the willingness to pay for property rights for the giant ... and swanson 2003.pdf ·...

The Willingness to Pay for Property Rightsfor the Giant Panda: Can a Charismatic Species

Be an Instrument for Nature Conservation?Andreas Kontoleon and Timothy Swanson

ABSTRACT. This paper presents the resultsfrom a contingent valuation (CV) that elicitedwillingness to pay (WTP) of OECD citizens, forthe conservation of the Giant Panda. The studyinvestigates the extent to which such a charis-matic or agship species can be used to promotewider biodiversity conservation. There exists aninternally consistent WTP for the purchase ofproperty rights of the habitat required for theconservation of the panda. This WTP is shown toconsist largely of the value placed on the ‘‘natu-ralness’’ of the species, implying that the sym-bolic nature of the panda might be a potential in-strument for greater biodiversity conservation.(JEL Q22)

I. INTRODUCTION

Meta-analyses of the WTP for individualspecies have found that there exist prefer-ences for a few charismatic species as com-pared to the vast number of less well knownspecies (Metrick and Weitzman 1996;Loomis and White 1996; Loomis and Giraud1997; Kontoleon 1996). These are speciesthat are immediately recognizable and identi- able by name (e.g., elephant, lion, tiger,panda).1 Also, they are commonly associatedwith a particular geographic location or habi-tat (e.g., African savannahs, Indian forests,Chinese bamboo forests). Because of thisassociation between the species and theirhabitats, these charismatic species are alsosometimes referred to as ‘‘ agship species’’(Leader-Williams and Dublin 2000).

The representative status of the agshipspecies plays a key role in conservation. Forexample, most conservation NGOs focustheir appeals for funding around the plight of

Land Economics November 2003 79 (4): 483–499ISSN 0023-7939; E-ISSN 1543-8325ã 2003 by the Board of Regents of theUniversity of Wisconsin System

a few charismatic species, as in ‘‘adopt an el-ephant’’ appeals. The World Wide Fund forNature (WWF) previously has selected tenspecies worldwide on which to base its fund-raising campaign. This organization evenuses the subject of our study—the GiantPanda—as the emblem of its general cam-paign for the conservation of natural habitatsand systems. Similar practices are followedby governmental agencies that have beenshown to allocate disproportionate amountsof conservation funds to a hand full of charis-matic species.2

This fascination with a few individual spe-cies might be a great boon for general biodi-versity conservation, or it might not. All ofthe above-listed species are endangered, and

The authors are, respectively, research fellow, De-partment of Economics, University College London andlecturer, Department of Economics, American Collegeof Greece; and chair of law and economics, Departmentof Economics and Faculty of Laws, University CollegeLondon. The authors would like to acknowledge the -nancial assistance from the China Council for Interna-tional Co-operation on Environment and Development(CCICED) and from the European Commission’sFramework V Program. The authors are grateful forcomments to the participants in the BioEcon Workshopon Property Right Mechanisms for biodiversity conser-vation, to Prof. David Pearce, and to one anonymousreferee.

1 There is some limited work from the behavioralbiology (Lorenze 1978) and cognitive psychology liter-atures (Guilleman 1981; Kabayashi 1990) that tries toanalyze the behavioral and psychological reasons whysome species have a greater appeal than others. Thiswork has mostly focused on the effects of external char-acteristics of species on human perception. An interest-ing area for further research is to examine the impactof species characteristics and attributes on individualpreferences.

2 Considerable empirical support for the predomi-nance of the agship species phenomenon can be foundin Metrick and Weitzman (1996), Williams, Burgess,and Rahbek (2000a, 2000b), and Leader-Williams andDublin (2000). Further empirical research on extent andimpact of this phenomenon is warranted.

484 Land Economics November 2003

for most, the primary cause of their endan-germent is the loss of their natural habitat.The focus on a handful of species mighttranslate into funding for their natural habi-tat, and thus provide much broader conserva-tion bene ts, if society is willing to supportthe agship species in this way. On the otherhand, it might be the case that society is will-ing to support the preservation of the agshipspecies alone, in preference to other lifeforms or forms of nature.3 Thus, there is animportant policy question: Is the agshipspecies approach an important instrument forbiodiversity conservation, or a mere distrac-tion?

The case of the Giant Panda is a criticaltest for whether the agship species approachworks for general nature conservation.4 Thespecies is one of the most widely recognizedand cherished agship species in the world.It is also highly endangered, with fewer than1,000 individuals remaining in the wild in Si-chuan Province, China. The primary cause ofthis endangerment is habitat disruption.5 Ithas been estimated that the rate of habitatdisruption in the panda reserves has pro-ceeded at a pace of 5% per annum, over thepast two decades.6 Despite being such aprominent agship species, current conserva-tion efforts for the panda are not focused onhabitat conservation but increasingly rely oncaptive breeding programs in ex situ facili-ties.7 Funding for the panda is increasinglyallocated to panda preservation alone. Doesthis mean that society is unwilling to providefunding for the natural habitat of the panda,even despite its relatively unique status? Ifthis is the case for the panda, it is dif cultto imagine an instance in which the agshipapproach might be turned to the purpose ofgeneral habitat conservation.

We employ a CV study that considersthese issues in three steps. The rst part ofour study investigates the WTP for pandalands provided for the sole purpose of pandaconservation. This is an important policyquestion considering that we observe in-creased reliance on ex situ panda conserva-tion practices. We nd that a signi cant andtheoretically consistent WTP for such landexists.

The second part of our study examines thenature of this agship-inspired demand forhabitat. In the spirit of Loomis and White(1996), we view the demand for panda habi-tat as a possible form of derived demand forgeneral biodiversity conservation.

[The valuation of a well-known species] may of-ten include implicit valuation for the componentsof the ecosystem that supports these high-pro lespecies. For example, humans may value watch-ing bald eagles yet be unaware or indifferent to-wards pocket gophers. Yet, if pocket gophers area critical part of the raptors’ food supply, then hu-mans have a derived value for the pocket gophersand their habitat. (Loomis and White 1996, 198)

In order to assess the nature of this deriveddemand, we decompose the WTP for theconservation of the giant panda into twocomponents: 1) its quantitative component

3 In fact, we increasingly observe the paradox thatsome of these agship species that are being feted asthe cause for conservation, are themselves being sub-jected to ex situ conservation efforts (e.g., arti cialbreeding centers) (Olney, MacE, and Feistner 1995).Some notable examples include the tiger (Meacham1997), and the Giant Panda (Swanson and Kontoleon2000).

4 We thank an anonymous referee for pointing outthat it is the emblematic or symbolic qualities of thepanda and not the species itself that serve this function.This interpretation is assumed throughout the paper.

