is typically set to 1 and isnversely proportional to the standard deviation of the error termsLouviere et al. 2000). The component Vij is assumed to be linearnd additive in parameters:
ij = ˇASCASCj +N∑
n=1
ˇnXnj (3)
n Eq. (3), Xnj is the attribute level of attribute n of the jth alter-ative. The parameter ˇn is the value associated with attribute n.he alternative-specific constant or ASCj equals 1 for alternative
(otherwise: 0) and can be included for j − 1 alternatives. If thelternatives are generic the ASCs can be set to be equal to eachther. It is the role of the ASCs to take up any [observable] varia-ion in choices that cannot be explained by either the attributes orhe socio-economic variables (Bennet & Adamowicz 2001). Socio-emographic and attitude variables can be interacted with theSC and/or attributes. By using the maximum likelihood method,stimates for the attribute parameters in the MNL model can bebtained.
The utilities for attributes are expressed by parameter estimatesroduced by models in the logit family, such as the multinomial
ogit (MNL) or the random parameter logit (RPL) (Louviere et al.000). If one of the attributes reflects ‘cost’ (i.e., if choosing anlternative is associated with an increase in the entrance fee to
protected area), parameter estimates can be used to generatemplicit prices (IP). IP for an attribute are calculated using equation4).
mplicit price (n) = −(
�ˇn
�ˇ$
)= −
(ˇn
ˇ$
)(4)
n Eq. (4), ˇn is the mean parameter of attribute n in a linear anddditive utility function, ˇ$ is the coefficient of the ‘cost’ attribute,nd � denotes scale. The scale parameter � is cancelled out in thealculation of implicit prices. Implicit prices reflect the maximumarginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for a marginal change in a
ingle attribute on a ceteris paribus basis (Bennet & Adamowicz001).
he empirical approachWe calculated both MNL and RPL models. Both models include
nteraction terms of ASC and individual-specific characteristicssing LIMDEP/NLogit 9.0. We used a RPL because unlike MNL, RPL
s not subject to the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA)ssumption, where the latter considers unconditional and unob-erved heterogeneity in the preferences of respondents (Henshert al. 2005).
The attributes were assessed using dummy codes to deriveoint estimates of the utility for each attribute level (Batemant al. 2002; Hensher et al. 2005), as presented in Table 2. The costttribute entered into the model as continuous variables using thectual attribute levels (Table 2). For the RPL models, we gave allf the attribute levels parameterised normal distributions, exceptor ‘cost,’ which was fixed. To test for the influence of socio-emographic variables on choice and participants’ perceptions ofow the government uses taxpayer money, interaction terms wereenerated with the ASC and these variables (Bateman et al. 2002;ensher et al. 2005). The improved model was generated step-ise by initially including all statistically ‘significant’ interaction
erms from the single interaction models and then deleting the
on-significant interaction terms one at a time. For an estimationf the marginal WTP, we used the approach proposed by Louviere2006). Thus, the WTP for each attribute level was calculated witheference to the status-quo level of each attribute.
Fifth region 181 60Other region 123 40
Results
The choice experiment was administered to 304 Chilean visitors.No one expressed doubts about the scenarios presented. Likewise,no one protested against the payment vehicle used. All partici-pants traded the current situation (status quo) with the proposedenvironmental improvement at least once.
Sample characteristics
The socio-economic characteristics of the sample from PenuelasNational Reserve are summarised in Table 3. The data show thatPenuelas attracts Chilean tourists with a wide variety of socio-economic characteristics. In general, middle-aged, middle- andlower-educated (59% of respondents had less than a universitydegree), and middle-income (40% of respondents had an incomeof CHP 600,000 or less per month) respondents were the most fre-quent group. Respondents were mostly males (73%). Over half ofthe respondents came from the same region in which Penuelas islocated.
