Number of identified endangered Species

WTP to increase the size and improve the quality of wetlands in the Upper South East, South Australia, for Adelaide respondents.

Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
Calculated WTP Marginal Change being measured Recommendations
$1.70 AUD

WTP per 1,000 hectares of wetlands per household per year (max. 5 years)

Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific

WTP Details

Hazard types identified
Human activity
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation; Endangered species; Ecosystem function
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$1.41 per 1,000 hectares per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$1.41 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
Other variables that significantly explain WTP

Scrublands, wetlands, levy, gender, education, age, income

Study Details

Value type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations

Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific

Methods

Data collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Conditional logit model
Modelled number of individuals
731
Modelled number of observations
1457

Sample Characteristics

Country/region studied
Upper South East, South Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Adelaide
Range in years of data
n/a
Mean sample age
47.48
Percent Male
49
Percent Female
51
Mean sample income
$43,232
Income units
AUD

Publication

Valuing biodiversity using habitat types

Hatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D., 2010. Valuing biodiversity using habitat types. Australiasian Journal of Environemental Management. 17:4, 235-243.
Citation
Hatton MacDonald, et al. 2010
Authors
MacDonald, D.H., Morrison, M.D.
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

Additional information

Notes on this study

Wetland is described in terms of its value for habitat, threat status of species present and ecosystem function. Respondents were told that each option had a household cost that would be collected via an incomes tax levey each year for 5 years. The date the survey was administered was not included, hence CPI conversation assumes the orginal WTP estimate is from 2010, date of publish.

WTP to increase the size and improve the quality of wetlands in the Upper South East, South Australia, for Upper South East respondents.

Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
Calculated WTP Marginal Change being measured Recommendations
$0.54 AUD

WTP per 1,000 hectares of wetlands per household per year (max. 5 years)

Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific

WTP Details

Hazard types identified
Human activity
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation; Endangered species; Ecosystem function
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$0.45 per 1,000 hectares per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$0.45 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
Other variables that significantly explain WTP

Scrublands, wetlands, levy, gender, education, age, income

Study Details

Value type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations

Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific

Methods

Data collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Conditional logit model
Modelled number of individuals
731
Modelled number of observations
1457

Sample Characteristics

Country/region studied
Upper South East, South Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Upper South East
Range in years of data
n/a
Mean sample age
47.59
Percent Male
52
Percent Female
48
Mean sample income
$39,109
Income units
AUD

Publication

Valuing biodiversity using habitat types

Hatton MacDonald, D., Morrison, M.D., 2010. Valuing biodiversity using habitat types. Australiasian Journal of Environemental Management. 17:4, 235-243.
Citation
Hatton MacDonald, et al. 2010
Authors
MacDonald, D.H., Morrison, M.D.
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

Additional information

Notes on this study

Wetland is described in terms of its value for habitat, threat status of species present and ecosystem function. Respondents were told that each option had a household cost that would be collected via an incomes tax levey each year for 5 years. The date the survey was administered was not included, hence CPI conversation assumes the orginal WTP estimate is from 2010, date of publish.

WTP to improve biodiversity in native forest areas of the Mid North Forests, South Australia.

Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
Calculated WTP Marginal Change being measured Recommendations
$51.36 AUD

WTP per 20% (900 hectares) improvement in biodiversity per household per year (max. 5 years)

 Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific

WTP Details

Hazard types identified
Invasive species
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation; Species; Endangered species
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$44.69 per 20% (900 hectares) improvement per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$44.69 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
95% confidence interval (upper)
$58.61 AUD
95% confidence interval (lower)
$35.39 AUD
Other variables that significantly explain WTP

Payment, education

Study Details

Value type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific

Methods

Data collection method used
Contingent valuation
Analysis model
Logit model
Modelled number of individuals
380
Modelled number of observations
380

Sample Characteristics

Country/region studied
Mid North Forests, South Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Adelaide area (82%) and South Australia (18%)
Range in years of data
n/a
Mean sample age
49
Percent Male
48
Percent Female
52
Mean sample income
n/a
Income units
n/a

Publication

Quantifying the non-timber values of South Australia's northern forest reserves

Windle, J., Rolfe, J., Tucker, G. 2012. Quantifying the non-timber values of South Australia's northern forest reserves. Environmental Economics Programme Center for Environmental Management. CQUniversity Australia.
Citation
Windle, et al. 2012
Authors
Windle, J., Rolfe, J., Tucker, G.
Year published
Peer reviewed?
No
Journal name
n/a

Additional information

Notes on this study

The value is described in the wtp question as an improvement in biodiversity in native forest areas. The information provided in the survey was that, "There are important biodiversity values associated with the native forests which provide habitat for over 200 rare, endangered or vulnerable plant and animal species. The areas of native forest have high habitat and connectivity value because the overall area of remnant vegetation in the Mt Lofty Ranges is limited." The improvement is achieved by reducing the area of native forest under threat from weeds and pests by 20%, where the current area under threat is 60-70%.