5 This is due to the continuing use of panda habitatfor subsistence (non-commercial) activities such ashunting, gathering, and minor logging activities (Liu etal. 2001; MacKinnon and De Wulf 1994; Mackinnon etal. 1989).

6 This decline in suitable panda habitat in the mainpanda reserve (Wolong) has lead to a decline in thepanda population from 145 in 1974 to 72 animals in1986. Based on wildlife-habitat relationships and thedecreasing frequency of nding pandas in the wild, thecurrent number of wild pandas in the Wolong Reserveis likely to be even smaller (Liu et al. 2001).

7 Numerous ex situ panda conservation programshave been pursued in the China, the United States, Mex-ico, Germany, Japan, and Hong Kong. The latest andmost ambitious panda conservation program pursued inChina (Under ‘‘China’s Agenda 21’’—White Paper onChina’s Population, Environment, and Development inthe 21st Century) is titled the ‘‘Ex situ conservation ofthe Giant panda in Sichuan province.’ ’ None of theseprograms has had any impact on in situ conservation ofthe species since ‘‘of the 400 pandas bred in captivitysince 1936 none have ever been released into the wild’’(Chapman 2001).

79(4) Kontoleon and Timothy Swanson: Property Rights for the Giant Panda 485

(the WTP for preserving the stock levels ofthe species); and 2) its qualitative component(the WTP for the quality of environment inwhich the species resides). We determine therelative proportion of the value of panda hab-itat that is attributable to these quantitativeand qualitative components. We further ex-amine this qualitative component of the WTPfor panda habitat. We investigate the extentto which there is a value owing from the‘‘naturalness’’ of the habitat, and the extentto which it is a logically distinct entity fromthe other values. We nd that there is an im-portant, substantial and distinct value at-taching to the conservation of the pandawithin its natural habitat. This provides sup-port for the view that the agship approachto conservation may be able to provide fund-ing for broader aspects of nature conserva-tion other than the mere preservation of the agship species itself.

Third we investigate the ability of respon-dents to recognize the existence of a valuefor panda habitat in the absence of the ag-ship species. That is, to what extent is the agship species a necessary instrument forthe conservation of its habitat? We nd thatthere is some evidence to support the propo-sition that the WTP for the panda habitatwould not exist, if the panda did not exist.

At the end of the article, we discuss our ndings, and argue the following three pointsconcerning charismatic species and natureconservation. First, the construct of individ-ual ‘‘ agship’’ species is probably necessaryto generate interest in the more abstract con-cept of nature or biodiversity conservation;the general public can support nature conser-vation but it requires concrete and speci c gureheads on which to lodge this support.Second, there is the risk that the particularis-tic demand for these charismatic species canbecome a substitute rather than an instrumentfor nature conservation, if the policymakersrespond with ex situ rather than in situ poli-cies. In short, there is support for nature con-servation that must be channelled through themechanism of providing natural habitat forcharismatic species, and if this is not done, itis support that is lost. Third, for these rea-sons, it is crucial that we select our agship

species carefully; all of the important habi-tats require representatives, and all of thechosen representatives should come from im-portant habitats.

II. A CONTINGENT VALUATIONSTUDY ON THE CONSERVATION OF

THE GIANT PANDA AND ITSHABITAT

A contingent valuation study was de-signed and implemented in 1998 that exam-ined the relative magnitude of the types ofvalues held by non-Chinese for conservingthe Giant Panda and its habitat.8 Three con-servation policy scenarios were valued. Thetotal WTP for each scenario was de ned asthe value for the simultaneous change in thequantity (stock) and the quality (living envi-ronment) of the species from the current ref-erence to a new level. By survey design, eachscenario entailed and/or restricted differenttypes of values. Hence, the difference be-tween scenarios provides an indication of themagnitudes of relative components of value.9Full details of the study can be found inSwanson et al (2001). Here we focus on pre-senting aspects of the survey design that aremost relevant for this paper.

8 The CV study was part of a larger research exer-cise funded by the CCICED that explored alternativesustainable management schemes for China’s nature re-serves. The aims of the research project were to exam-ine the values of the non-Chinese population (and inparticular OECD citizens) for reserve services. On thebasis of this study, therefore, we can only make validinferences over the population of OECD countries. Fu-ture work should be undertaken to examine how the im-plications from the present CV study are affected whenChinese preferences are examined and accounted for.

9 This approach to decomposing values is also re-ferred to as the scenario difference approach. It is tobe preferred to other approaches where individuals aredirectly asked to partition their total values into compo-nent values. This is so since it avoids what Mitchell andCarson (1989, 288) have labelled the ‘‘fallacy of moti-vational precision’ ’: the error committed by CV prac-titioners when they assume that respondents are aware(to the degree of precision desired by the researcher)of what motivates their value judgements. The scenariodifference approach avoids this problem since it onlyelicits aggregate values.


De ning Wildlife Values

Common welfare theoretic de nitions ofwildlife values that have been used to formu-late CV scenarios are presented in Freeman(1993), Fredman (1995) and Loomis (1988).These authors have all modelled wildlifevalues as a function of their stock sizes. Inthis study, we employed an alternative de -nition of value that explored other facets ofwildlife value. We focused on both the im-pact of a change in the quantity (or stock)of wildlife in valuation decisions, and onthe impact of the quality (i.e., quality oflifestyle) of wildlife. That is, our de nitiontakes into account that wildlife conservationpolicies have multidimensional impacts onthe state, q, of a particular species, affectingboth its quantitative aspects (mainly stocksize), as well as its qualitative aspects(namely living environment). Hence, thede nition of value used here treats q as avector.10

For convenience, we assume that q con-sists of two dimensions, the quantity and thequality of a species’ existence, q 5 (q1 2 q2).The former is assumed to be measured bystock size, while the latter is measured by thequality of the environment afforded to a spe-cies. Most wildlife conservation policieswould impact on both elements in q. Individ-ual WTP for a change in stock size, q1, wouldbe associated with the values obtained frompreserving the genetic material of a species.In contrast, WTP for changes in species qual-ity, q2, is to re ect a form of altruistic valuetowards the species itself. More speci cally,in economic (anthropocentric) terms prefer-ences for species quality can be modelled us-ing a paternalistic altruism utility framework.The individual (altruist) obtains utility whenthe bene ciary (species) receives or ‘‘con-sumes’’ certain resources (e.g., land).11 Usinga paternalistic altruism framework for thevalue for species quality is very useful sinceit avoids the conceptual dif culties of pos-iting and discussing a utility function for thespecies itself.12 Hence, the individual prefer-ence function is speci ed as u 5 u(x(q1, q2))where x is the composite good. For a multidi-mensional policy change that results in the

simultaneous change in two or more dimen-sions in q, the Hicksian compensating wel-fare measure is the amount of income paid orreceived that would leave the individual atthe initial level of utility subsequent to themultiple impacts of policy. For the changefrom q 1 to q 2 a holistic measure of value isrepresented by:

WTP(q0, q1) 5 e(p, q 01, q 02, u 0)

2 e(p, q 11, q 12, u 0). [1]

Where e[ is the standard individual expen-diture function de ned for market prices pand xed utility u 0. Following Hoehn (1991),component values can be subsequently de- ned from [1] by using a simultaneous valua-tion path that begins at q 0 5 (q 01, q 02)and endsat q 1 5 (q 11, q 12).The simultaneous valuationpath values the effect of each element of q asthe overall vector changes from q 0 to q 1. Thedisaggregated expression for [1] is thengiven by:

WTP(q0, q1) 5 #q1

q0 3¶e(p, q1, q2, u0)

¶q1 4dq11 #

q1

q0 3¶e(p, q1, q2, u0)

¶q2 4dq2, [2]where each of the two components of [2]evaluates a derivative of the expenditurefunction ¶e(p, q1, q2, u0)/¶qi, i Î {1, 2} asthe overall wildlife conservation policy shifts

10 Several economists have cautioned q that neednot be viewed as a single scalar measure but as a vectorof attributes and that different elements of this vectormay give rise to different values (Freeman 1993) Forexample Kopp (1992, 28) points out that ‘‘what iscertainly clear is that elements of the vector q thatare appropriate for the motivation of use values . . .may not be well-suited to the motivation of non-usevalues.’’

11 These resources need not be restricted to land. Forexample, they may take the form of institutional or legalmeasures that secure that species are managed in a par-ticular less intrusive and disruptive manner.

12 Interpreting individual preferences for speciesquality in terms of paternalistic altruism directly fol-lows from the conceptual work by McConnell(1997).


from its initial to its post-policy level (Hoehn1991).

The merit of any formal de nition lies inits ability to better explain human behavior,in its capacity to construct meaningful empir-ical hypotheses as well as in how well it con-forms to the intuition underlying a particularconcept. The de nition of wildlife value pre-sented above seems to better satisfy these re-quirements compared to the standard formalde nition. First, the de nition of value pro-vided here allows for a simultaneous changein more than one attribute of q that capturesthe realities of conservation policies. Second,it captures the idea that different elements inq may be associated with different compo-nent values.

Description of Scenarios Valued

The conceptual framework presentedabove was used to construct the scenarios ofthe nal version of the questionnaire. Threepanda conservation scenarios were de-signed.13 Each individual was asked to valueall three scenarios irrespective of his/her an-swer to the other valuation questions. Due tobudgetary constraints, a split-sample ap-proach could not be used and hence the samerespondents were asked to answer severalWTP questions. The special design issuesthat emerge when multiple WTP bids areelicited from the same individual had to beaddressed. First, the reference level of utilityfor each scenario had to be determined. Itwas decided to use the same reference leveland obtain WTP for the changes q 0. This ap-proach avoids the problems with substitutionand income effects that would emerge if wehad used a sequential design (Randall 1991)since respondents are asked to re-adjust theirbudget constraints as they go from one ques-tion to the other. Such a design has been la-belled the ‘‘exclusive-list’’ format and is tobe contrasted with the ‘‘inclusive-list for-mat’’ where respondents provide incrementalvalues to a sequence of WTP questions(Bateman et al. 2001a; Bateman et al.2001b). Second, the sequence in which sce-narios were to be presented had to be ad-dressed. This refers to whether descriptions

of scenarios were to be presented all in ad-vance as opposed to presenting the scenariossequentially. Bateman et al. (2001a, 2001b)have referred to the former approach as ‘‘ad-vanced disclosure,’’ while the latter as the‘‘step-wise’’ disclosure approach. Economictheory tells us that when operating under a(mutually) exclusive list format, then the or-der in which the WTP is ascertained for theoptions of the list should not matter (Randall1991). Yet, empirical evidence presented inBateman et al. (2001a, 2001b) suggests thatordering effects are present under a step-wisepresentation format implying that thereseems to be some other psychological pro-cesses at work that biases the results. Thesame body of research has found, however,that such ordering effects are signi cantlynulli ed under the advanced disclosure ap-proach. Moreover, advance warning designshave shown to produce much more stable re-sults in that respondents do not wish to adjusttheir stated bids. In contrast, empirical evi-dence from the same authors suggests thatstep-wise formats tend to induce respondentsto want to change their initial bids as moregoods are progressively added to the visiblechoice set. Finally, the results of Bateman etal. (2001a, 2001b) unequivocally show thatthe advance warning design produces moreconsistent results in terms of scope sensitiv-ity of WTP values. Taken together, these ndings justify the use of the advanced warn-ing format in the current study. Finally, sincethe advanced warning format has been foundnot to lead to ordering effects it was immate-rial whether the WTP questions were askedin a ‘‘bottom-top’’ or ‘‘top-bottom’’ manner.The current paper employed the former orderof presentation.

The survey was administered in group in-terviews where respondents were providedwith a common presentation of the scenariosto be valued. Respondents were not allowed

13 The number of three programs appeared to be themost that individuals could handle in a valuation exer-cise. Moreover, the chosen scenarios were the ones thatwere of most policy relevance in that they correspondedto the actual scenarios that are currently being contem-plated by Chinese authorities.


to interact with one another.14 Respondentswere rst informed about the plight of theGiant Panda. It was then explained that thehighest concentration of pandas was foundin the Wolong Reserve, amounting to about200 animals. The population of pandas inWolong consisted of both caged animals inthe local breeding center, as well as wild pan-das in the reserve. It was further stated thatconservation efforts would focus on just thisreserve since this offers the only realisticchance of saving the species. Moreover, re-spondents were told that the species can onlybe saved if its population increases and there-after maintained to 500 animals which isconsidered by scientists as the minimum via-ble population (MVP) (MacKinnon and DeWulf 1994).15

Further, it was explained that the Chineseauthorities were contemplating three alterna-tive conservation programs for the GiantPanda. It was made clear that only one (ifany) of the three scenarios would be imple-mented. Moreover, it was stated that which-ever of the conservation programs wasadopted the species would be saved withequal certainty, but that the scenarios dif-fered in the means by which this would beachieved.16 The means of conservation wereexplained as having to do with the qualityof the living environment that would be al-lowed to the conserved panda population.Further, it was stressed that without inter-national nancial support this goal wouldunlikely to be achieved and the panda wouldbecome extinct in the near future. More-over, it was stated that the program wouldbe managed by the Chinese authorities, whileit would be nanced via a compulsory air-port tax surcharge levied on all foreign tour-ists leaving China. Finally, the paymentladder approach was used to elicit WTPvalues.17

In line with the de nition of wildlife valuepresented above, each of the three conserva-tion scenarios was described as having a twodimensional impact on the state of the GiantPanda (compared to the current status quo).First, the stock of the species would be in-creased and maintained at the MVP level (thequantitative component of change). Individu-

als were informed that each panda conserva-tion program being considered would in-crease (and thereafter maintain) the size ofthe panda population from the current levelof 200 animals to a viable population levelof 500 animals.