Econometric results
Table 4 shows results from both models. Both models are highlysignificant (P < 0.0001). Compared to the MNL, which is reportedin the first column of Table 4, the log-likelihood value for theRPL model (−911.13) is higher than that of the MNL model with−964.06. In both models, all attributes emerge as significant deter-minants of choice (P < 0.05). The models display the expected signsfor the attribute terms: positive utility for an increased numberof types of animals seen by visitors; positive utility for ensuringthe provision of drinkable water in the future; positive utility formore orchid species protected; and, for the additional protection of
an endemic amphibian. The sign of the payment vehicle attributeindicating an increase in the entrance fee increase is negative, asexpected. The sign of the ASC is positive, indicating positive util-ity as one move away from the status quo. We also found that the
150 C. Cerda et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 21 (2013) 143– 153
Table 4Attribute levels parameters estimated for a Multinomial Logit model (MNL) and for a Random Parameter model (RPM). Attributes are dummy coded.
Variables MNL RPM Marginal mean WTP/visitor [CHP$/visit] for thesingle levels of variation (based on RPM parameters)
Chances of observing animals in a visitSafely: birds and reptiles 0.6562*** 0.6615*** 2.245 ($4.4)Safely: birds, reptiles and mammals 0.6876*** 0.6979*** 2.336 ($4.7)
Availability of drinkable waterGuaranteed for 25 years 0.9985*** 1.0011*** 3.351 ($6.6)Guaranteed for 50 years 1.3164*** 1.3234*** 4.430 ($8.9)
Existence of endemic orchids5 species have their existence secured 0.2412** 0.2542*** 851 ($1.7)10 species have their existence secured 0.4453*** 0.4599*** 1540 ($3.0)
Existence of an endemic amphibian (Caudiverbera caudiverbera)Medium research effort 0.9737*** 0.9973*** 3.338 ($6.7)Large research effort 1.0114*** 1.2313*** 4.112 ($8.2)
DF: degrees of freedom; INC: income; GEN: gender; TAX: perceived response efficacy of the government’s use of taxpayer money.a Cost coefficient for CHP 1000.
Rom
i
ttil
ucr
C
fiamCsg
D
cttoffbig
* P < 0.05.** P < 0.001.
*** P < 0.0001.
PL model estimations reveal significant standard deviations forrchids and water supply attributes’ coefficients (P < 0.001). Thiseans that preferences heterogeneity exists among visitors.The models reveal that income (INC) and gender (GEN) have an
mpact on choice. In our case, males show a higher WTP.This is consistent with the notions that environmental pro-
ection is a normal good and that individuals will be willingo contribute more to environmental protection as their incomencreases. Chilean visitors with higher incomes are relatively moreikely to pay an increase in the entrance fee.
In addition, the perceived response efficacy of the government’sse of taxpayer money (TAX) has a highly significant influence onhoice. The model shows that a less favourable perception ratingesults in lower levels of utility for choosing the options offered.
alculation of willingness to pay
For an estimation of marginal WTP, we used the RPM, whichts the data better than MNL. The marginal WTP for each of thettribute levels is presented in the third column of Table 4. Marginalean WTP/visitor for the single levels range from approximately
HP 851 ($1.7) per visitor per visit for securing the existence of fivepecies of endemic orchids to approximately CHP 4430 ($8.9) foruaranteeing the availability of drinkable water for 50 years.
iscussion
The information generated by the study has several impli-ations. First, Penuelas currently faces funding problems, ashe state contribution and entrance fees are barely enougho cover operating costs. The study results may shed lightn how to design and implement a conservation programund with public support. This fund would provide finance
or management of the area, including the conservation ofiodiversity and ecosystems. Second, the study provides valuable
nformation on how to bring the importance of biodiversity to theeneral public. This topic is of interest given the lack of evidence
regarding the social valuation of biodiversity in Chile. Third, theincorporation of the vision of the area managers in the design stageof the study allows for the consideration of stakeholder preferencesin the development and the improvement of management tools forthe conservation of natural resources. Last, the introduction of aspatial dimension to economic valuation through the use of “spatialeconomic valuation” methodology and the production of economicvalue maps are worthy of further investigation. The adoption of aspatial approach to economic valuation is desirable in terms of pro-ducing more accurate economic valuation figures. As we selectedthe attributes mostly based on ecological characteristics of the area,the data generated by this study may usefully contribute in thisdirection.
