Non-market valuation of global change impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity

Abstract

This doctoral thesis is concerned with evaluating whether public policies aimed at reducing impacts of global change on ecosystems and biodiversity contribute to societal welfare. The thesis is motivated by predictions that global change, particularly the occurrence of more extreme climate and weather conditions, will affect the future state of ecosystems and biodiversity, while our understanding of the resulting societal damages is currently incomplete. The first chapter provides the background and rationale for environmental valuation studies in the context of global change. This chapter also introduces the general conceptual framework and the research hypotheses. Each of the following three chapters reports on separate empirical studies in which different aspects of the general hypothesis are explored. The second chapter consists of a study on recreational value changes due to wildfires. Global climate change is predicted to increase the frequency and duration of wildfires in Europe. Wildfires may, in turn, affect the recreational value of ecosystems. In this study, a finite mixture model is combined with on-site survey data after extending the model to control for on-site sampling bias. The model is informed with empirical preference data that was obtained by interviewing heathland visitors in the Hoge Kempen National Park (Belgium). The empirical model was used to provide the first estimates of the recreational value of heathland and of how wildfires affect this value. The results suggest that extreme wildfires negatively affect the recreational value of heathlands but that this impact is only temporary. The third chapter consists of a global meta-regression analysis of the non-use benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity. This chapter explores the hypothesis that biodiversity losses are valued differently when they are caused by human activities – relative to losses that are the result of natural events. The meta-regression results suggest that non-use values of biodiversity conservation addressing human impacts may be larger than those addressing other threats. Hence, assessments of the damages from anthropogenic climate change should take into account that the public might be willing to pay a premium to prevent biodiversity loss due to anthropogenic climate change. The fourth chapter reports on a study that tests the hypothesis that conservation areas are more likely to be located in places with higher biodiversity levels. This study relies on the assumption that higher biodiversity levels generally increase societal welfare. This assumption implies that conservation areas more strongly contribute to societal welfare if they are located in places with higher biodiversity levels. To test whether this condition is fulfilled, spatial choice models were developed in which the location of conservation areas in Spain and Italy was considered as well as indicators associated with the biodiversity benefits and opportunity costs of conservation. The spatial choice models were estimated based on high-resolution biodiversity data. Furthermore, the spatial choice models accounted for spatial dependence and heteroscedasticity using a novel composite marginal likelihood approach. The study results suggest that a 1 percent increase in biodiversity levels is associated with increases in the probability of protection of between 0.22 and 0.59 percent. Also, the study showed that the location of protected areas might be associated with biodiversity benefits to a greater extent than implied by previous studies. Finally, general conclusions and policy recommendations are presented in the fifth chapter. This chapter also includes an overview of potentially fruitful avenues for future research.