Second, a different type of living environ-ment would be allowed to the affected pandapopulation (the qualitative component of theprogram). There were three distinct qualita-tive scenarios. A subset of the visual aidsused to explain these three scenarios isshown in Figures 1–3. In the rst scenario,a breeding program would be developed thatwould conserve pandas in captivity in stan-dard zoo-type cages; this is the status quothat currently exists within the in situ breed-ing facility within Wolong Reserve. In thisenvironment, each panda would be allowed100 square meters of living space. In aggre-gate, 5 hectares of land would be requiredunder this program to maintain 500 pandas.(See Figure 1.)

The second qualitative scenario describedwould conserve and maintain the same num-ber of pandas (500) but would do so in pens

14 To enhance the quality of the sample a partner-ship was achieved with the China International Tra-vel Service (CITS) which offered access to touristgroups as well as information that would allow forsome basic strati cation (nationality, estimated in-come and age of group). This strategy aimed at as-suring that a suf ciently large and representativesample was collected, ensured that respondent atten-tiveness was enhanced and that response rates weremaximized. Interviews were conducted in English,German, and French. Also, currency conversion sheetswere used to assist people in stating their WTPbids.

15 The MVP is de ned as the minimum number ofstock that provides the necessary genetic diversity forthe preservation of a species. CV respondents weremore simply informed that 500 animals would ‘‘be suf- cient for the conservation of the species.’ ’

16 Most likely the results would have been altered ifthe likelihood of survival of the species were not keptconstant across scenarios. The effects from this addedpolicy dimension (i.e., the likelihood of success) couldhave been more readily examined using a choice experi-ment framework.

17 It was also made clear that panda conservation en-tailed no recreational bene ts since ecotourism is notpossible in the treacherous mountains of Sichuan.


FIGURE 1First Conservation Scenario: Pandas in Cages (100 sq. m.) (Photograph by the authors.)

rather than cages. A pen would allocate eachpanda 5,000 square meters (or half a hect-are), an area that is roughly the size of a foot-ball eld. In total, 250 hectares of land forthe entire program would be required tomaintain 500 pandas (an increase by a factorof 50 in living space allocation). (See Figure2.)

Finally, the third qualitative scenario af-forded in situ conservation of the 500 pandaswithin their natural habitat. (See Figure 3.)Under this scenario, each panda would be al-located 400 hectares of natural habitat (i.e.,of the nature that exists within the undis-turbed areas of Wolong Reserve). In aggre-gate, this program requires 200,000 hectaresof undisturbed habitat, roughly the same sizeas the Wolong Reserve.18,19

These scenarios were devised to generatevariation in both the quantitative and thequalitative dimensions of conservation pro-gram for this panda population. The threescenarios each provided for the same quanti-tative change from the status quo (i.e., from200 to 500 pandas) but the three varied be-

tween one another in terms of the qualitativechange afforded this minimum viable popu-lation. Hence, the survey design enabled theanalysis of one level of quantitative change,and three levels of qualitative change. Thesewill now be discussed and analysed in thefollowing sections.

18 An anonymous referee rightfully points out that apotentially improved design would have used a split-sample approach where one sample was only asked toreveal their WTP for the ‘‘reserve’’ scenario and theother were asked to value all three scenarios as de-scribed in the text above. Since the WTP estimates forthe reserve scenario from both treatments would be de-rived through an exclusive list format the bids wouldbe justi ably comparable. Such comparative studiesallow for an improved means for examining the internalconsistency of WTP bids and constitute an importantarea for further research.

19 The use of visual aids and ample presentation time(approx. 30 minutes) resulted in a high degree of re-spondent comprehension of the scenarios. Follow-upquestions suggested that about 60% of the sample foundthe survey interesting while only 5% found it ‘‘dif cultto understand.’ ’


FIGURE 2Second Conservation Scenario: Pandas in Pens (0.5 ha. per Panda) (Photograph reprinted

from Chinese Giant Panda, published for the Chengdu Association for ExternalCultural Exchanges by Chengdu Press.)

III. WTP FOR PANDACONSERVATION AND PANDA

HABITAT

Table 1 provides sample summary statis-tics of the three stated WTP distributions.The sample means and median values are in-creasing in the direction in which scenariosare nested (bottom-top) with mean (median)values of US$3.9 (US$1), US$8.4 (US$5),and US$14.8 (US$10), respectively. All val-ues are signi cantly different from zero (at1% and 5% respectfully).20 Moreover, allthree WTP distributions exhibit the com-monly observed shape, with a large mass atlow gures and a long tail. Further, we seethat the percentage of zero responses sub-

stantially decreases (from 37% to 7%) as wemove ‘‘upwards’’ along the qualitative di-mension (i.e., from the ‘‘cage’’ to the ‘‘re-serve’’ scenario). Since all design aspects(such as the payment vehicle) remained con-stant across scenarios, it can be inferred thatthe decline in the proportion of zero re-sponses is due to increases in the WTP forthe qualitative change in the program (i.e.,the amount of land provided to the species).

The results thus far show that there existsome sort of preferences for the conservationof this panda population, and that these dem-

20 Also, all participants responded to all three WTPquestions in the predicted direction (i.e., they provideda non-decreasing bid sequence).


FIGURE 3Third Conservation Scenario: Pandas in Their Natural Habitat (400 ha). Note: these

figures are a subset of the visual aids used in the final survey. (Photograph reprintedfrom Chinese Giant Panda, published for the Chengdu Association for External

Cultural Exchanges by Chengdu Press.)

TABLE 1Sample Summary Statistics of WTP Responses for Alternative Panda

Conservation Scenarios

WTP for PandaWTP WTP for WTP for Conservation

for Cage Pen Reserve When ProbabilityScenario Scenario Scenario of Success Is Low(US$) (US$) (US$) (US$)

Mean 3.90 8.43 14.86 0.10Median 1.00 5.00 10.00 0Standard deviation 5.34 10.13 15.69 0.43Minimum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Maximum 30.00 75.00 100.00 3

% of zero responses 37.05 24.59 7.54 95Sample size 305 305 305 305


onstrate an increasing WTP relative to theamount of land afforded to the panda popula-tion. Further, a Man-Whitney test con rmsthat the differences between the elicited val-ues for the different panda conservation sce-narios are different from zero, which impliesthat values are scope sensitive with respectto changes in the amount of land provided toeach panda.21 Moreover, it can also be seenthat not only are values exhibiting statisti-cally signi cant increases in the desired di-rection, but they are also exhibiting diminish-ing returns with respect to the land providedto each panda. Using sample means of totalvalues, we see that marginal WTP for the rst 5 hectares associated with the ‘‘cage’’scenarios is $0.72/hectare.22 The marginalWTP for the additional 200 hectares requiredfor the ‘‘pen’’ scenario is $0.002/hectare,while the marginal WTP for the additionalhectares (199,750) required for the ‘‘re-serve’’ scenario is $0.000054/hectare.