The likelihood of applying these results to other areas is anempirical question that can be tested by further studies in simi-lar and different areas. Keeping this in mind, there are aspects ofthe research that are worth emphasising.
First, the study represents one of the few attempts to use aCE to value the benefits of elements of biodiversity and environ-mental services in South America. The results provide evidencethat the participants are willing to pay for environmental con-servation. They also provide information on social preferences forthe characteristics of Penuelas. Because participants were forcedto make choices between attributes, they had to decide whichcharacteristics of the reserve were most important to them. Suchdecisions are an important component in the management of nat-ural resources. Thus, a CE provides a structured context in whichpublic preferences for the management of ecosystems can beassessed quantitatively. Increases in the entrance fee could financeconservation-oriented management, including the protection ofbiodiversity and ecosystem services. In this context, it is importantto assess how citizens perceive the government’s use of taxpayermoney in order to establish a mechanism of payment for nature
conservation.
Second, we obtained participants’ WTP for the protection ofless popular species, specifically for an endemic amphibian withconservation problems. We also assessed the economic benefits
re Co
oaesovbrmme
ltto(idiieHpttttdrtfit52a
mlevh
ceitcm
tfpIoe2iPafswLet
C. Cerda et al. / Journal for Natu
f the protection of endemic orchids. In this regard, mammalsnd birds are disproportionately over-represented in conservationfforts (Metrick & Weitzman 1996; Restani & Marzluff 2002). Theame pattern can be found in WTP studies, most of which focusn mammals (White et al. 2001). We find that people positivelyalue the existence of less popular species. This result is importantecause finding a negative impact on less popular species may rep-esent a relatively greater ecological threat; less popular speciesay have greater biological significance to the ecosystem thanore charismatic species (Martín-López et al. 2007; Resurreic ão
t al. 2010).Third, the study shows results of visitors’ WTP for different
evels of protection. This allows an improved understanding ofhe sensitivity of the participants to the scope of the informa-ion provided. In this context, economically consistent measuresf WTP are expected to change based on the scale of the changeResurreic ão et al. 2010; Smith & Osborne 1996). In other words,n SPT, respondents are thought to be able to distinguish betweenifferent quantities/qualities of the good and reflect this variability
n their valuation function (Chilton & Hutchinson 2003). The resultsndicate that the respondents, through their choices, react to differ-nces in the different levels of protection for the different attributes.owever, the increase in WTP is not proportional in the senseroposed by Corso et al. (2001), in which WTP increases propor-ionally with higher levels of protection. However, with respect tohe endemic orchids attribute, we found that the WTP for securinghe existence of ten species is close to double the WTP for securinghe existence of five species. This is an indication that the respon-ents are sensitive to the scope of the attribute in question. Withespect to the other attributes, we can say that respondents par-ially pass (Jacobsen et al. 2008) the sensitivity-to-scope test. Thisnding is relevant because it may indicate that asking respondentso consider long-term changes, such as the provision of water for0 years, may be “beyond the margin of analysis” (Resurreic ão et al.010; Turner et al. 2003), imposing difficulties on finding accuratessessments of the value of such changes on human welfare.
To provide a more detailed analysis, two different econometricodels were used to predict respondents’ choices: a multinomial
ogit model and a random parameter model. The resulting mod-ls were found to be statistically significant. Socio-demographicariables explain individual preference variations generated fromypothetical stated preference surveys.
All of the attributes influenced the respondents’ choices of theonservation options that they chose. The significance of the mon-tary attribute indicates that respondents evaluated the increasen the entrance fee as an important factor. This means that visi-ors to Penuelas react to changes in the entrance as fee-sensitiveonsumers in the context of the reserve’s biodiversity and environ-ental services management.Regarding the chances of observing different types of animals,
he methodological approach attempted to assess esthetic valuesor different animals protected in the area. The results show thateople gained higher utility by viewing different types of animals.