WTP to improve biodiversity in native forest areas of the Mount Lofty Ranges State Forest, South Australia.

Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
Calculated WTP Marginal Change being measured Recommendations
$73.41 AUD

WTP per 20% (1050 hectares) improvement in biodiversity per household per year (max. 5 years)

 Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific

WTP Details

Hazard types identified
Invasive species
Specific Value Type measured
Native vegetation; Species; Endangered species
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$63.88 per 20% (1050 hectares) improvement per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$63.88 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
95% confidence interval (upper)
$86.89 AUD
95% confidence interval (lower)
$51.20 AUD
Other variables that significantly explain WTP

Payment, time spent in the forest

Study Details

Value type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT in Australia - be aware of generalised context - not NH specific

Methods

Data collection method used
Contingent valuation
Analysis model
Logit model
Modelled number of individuals
372
Modelled number of observations
372

Sample Characteristics

Country/region studied
State Forests, Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Adelaide area (82%) and South Australia (18%)
Range in years of data
n/a
Mean sample age
49
Percent Male
48
Percent Female
52
Mean sample income
n/a
Income units
n/a

Publication

Quantifying the non-timber values of South Australia's northern forest reserves

Windle, J., Rolfe, J., Tucker, G. 2012. Quantifying the non-timber values of South Australia's northern forest reserves. Environmental Economics Programme Center for Environmental Management. CQUniversity Australia.
Citation
Windle, et al. 2012
Authors
Windle, J., Rolfe, J., Tucker, G.
Year published
Peer reviewed?
No
Journal name
n/a

Additional information

Notes on this study

The value is described in the WTP question as an improvement in biodiversity in native forest areas. The information provided in the survey was that, "There are important biodiversity values associated with the native forests which provide habitat for over 200 rare, endangered or vulnerable plant and animal species. The areas of native forest have high habitat and connectivity value because the overall area of remnant vegetation in the Mt Lofty Ranges is limited." The improvement is achieved by reducing the area of native forest under threat from weeds and pests by 20%, where the current area under threat is 60-70%.

WTP to protect endangered species from invasive species (feral animals, insects and weeds).

Fire
Flood
Storm
Earthquake
Tsunami
Heatwave
Calculated WTP Marginal Change being measured Recommendations
$50.68 AUD

WTP per endangered species protected per household per year

 Useful for BT where NH leads to increased impact from invasive species

WTP Details

Hazard types identified
Invasive species
Specific Value Type measured
Species-endangered
Currency Year - original study
WTP estimate - original study value
$47.00 per species per household per year
Currency - original study
AUD
WTP converted to $AU in original year from the study
$47.00 AUD
WTP measure
Mean
95% confidence interval (upper)
$68.00 AUD
95% confidence interval (lower)
$26.00 AUD
Other variables that significantly explain WTP

Education, income, age, prior experience and attitude with biosecurity, invasive weeds, invasive insects, cost

Study Details

Value type applicable
Ecosystems
Study conducted in the context of a natural hazard?
No
Study quality
High
Benefits transfer applicability
Average
Recommendations
Useful for BT where NH leads to increased impact from invasive species

Methods

Data collection method used
Choice modeling
Analysis model
Latent class logit model
Modelled number of individuals
n/a
Modelled number of observations
2402

Sample Characteristics

Country/region studied
Queensland; New South Wales; Victoria
Country of source studies
Australia
Sampled population
Queensland; New South Wales; Victoria
Range in years of data
2010-2011
Mean sample age
49 (NSW), 48 (QLD), 44 (VIC)
Percent Male
62% (NSW), 56% (QLD), 44% (VIC)
Percent Female
38% (NSW), 44% (QLD), 56% (VIC)
Mean sample income
$1,153 (NSW), $1,250 (QLD), $1,250 (VIC)
Income units
AUD

Publication

Application of portfolio theory to asset-based biosecurity decision analysis

Akter, S., Kompas, T., and M.B. Ward. 2015. Application of portfolio theory to asset-based biosecurity decision analysis. Ecological Economics. 117 (2015):73-85.
Citation
Akter, et al. 2015
Authors
Akter, S., Kompas, T., Ward, M.B.
Year published
Peer reviewed?
Yes
Journal name
Ecological Ecconomics

Additional information

Notes on this study

Paper includes mean implicit values for species (but do not specify what species).
Reset Export Selected