The functional relationship between theWTP for panda conservation and additionallevels of land was further examined by esti-mating a stacked regression model. Thismodels the WTP for panda conservation as afunction of different amounts of land, as wellother individual-speci c variables. Themodel (through simulations) also allows forthe estimation of marginal WTP values fora larger span of land values. This functionalrelationship can be used by policymakers toassess the net bene ts from conserving amarginal hectare of land.23 Also, the sign andsigni cance level of the estimated parame-ters on individual characteristics provide fur-ther indication of the degree to which themeasured values are expression of consistent(economic) preferences and are not simplyrandom responses or expressions of generalattitudes and beliefs. That is parametric esti-mation of WTP offers additional internal(construct) validation of CV results (Mitchelland Carson 1989, 206; Arrow et al. 1993).

A random effects Tobit is the appropriatespeci cation since this accounted for: (a) po-tential censoring at zero (Donaldson et al.1998);24 and (b) possible correlation acrossthe three WTP responses (since they comefrom the same individual) (Greene 1990;Madalla 1987).25 The results of this model

are presented in Table 2. Only the best t andmost parsimonious model is presented. Thevariable on ‘‘land’’ enters the set of re-gressors in logarithmic form since economictheory suggests diminishing marginal valueswith respect to habitat (Mäler 1974; Hoehn1991). Apart from land, the speci cation in-cludes covariates of personal disposable in-come, as well as two attitudinal variables.The rst, ‘‘animal welfare index,’’ captureslatent sentiments of sympathy towards ani-mals. The second, ‘‘program index,’’ repre-sents a subjective assessment of the credibil-ity of the panda conservation programs. Theresults of Table 2 show that all coef cientshave the expected sign. The parameter onland is positive and highly signi cant. Figure4 presents simulated marginal WTP valuesfor various levels of land (while keepingother covariates xed at sample mean levels).The graph clearly shows the pattern of in-creasing but diminishing values. Moreover,the coef cient on animal welfare is positiveand signi cant which is consistent with thenotion that higher WTP for enhanced levels

21 The Anderson-Darling tests rejected that the WTPdistributions are normally distributed and hence non-parametric tests of signi cance ware employed. TheMan-Whitney test rejects the null that WTP responseswere equal at the 1% signi cance level in all cases.

22 The marginal WTP values stated above simplyprovide an indication of the internal validity of the elic-ited values (in that they exhibit diminishing returns).They were calculated as the difference in value betweenprograms divided by the difference in hectares impliedby the programs (see Rollins and Lyke 1998).

23 A continuous speci cation was used despite thefact that the land variable takes on only three valuessince this provided the most parsimonious speci cation.A similar functional relationship between WTP andhabitat for the preservation of the spotted owl has beenestimated by Loomis and Caban (1998).

24 Respondents could not provide negative values forscenarios that they disliked. Also, we observe a rela-tively large percentage of zero WTP responses for the rst two scenarios (see Table 1). Both of these factsnecessitate the use of a censored regression model.

25 The random effects model includes a random dis-turbance that is common to, and constant over a givenindividual’ s responses and assumed to be uncorrelatedwith the other regressors (Madalla 1987), as well as atransitory error due to random response shocks acrossindividuals (Alberini, Kanninen, and Carson 1994).Similar models have been used by Larson and Loomis(1994), Loomis and Caban (1998) and Payne et al.(2000).


TABLE 2Random Effects Tobit Model of WTP for Alternative Panda

Conservation Scenarios

WTP Pandas

Variable Coef. Std. Err. t-value P-value

Animal welfare indexa 3.690 0.728 5.070 0.000Program indexb 2.129 0.811 2.626 0.009Income (logs)c 7.845 1.095 7.162 0.000Land (in logs)d 1.314 0.071 18.538 0.000

Constant 2 68.554 7.917 2 8.659 0.000

LnL 2 2808.4134Wald chi2(4) 497.91Prob . chi2 0.0000N 915

a Attitudinal index capturing latent sentiments of sympathy towards animals. Constructed on thebasis of factor analysis of responses to attitudinal questions on animal welfare sentiments. Questionsthat factored together were: Willingness to wear fur; Willingness to use cosmetic tested on animals;Willingness to support ban on leg hold traps; Willingness to support animal welfare society. See Kon-toleon (2003) for details of factor analysis.

b Index of subjective assessment of the credibility of the panda conservation programs. Calculatedby taking the average score of ve-point Likert scale answers to the questions: What kind of supportdo you think the Wolong Panda Conservation Program would receive from foreigners visiting China?Do you think that the airport tax increase described above is a fair method of nancing the expensesconnected with the implementation of the Wolong Panda Conservation Program?

c Personal disposable annual income in logs (in 1998 US Dollars).d Log of land where land takes on the values of land speci ed in the three scenarios.

of species quality (living environment)would be associated with higher animal wel-fare sentiments. In addition, the signi cantand positive coef cient on the ‘‘program in-dex’’ highlights the importance of designingcredible, reliable, and believable wildlifeconservation programs. Finally, the coef -cients of income exhibits the desired direc-tion supporting the theoretical consistency ofthe WTP responses. In sum, these resultsdemonstrate that there is a signi cant andlogically consistent WTP for lands providedfor the sole use of the panda population.

IV. DECOMPOSING VALUES INTOQUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE

COMPONENTS

Since the quantitative component of valueis assumed to remain constant across all threescenarios (given that the panda population isconstant at 500 in all three), the differencebetween scenarios is then assumed to providean estimate of WTP for changes in the quali-

tative component of the programs.26 Takingthe difference between the three WTP distri-butions will produce inferred measures ofthese WTP:

WTPpen—cage 5 WTPpen 2 WTPcage [3]

WTPreserve—cage 5 WTPresere 2 WTPcage [4]

WTPreserve—pen 5 WTPreserve 2 WTPpen. [5]

The rst qualitative change involves allot-ting each panda an enlarged living space. [3]provides the additional WTP for removingpandas from small cages within the breedingcenter to one where animals are kept in foot-ball eld-sized pens. This value is US$4.53and represents the value individuals wouldbe willing to pay to purchase 200 additionalhectares of land for the bene t of the speciesitself. This extra land would neither make ad-

26 The quantitative component of the programs re-ceived an average WTP of $3.90.


FIGURE 4Predicted Diminishing Marginal WTP/Hectares from Random Effects Tobit

ditional contribution to the survival of thespecies, nor to overall biodiversity preserva-tion. Its ‘‘acquisition’’ would simply provideutility to the ‘‘valuer’’ from knowing that thespecies is allotted additional land/space re-sources to those required for its mere bio-logical preservation. This qualitative com-ponent of WTP constitutes more than half(54%) of the total bid for the ‘‘pen’’ scenario(US$4.53 versus US$3.90 for the quantita-tive component).