t has been demonstrated in the literature that viewing animals isne of the main factors that positively influences visitors’ experi-nces at protected areas (Manning & Lawson 2002; Moore & Polley007). Understanding the factors that influence visitor perception
s essential for tourism management at these areas. Visitors ofenuelas might be interested in visiting sites other than the fishingrea, especially if they would gain the possibility of observing dif-erent types of animals. This information is important to identifyites with potential for tourism, where it is more likely that visitors
ould observe animals other than the birds seen in the Penuelas
ake area. During the interview, most respondents expressed inter-st in their children being able to see other attractive species; forhese species, the economic value obtained could have been added
nservation 21 (2013) 143– 153 151
as a bequest value. According to the economic value obtained, theavailability of drinkable water and the protection of the endemicamphibian were the most important attributes for participants.People attach great importance to the availability of drinking waterin the future to the cities of Valparaíso and Vina del Mar. Thestatistical significance of this attribute in participant choices wasexpected because most of the reserve’s visitors are direct users ofthis resource. The result can be interpreted as an option value onthe reserve that is attributed to the ability to enjoy the resource inthe future.
Regarding the protection of the endemic amphibian, people arewilling to contribute monetarily to further research to better pro-tect the species. One question that arises in this analysis is exactlywhat motivated people to protect a species that most did not evenknow existed in the reserve.
Prior to the CE exercise, we asked respondents if they caredabout the existence of the amphibian, and they were required togive reasons for their opinion. Fifty-eight percent of respondentsindicated an existence value motivation, arguing that the specieshas the right to exist. The rest of the respondents cited direct usevalues: it is important for science; it is important for ecosystemfunctioning; or, it is attractive to children. Species existence rightscan be regarded as an ethical motivation (Sagoff 1996; Stevens et al.1991) that may affect the willingness of people to protect species.The results of this study coincide with the findings of Kotchen andReiling (2000) and Spash et al. (2009), which found that respon-dents that ascribe higher importance to ethically based motivationswere willing to participate in a monetary valuation exercise. Sim-ilarly, Spash et al. (2009) found that stated WTP valuations can bejustified by ethical motivations.
When participants were asked about their motivations to pro-tect the endemic orchids, the main responses were existence valuesand esthetic value components. The detailed analysis of the singlelevels of the attribute (by dummy coding) indicated respondents’sensitivity to the scope of attribute variation. The highest level ofprotection (represented by ten species protected) is close to doublethe value of intermediate level of protection (represented by fivespecies protected). More finely graduated levels may shed furtherlight on this effect.
This study shows evidence for the economic value of conserva-tion at the species level. The emotions of the respondents are ofempirical concern when valuing species. In particular, high ratesof protest responses have been documented in the literature thatcan invalidate results from stated preference techniques. In thisstudy, no respondent’s protest was motivated by ethical reasonsregarding the format of payment used in the interview. However,the quantitative estimate of the conservation values is a complexprocedure and requires specific adaptation of assessment strate-gies. Some methodological developments that can be seen whenusing choice experiments include providing more realistic conser-vation transactions and including multiple values simultaneously,which improves the separation of values through the require-ment that participants must choose between different categories ofvalue. Open-ended questions that give participants the opportunityto explain their choices should be incorporated into the assessmentinterview.
In summary, we see in our study that even in less-developedcountries, people are willing to pay to protect nature. Moreover,people are willing to pay for securing the existence of species thatthey will most likely never use directly. Thus, respondents’ prefer-ences may be influenced by intrinsic values.
The value of biodiversity must be made an integral element of
social, economic, and political decision-making. Civil society hascrucial roles in this transition. We think that we must abandon theidea that humans are the problem in models of effective conserva-tion. Biodiversity loss is rarely the intended consequence of human
1 re Co
at
vCecntbctbnsstt
bftvai
mTwtr
A
Rmcm
R
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
52 C. Cerda et al. / Journal for Natu
ctions; more often, it is an unintended side effect of decisionsaken for other reasons (Rands et al. 2010).
Our results have increased our understanding of the economicalues of elements of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Chile.hile, like other developing countries, represents an emergentconomy based on the extraction of natural resources, so it is notlear how much importance people attribute to the conservation ofature, and it is even less clear whether they are willing to pay forhe conservation of nature. We have increased our understandingy empirically demonstrating the following: (i) regardless of whichentral tendency WTP measure is used, traditional Chilean visitorso protected areas would be willing to pay for protecting natureeyond what they pay for recreative services; (ii) this willingness isot only motivated by direct use values but also by non-use values,pecifically existence values; (iii) WTP exists even for less popularpecies; and (iv) visitors are sensitive to the scope of the informa-ion provided by surveyors, although more research is needed inhis area.