Further, [4] provides the additional WTPfor removing pandas from the cage-basedbreeding center and purchasing the land re-quired for an in situ conservation program.The survey promised a program which wouldallow the panda population to live undis-turbed within its natural environment. Thedifference between the reserve-based pro-gram and the cage-based one [5] is US$10.96(73% of the total WTP of US$14.86). Thereis therefore three times the WTP for the natu-ral habitat for the population than there is forthe mere conservation of the populationitself.

It is possible that some part of the bid inthe reserve scenario accords with the valueof the additional space afforded to the pandapopulation, while another part of it owsfrom the ‘‘naturalness’’ of the habitat. Weassume that the maximum WTP for ‘‘natu-ral’’ habitat accords with the difference be-tween the reserve scenario and the pen sce-nario (since both the attribute of spaceallocation and the attribute of ‘‘naturalness’’is varying between these scenarios). Thismaximum value is US$6.43 and is the valueassociated with buying 199,995 extra hect-ares of land for the panda population. Thisvalue has been interpreted as a form of im-plicit valuation of ‘‘natural habitat’’ and itconstitutes 43% of the total bid of US$14.88(for the reserve scenario).27

Our decomposition of the WTP for thegiant panda demonstrates that the panda’s

27 Further research is required to externally validateand test the disaggregation presented above. Yet, these gures can serve as an illustrative example of such avalue disaggregation.


agship status translates into substantialWTP for natural habitat. The charismaticspecies generates a WTP for both its quanti-tative preservation (maintained stocks) andalso for some minimum space for its individ-ual use, but this represents only about half ofthe total WTP available for the conservationof the panda population. There is an increasein the WTP for the species from USD 8.43to USD 14.86, generated only by the provi-sion of a ‘‘natural’’ quality of life. This isvalue derived from the panda that is availableto nature conservation for in situ conserva-tion, but is unavailable when ex situ iselected. Clearly, the giant panda might beused as an important instrument for generalnature conservation purposes.

V. WTP FOR IN SITU PANDACONSERVATION WHEN LONG

TERM SURVIVAL IS NOT CERTAIN

The nal issue of interest is the extent towhich the Giant Panda is a necessary instru-ment for the conservation of nature. That is,if the pandas were not used as an instrumentfor the conservation of this habitat, thenwould an independent WTP exist to providefor the conservation of these lands? This isimportant for the purpose of determining theextent to which the construct of charismaticspecies has become a necessary instrumentfor nature conservation (and not just a poten-tial instrument).

We examined these questions in the con-text of a nal part of the panda survey be pre-senting as auxiliary scenario after the valuesof the three main conservation programs hadbeen elicited. The scenario tried to obtain anindication of whether individuals valued theWolong Reserve independently from itsfunction as panda habitat. The last column ofTable 1 presents the summary statistics fromthis WTP question. As can be seen, the sam-ple overwhelmingly stated a zero WTP for aconservation program that (although secur-ing the preservation of the Wolong Reserve),did not guarantee the conservation of thepanda.28

Thus, the WTP for the Giant Panda is notonly a potential instrument for nature conser-vation, it is potentially a necessary instru-

ment for nature conservation. Once havingcreated the construct of charismatic species,it is the continuing existence of such con-structs that drives the WTP of the public fornature in general.

VI. DISCUSSION

We would now like to address the issueraised in the title of the paper. First, our study nds that there is a clear WTP for the prop-erty rights required for the in situ conserva-tion for the panda. The nature of this demandis logically coherent: the WTP for wildlifeconservation is an increasing function of land(at a diminishing rate) while it is also consis-tent with other independently measured indi-vidual characteristics such as ones ability topay (income) as well as ones attitudes towardanimals (animal welfare index).

In order to put the WTP for panda landsinto perspective, consider rst that the cur-rent annual budget for Wolong Reserve isabout US$250,000, or $1.25 per hectare. Fur-thermore, under the current bene t-sharingregime, the local peoples living in and near(and using) the reserve are receiving 4% ofthe annual budget, or approximately $0.05per hectare. Given this low level of returnsfrom panda conservation (i.e., the restrictionson the use of the reserve), it is readily appar-ent why it would be the case that local peo-ples would be hostile to both the reserve andto the pandas that live within it (see Swansonet al. 2001).

The remainder of the budget is spent onenforcement measures (battling local peopleswith objectives different from the reserve)and a captive breeding program (keepingpandas in captivity rather than the reserve).The ‘‘cage scenario’’ used in the survey isbased on the cages actually in use for pandaex situ conservation within Wolong Reserve.As panda populations in the reserve continueto decline, there is an ever-increasing shareof Wolong pandas living in captivity rather

28 Admittedly, the scenario suffers from credibilityissues. For example, it is possible that individuals arerejecting a scenario inconsistent with those providedearlier in the survey.


than in their natural habitat. We believe thatthe case of the panda is exemplar of that oc-curring for many endangered species inmany parts of the world.

Now consider the potential impact of theWTP for panda lands on the panda’s plight.A conservative estimate (using the medianWTP and assuming 5 million foreign westerntourists to China for 1997) provides a gureof US$50 million per annum for the WolongReserve which amounts to US$250/hectare.If the local people continued to receive a roy-alty of 4%, this would amount to a return ofUS$10 per hectare for them (under the ex-isting bene t-sharing regime). This would in-crease the returns from reserve status by afactor of twenty. If these payments weremade contingent on the presence of pandasin the reserve, it would likewise greatly en-hance the likelihood that the objectives of thelocal people and the panda conservationistswould become congruent.29 This would thenreduce the likelihood of intrusions into thereserve, and reduce the amount of the reservebudget that need be spent on monitoring andenforcement. In the sense that this WTPmight be able to translate into a secure tenureby a stable population of pandas, it is appar-ent that this particular species clearly doeshave the capacity to purchase its own prop-erty rights.

There is thus a clear capacity for using thischarismatic species (panda) to acquire itsown lands, but is it possible to make use ofit as an instrument for nature conservation?The insistence on behalf of managementagencies on saving particular species restspartly on the belief that this approach will beable to secure funding for the preservation ofits habitat and by consequence of the (poten-tial) biodiversity located wherein. It is widelybelieved to be the case that charismatic spe-cies are the agships for general nature con-servation.

Our study nds that this belief is well-founded. The total WTP for in situ pandaconservation can be decomposed into threesubcategories: quantitative or stock values(27%), quality of life values (30%), and de-rived demand for nature values (43%). Thequalitative values constitute 73% of the en-tire bid for in situ panda conservation. Thus,

a substantial proportion of the value of theGiant Panda would be lost if ex situ conser-vation were to be pursued exclusively. Al-most half of the value given to the specieswould not be expressed in the context ofmere quantitative preservation (as opposed toin situ conservation). Therefore, it makessense to use such charismatic species as na-ture conservation ‘‘ agships’’: there is a lotof added value for conservation that wouldbe wasted if the habitat were not tied to thecharismatic species.

But would the habitat be conserved irre-spective of the charismatic species? In ourstudy, the WTP for in situ conservation dropsto zero when the probability of survival ofthe agship species is low. Hence, biodiver-sity values in this case are dependent on thepreservation of the agship species. The Gi-ant Panda is not only a potential instrumentfor conservation, it is potentially a necessaryinstrument.

VII. CONCLUSION

The debate over the most appropriatemeans for conserving biodiversity is oftenpolarised between advocates of the so-called‘‘species’’ and ‘‘ecosystems’’ approach toconservation. The former focuses on the pro-tection, both (in situ and ex situ) of endan-gered, often high pro le, species. The latterseeks to conserve entire ecosystems (irre-spective of whether they host any high pro- le species) with the sole aim of preservingas much diversity as possible (Van Kootenand Bulte 2000). Irrespective of which ap-proach is preferable at a normative level,brief consideration of the results of this studyand the prevailing conservation policies indi-cates that the construct of the charismaticspecies is now a ‘‘fact of life.’’ For example,Metrick and Wietzman (1996) show that54% of all wildlife funding in the United

29 A rough estimate of the value of the uses of thereserve by local people (comprising mainly of small-scale subsistence activities), range between 20 to 120dollars in aggregate per year, per household (Swansonet al. 2001). Hence, it is likely that the appropriation ofthe values for in situ conservation estimated in thisstudy would more than cover the current opportunitycosts.


States is devoted to the conservation of just1.8% of all listed endangered animals. More-over, they show that the amount of fundingspent on the conservation of a particular spe-cies does not depend on ecological criteria(such rarity and degree of endangerment),but rather on the public appeal and ‘‘cha-risma’’ of the species.

Therefore, the fate of nature conservationis now inextricably interlinked with the fateof particular charismatic species. The con-struct of the important endangered specieshas been created and sold, and policymakersnow are going to have to live with the phe-nomenon. The nal issue to consider hereconcerns the costs that this construct imposeson the campaign for general nature conserva-tion.

That is, to what extent is the agship ap-proach limited in its capacity to contribute towider biodiversity conservation? Van Kootenand Bulte (2000) identify two conditions forthe agship approach to be generally condu-cive to nature conservation: habitats that arespecies rich in one taxon must also be speciesrich for others; and rare and endangered spe-cies should occur in species-rich areas. Yet,more often than not, neither of these condi-tions are met in the instance of charismaticspecies. Studies by Prendergast et al (1993),and Williams, Burgess, and Rahbek (2000a,2000b) show that the agship approach haslittle positive effect on biodiversity conserva-tion (for widely accepted ecological de ni-tion of biodiversity). This is so because bio-diversity hot spots do not usually host agship species.

Given that the agship approach is not ca-pable of delivering higher levels of biodiver-sity conservation, policymakers may befaced with trade-offs between conserving di-versity per se and conserving certain rare(and perhaps high pro le) species (VanKooten and Bulte 2000). Alternatively, thepolicymaker might attempt to educate thepopulation to discard the ‘‘charismatic spe-cies’’ approach (at the risk of destroyingsome WTP for nature conservation). A thirdalternative might be to attempt to createsome new charismatic species that are moreclosely associated with the various biodiver-sity hotspots. Perhaps it is time to replace the

panda (as the symbol of international natureconservation) with a beetle?

References

Alberini, A., B. Kanninen, and R. Carson. 1994.‘‘A General Model for Double-Bounded Dis-crete Choice Contingent Valuation Data.’’ Pa-per presented at the AERE Session of theASSA.

Arrow, K., R. Solow, E. Leamer, P. Portney, R.Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. ‘‘Report ofthe NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.’’Federal Register 58 (10): 4601–14.

Bateman, I. J., Antreas Tsoumas, Stavros Geor-giou, and Ian H. Langford. 2001a. ‘‘Investigat-ing the Characteristics of Stated Preferencesfor Reducing Air Pollution Impacts: A Contin-gent Valuation Study.’’ CSERGE, WorkingPaper GEC 95–30, University of East Anglia.

Bateman, I. J, M. Cole, P. Cooper, S. Georgiou,D. Hadley, and G. L. Poe. 2001b. ‘‘VisibleChoice Sets and Scope Sensitivity: An Experi-mental and Field Test of Study Design Effectsupon Contingent Values.’’ Paper presented atThe Eleventh Annual Conference of the Euro-pean Association of Environmental and Re-source Economists (EAERE) University ofSouthampton, United Kingdom, June 28–30.

Chapman, Stuart. 2001. ‘‘Communication to theBBC World Report.’’ February 16, 2001.

Donaldson, Cam, A. M. Jones, T. J. Mapp, andJ. A. Olson. 1998. ‘‘Limited Dependent Vari-ables in Willingness to Pay Studies: Applica-tions in Health Care.’’ Applied Economics 30(5): 667–77.

Fredman, P. 1995. ‘‘The Existence of ExistenceValue: A Study of the Economic Bene ts ofan Endangered Species.’’ Journal of ForestEconomics 1 (3): 307–27.

Freeman, M. A. 1993. ‘‘Non-Use Values in Natu-ral Resource Damage Assessment.’’ In Valu-ing Natural Assets: The Economics of NaturalResource Damage Assessment, ed. R. Koppand V. K. Smith. Washington, D.C: Resourcesfor the Future.

Greene, W. 1990. Econometric Analysis. NewYork: Macmillan Press.

Guilleman, J. 1981. Anthropological Realities:Readings in the Science of Culture. London:Transactions Books.

Hoehn, J. P. 1991. ‘‘Valuing the Multi-Dimen-sional Impacts of Environmental Policy: The-ory and Methods.’’ American Journal of Ag-ricultural Economics 73 (2): 289–99.

http://leporello.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0003-6846^28^2930:5L.667[aid=5305036]http://leporello.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0003-6846^28^2930:5L.667[aid=5305036]


Kabayashi, S. 1990. Color Image Scale. London:Kodansha.

Kontoleon, A. 1996. ‘‘Determinants of WTP forEndangered Species: A Meta-Analysis of Con-tingent Valuation Studies.’’ MPhil diss., Fac-ulty of Economics and Politics, University ofCambridge.