From a policy perspective, the values set for the visitors mighte considered when the government authority allocates resourcesor the development and management of protected areas becausehese areas provide benefits for users of these areas. In addition,isitor preferences may be used for designing educational programst protected areas, given that the people already agree with thentrinsic values for ecosystem conservation.
We are aware that our study takes into account empirical infor-ation only from the preferences of visitors to protected areas.
hus, these results must be used with caution. Our future researchill be oriented to extend the assessment of preferences beyond
ourists and to incorporate the vision of human communities sur-ounding the protected areas.
cknowledgements
Funding for this project was provided by the Vice-Rector foresearch and Development at University of Chile. We thank theany students who helped to undertake the survey and data
oding. Our thanks to Mr. Claudio Ilabaca, who represented theanagers of the Penuelas Reserve, for his assistance and support.
eferences
damowicz, V., Boxall, P., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated preferenceapproaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contin-gent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 64–75.
rroyo, M. T. K., Cavieres, L., Marticorena, C., & Munoz, M. (1995). Convergence inthe Mediterranean floras of central Chile and California: Insights from compar-ative biogeography. In M. T. K. Arroyo, M. Fox, & P. Zedler (Eds.), Ecology andbiogeography of Mediterranean ecosystems in Chile, California, and Australia (pp.43–88). New York: Springer-Verlag.
rroyo, M. T. K. (1999). Criterios e indicadores para la conservación de la biota delos ecosistemas mediterráneos. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 72, 473–474.
almford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R. E., et al. (2002).Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297, 950–953.
ateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002).Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.
ennet, J., & Adamowicz, V. (2001). Some fundamentals of environmental choicemodelling. In J. Bennett, & R. Blamey (Eds.), The choice modelling approach toenvironmental valuation (pp. 37–69). Cheltenham, UK: Edwar Elgar.
erniger, K., Adamowicz, V., Kneeshaw, D., & Messier, C. (2010). Sustainable for-est management preferences of interest groups in three regions with differentlevels of industrial forestry: An exploratory attribute-based choice experiment.Environmental Management, 46, 117–133.
lamey, R. K., Bennett, J. W., Louviere, J., Morrison, M. S., & Rolfe, J. (2000). A test ofpolicy labels in environmental choice modelling studies. Ecological Economics,32, 269–286.
utchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., Van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W.,
Almond, R. E. A., et al. (2010). Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines.Science, 328, 1164–1168.
armona, A., Nahuelhual, L., Echeverría, C., & Báez, A. (2010). Linking farming sys-tems to landscape change: An empirical and spatially explicit study in southernChile. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 139, 40–50.
nservation 21 (2013) 143– 153
Ceballos, G., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2006). Global mammal distributions, biodiversityhotspots, and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103,19374–19379.
Chilton, S. M., & Hutchinson, W. G. (2003). A qualitative examination of how respon-dents in a contingent valuation study rationalize their WTP responses to anincrease in the quantity of the environmental good. Journal of Economic Psychol-ogy, 24, 65–75.
Christie, M., Fazey, D., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., Deri, A., Hughes, L., et al. (2008). An eval-uation of economic and non economic techniques for assessing the importance ofbiodiversity to people in developing countries. Report to the Department for Envi-ronment. London, UK: Food and Rural Affairs.
Chrzan, K., & Orme, B. (2000). An overview and comparison of design strate-gies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth Software 2000–2002, Researchpaper series. Available online at www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/desgncbc.pdf. Last access 01.03.11
CONAF. (2008). Reserva de Biósfera La Campana-Penuelas. Formulario de Propuestade ampliación. Documento Base Programa MaB-UNESCO.
Corso, P. S., Hammit, J. K., & Graham, J. D. (2001). Valuing mortality-risk reduction:Using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. Journal of Riskand Uncertainty, 23, 165–184.
Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997).The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387,253–260.
Díaz-Páez, H., & Ortíz, J. (2003). Evaluación del estado de conservación de los anfibiosen Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 76, 509–525.
Díaz, G. I., Nahuelhual, L., Echeverría, C., & Marín, S. (2011). Drivers of land abandon-ment in Southern Chile and implications for landscape planning. Landscape andUrban Planning, 99, 207–217.
Elsasser, P. (1996). Recreational benefits of forests in Germany. In C. S. Roper, &A. Park (Eds.), The Living Forest. Non-Market Benefits of Forestry (pp. 175–183).London: The Stationery Office.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Nunes, P. A. L. D., Castro, A. J., & Montes, C.(2012). A choice experiment study for land use scenarios in semi-arid watershedenvironments. Journal of Arid Environments, 87, 219–230.
Grau, J. (1992). La zona central de Chile. In J. Grau, & G. Zizka (Eds.), Flora silvestre deChile (pp. 1–154). Palmengarten: Sonderheft.
Hanley, N., Wright, R., & Adamowicz, W. (1998). Contingent valuation versus choiceexperiments: Estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scot-land. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49, 1–15.
Hauenstein, E., Munoz-Pedreros, A., Yánez, J., Sánchez, P., Möller, P., Guinez, B., et al.(2009). Flora y vegetación de la Reserva Nacional LagoPenuelas, Reserva de laBiósfera Región de Valparaíso, Chile. Bosque, 30, 159–179.
Hensher, D., Rose, J., & Greene, W. (2005). Applied choice methods – A primer.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Howarth, R., & Farber, S. (2002). Accounting for the value of ecosystem services.Ecological Economics, 41, 421–429.
Hoyos, D. (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choiceexperiments. Ecological Economics, 69, 1595–1603.
Jacobsen, J. B., Boiesen, J. H., Thorsen, B. J., & Strange, N. (2008). What’s in a name? Theuse of quantitative measures versus iconised species when valuing biodiversity.Environmental and Resource Economics, 39, 247–263.
Jacobsen, J. B., & Thorsen, B. J. (2010). Preferences for site and environmentalfunctions when selecting forthcoming national parks. Ecological Economics, 69,1532–1544.
Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase ofmoral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22,57–70.
Kanninen, B. (2010). Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies.A common sense approach to theory and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Springer.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kopp, R. (1992). Why existence value should be included in cost benefit analysis. InD. L. Weimer (Ed.), Cost-benefit analysis and public policy. Oxford, UK: BlackwellPublishing.
Kotchen, M., & Reiling, S. (2000). Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contin-gent valuation of non-use values: A case study involving endangered species.Ecological Economics, 32, 93–107.
Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Econ-omy, 74, 132–157.
Louviere, J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods. Analysis andapplication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Louviere, J. (2006). What you do not know might hurt you: Some unresolved issuesin the design and analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environmental andResource Economics, 34, 173–188.
Manning, R. E., & Lawson, S. R. (2002). Carrying capacity as “informed judgment”:The values of science and the science of values. Environmental Management, 30,157–168.
Martín-López, B., Montes, C., & Benayas, J. (2007). Economic valuation of biodiversityconservation: The meaning of numbers. Conservation Biology, 22(3), 624–635.
Martín-López, B., González, J., & Montes, C. (2011). The pitfall-trap of species con-
servation priority setting. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 663–682.
Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga,I., García Del Amo, D., et al. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bun-dles through social preferences. PLoS One, 7(6), e38970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
cFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P.Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press.
edail, F., & Quezel, P. (1997). Hot-spots analysis for conservation of plant biodi-versity in the Mediterranean Basin. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 84,112–127.
etrick, A., & Weitzman, M. L. (1996). Patterns of behaviour in endangered speciespreservation. Land Economics, 1, 1–16.
eza, J., Leiva, J., Bernal, M., & Simeone, A. (1998). Avifauna Acuática de la ReservaNacional lago Penuelas. Valparaíso Chile. Editorial CONAF. Documento de Trabajo.
illennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human wellbeing:Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
ittermeier, R., Gil, P., Hoffman, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C., et al.(2005). Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered ter-restrial ecoregions. Cemex. Monterrey, Mexico: Conservation International andAgrupation Sierra Madre.
oore, S., & Polley, A. (2007). Defining indicators and standards for tourism impactsin protected areas: Cape Range National Park, Australia. Environmental Manage-ment, 39, 291–300.
unoz, M., Núnez, H., & Yánez, J. (1996). Libro Rojo de los sitios prioritarios para laconservación de la diversidad biológica en Chile. Santiago de Chile: CorporaciónNacional Forestal.
unoz-Pedreros, A., Flechter, S., Yanez, J., & Sánchez, P. (2010). Diversity of smallmammals in three environments of the National Reserve Lago Penuelas, Regiónde Valparaíso, Chile. Gayana, 74, 1–11.
yers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G., & Kent, J. (2000).Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858.
earce, D. W., & Moran, D. (1994). The economic value of biodiversity. London: Earth-scan.
errings, C., Barbier, E., Brown, G., Dalmazzone, S., Folke, C., Gadgil, M., et al. (1995).The economic value of biodiversity. In V. H. Heywood, & R. Watson (Eds.), Globalbiodiversity assessment (pp. 823–914). Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
isano, E. (1956). Esquema de clasificación de las comunidades vegetales de Chile.Agronomía, 2, 30–33.
ands, M., Adams, W., Bennun, L., Butchart, S., Clements, A., Coomes, D., et al. (2010).Biodiversity conservation: Challenges beyond 2010. Science, 329, 1298–1303.
estani, M., & Marzluff, J. M. (2002). Funding extinction? Biological needs and polit-ical realities in the allocation of resources to endangered species recovery.Bioscience, 52, 169–177.
nservation 21 (2013) 143– 153 153
Resurreic ão, A., Gibbons, J., Ponce Dentinho, T., Kaiser, M., Santos, R., & Edward-Jones, G. (2010). Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea. EcologicalEconomics, 70, 729–739.
Sagoff, M. (1996). On the value of endangered species and other species. Environ-mental Management, 20(6), 897–911.
Sagoff, M. (2004). Price, principle, and the environment. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Schiappacase, I., Nahuelhual, L., Vásquez, F., & Echeverría, C. (2012). Assessing thebenefits and costs of dryland forest restoration in central Chile. Journal of Envi-ronmental Management, 97, 38–45.
Simonetti, J. (1999). Diversity and conservation of terrestrial vertebrates in Mediter-ranean Chile. Revista Chilena deHistoria Natural, 72, 493–500.
Smith, V. K., & Osborne, L. L. (1996). Do contingent valuation estimates pass a “scope”test? A meta analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31,287–301.
Smith-Ramírez, C., Armesto, J. J., & Valdovinos, C. (2005). Biodiversidad y Ecología delos Bosques Costeros de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria.
Spash, C. L., Urama, L., Burton, R., Wendy, K., Shannon, P., & Hill, H. (2009).Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a waterecosystem: Economic, ethics and social psychology. Ecological Economics, 68,955–964.
Stevens, T., Echeverría, J., Glass, R., Hager, T., & More, T. (1991). Measuring the exist-ence value of wildlife: What do CVM estimates really show. Land Economics,67(4), 390–400.
Strang, C. (1983). The birds of Penuelas lake. Chile Forestal, 95, 20–22.TEEB. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Ecological and economics
foundations. London: Earthscan.Turner, R. K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., & Georgiou, S. (2003). Valu-
ing nature: Lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics,46, 493–510.
Walsh, R., Loomis, J., & Gillman, R. (1984). Valuing option, existence and bequestdemand for wilderness. Land Economics, 60, 14–29.
Wattage, P., Glenn, H., Mardle, T., Van Rensburg, T., Grehan, A., & Foley, N.
(2011). Economic value of conserving deep-sea corals in Irish waters: Achoice experiment study on marine protected areas. Fisheries Research, 107,59–67.
White, P., Bennett, A. C., & Hayes, E. (2001). The use of willingness-to-pay approachesin mammal Conservation. Mammal Review, 31, 151–167.