———. 2003. ‘‘Essays on Non-Market Valuationof Environmental Resources: Policy and Tech-nical Explorations.’’ PhD. diss., UniversityCollege London.

Kopp, Raymond J. 1992. ‘‘Ethical Motivationsand Non use Values.’’ Discussion PaperQE92-10. Washington, D.C.: Resources forthe Future.

Larson, D. M., and J. B. Loomis. 1994. ‘‘Separat-ing Marginal Values of Public Goods FromWarm Glows in Contingent Valuation Stud-ies.’’ Working paper. Department of Agricul-tural Economics, University of California,Davis.

Leader-Williams, Nigel, and Holly T. Dublin.2000. ‘‘Charismatic Megafauna as FlagshipSpecies.’’ In Priorities for the Conservation ofMammalian Diversity: Has the Panda Had ItsDay, ed. A. Entwistle and Nigel Dunstone.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Liu, Jianguo, Marc Linderman, Zhiyun Ouyang,Li An, Jian Yang, and Hemin Zhang. 2001.‘‘Ecological Degradation in Protected Areas:The Case of Wolong Nature Reserve for GiantPandas.’’ Science 6 (292): 98–101.

Loomis, J. B. 1988. ‘‘Broadening the Conceptand Measurement of Existence Value.’’ North-eastern Journal of Agricultural Resource Eco-nomics 17 (1): 23–29.

Loomis, J., and A. G. Caban. 1988. ‘‘A Willing-ness To Pay for Function for Protecting Acresof Spotted Owl Habitat.’’ Ecological Econom-ics 25 (3): 315–22.

Loomis, J. B., and K. Giraud. 1997. ‘‘EconomicBene ts of Endangered Fish and Wildlife Spe-cies: Literature Review and Case Study ofValues for Preventing Extinction of Fish Spe-cies.’’ Mimeograph. Department of Agricul-tural and Resource Economics, Colorado StateUniversity.

Loomis, John, B., and Douglas S. White. 1996.‘‘Economic Bene ts of Rare and EndangeredSpecies: Summary and Meta-analysis.’’ Eco-logical Economics 18 (3): 197–206.

Lorenze, K. 1978. The Foundations of Ethology.New York: Springer-Verlag.

MacKinnon, J., and R. De Wulf. 1994. ‘‘Design-ing Protected Areas for Giant Pandas inChina.’’ In Mapping the Diversity of Nature,

ed. R. L. Miller. London: Chapman andHall.

Mackinnon, J., F. Bi, M. Qiu, C. Fan, H. Wang,S. Yuan, A. Tian, and J. Li. 1989. ‘‘NationalConservation Plan for the Giant Panda and itsHabitat.’’ Report prepared for the Ministry ofForestry, P.R. China, and WWF.

Madalla, G. S., 1987. ‘‘Limited Dependent Vari-able Models Using Panel Data.’’ Journal ofHuman Resources 22 (3): 305–38.

Mäler, K. G. 1974. Environmental Economics: ATheoretical Inquiry. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

McConnell, K. E. 1997. ‘‘Does Altruism Under-mine Existence Value.’’ Journal of Environ-mental Economics and Management 32 (1):22–37.

Meacham, Cory. 1997. How the Tiger Lost ItsStripes: An Exploration into the Endanger-ment of a Species. New York: Harcourt Braceand Co.

Metrick, A., and M. Weitzman. 1996. ‘‘Patternsof Behavior in Endangered Species Preserva-tion.’’ Land Economics 71 (Feb.): 1–16.

Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson. 1998. UsingSurveys to Value Public Goods: The Contin-gent Valuation Method. Baltimore: Johns Hop-kins University Press.

Olney, P. J. S., G. M. MacE, and A. T. C. Feist-ner. 1994. Creative Conservation: InteractiveManagement of Wild and Captive Animals.London: Chapman and Hall.

Payne J. W., D. A. Schkade, W. H. Desvousges,and C. Aultman. 2000. ‘‘Valuation of MultipleEnvironmental Programs.’’ Journal of Riskand Uncertainty 21 (1): 95–115.

Prendergast, J. R., R. M. Quinn, J. H. Lawton,B. C. Eversham, and D. W. Gibbons. 1993.‘‘Rare Species, the Coincidence of DiversityHotspots and Conservation Strategies.’’ Na-ture 365 (23 Sept.): 335–37.

Randall, Alan. 1991. ‘‘Total and Non-use Val-ues.’’ In Measuring the Demand for Environ-mental Qualit, ed. J. B. Braden, and C. D. Kol-stad. New York: Elsevier.

Rollins, Kimberly, and Audrey Lyke. 1998. ‘‘TheCase for Diminishing Marginal Existence Val-ues.’’ Journal of Environmental Economicsand Management 6 (3): 324–44.

Swanson, T., and A. Kontoleon. 2000. ‘‘Why Didthe Protected Areas Fail the Giant Panda? TheEconomics of Conserving Endangered Speciesin Developing Countries.’’ World Economics1 (4): 135–48.

Swanson, Timothy, Wang Qiwen, Andreas Kon-toleon, Qiao Xuejun, and Catherine Yang.2001. The Economics of Panda Reserve Man-

http://leporello.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0921-8009^28^2925:3L.315[aid=5305040]http://leporello.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0921-8009^28^2918:3L.197[aid=4804345]http://leporello.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0028-0836^28^29365L.335[aid=6454]http://leporello.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/1468-1838^28^291:4L.135[aid=5305045]http://leporello.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0921-8009^28^2925:3L.315[aid=5305040]http://leporello.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0921-8009^28^2918:3L.197[aid=4804345]http://leporello.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/0028-0836^28^29365L.335[aid=6454]http://leporello.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/1468-1838^28^291:4L.135[aid=5305045]


agement: A Case Study of Wolong Reserve, Si-chuan, China. Baltimore, Md.: China Councilfor International Cooperation on the Environ-ment and Development.

Van Kooten, Cornelis, G., and Erwin H. Bulte.2000. The Economics of Nature: Managing Bi-ological Assets. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.

Williams, P. H., N. D. Burgess, and C. Rahbek,2000a. ‘‘Flagship Species, Ecological Com-plementarity, and Conserving the Diversity of

Mammals and Birds in Sub-Saharan Africa.’’Animal Conservation 3:249–60.

———. 2000b. ‘‘Assessing Large ‘Flagship Spe-cies’ for Preserving the Diversity of Sub-Saharan Mammals.’’ In Priorities for the Con-servation of Mammalian Diversity: Has thePanda had its Day? ed. A. Entwistle and NigelDunstone. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.
http://leporello.ingentaselect.com/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/linker?ext=a&reqidx=/1367-9430^28^293L.249[aid=1504922]

the willingness to pay for property rights for the giant ... and swanson 2003.pdf ·...

Documents