-
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.
-
486 Land Economics November 2003
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).
-
79(4) Kontoleon and Timothy Swanson: Property Rights for the
Giant Panda 487
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.
-
488 Land Economics November 2003
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.
-
79(4) Kontoleon and Timothy Swanson: Property Rights for the
Giant Panda 489
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.’ ’
-
490 Land Economics November 2003
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$10), respectively. All val-ues are signi
cantly different from zero (at1% and 5% respectfully).20 Moreover,
allthree WTP distributions exhibit the com-monly observed shape,
with a large mass atlow gures and a long tail. Further, we seethat
the percentage of zero responses sub-
stantially decreases (from 37% to 7%) as wemove ‘‘upwards’’
along the qualitative di-mension (i.e., from the ‘‘cage’’ to the
‘‘re-serve’’ scenario). Since all design aspects(such as the
payment vehicle) remained con-stant across scenarios, it can be
inferred thatthe decline in the proportion of zero re-sponses is
due to increases in the WTP forthe qualitative change in the
program (i.e.,the amount of land provided to the species).
The results thus far show that there existsome sort of
preferences for the conservationof this panda population, and that
these dem-
20 Also, all participants responded to all three WTPquestions in
the predicted direction (i.e., they provideda non-decreasing bid
sequence).
-
79(4) Kontoleon and Timothy Swanson: Property Rights for the
Giant Panda 491
FIGURE 3Third Conservation Scenario: Pandas in Their Natural
Habitat (400 ha). Note: these
figures are a subset of the visual aids used in the final
survey. (Photograph reprintedfrom Chinese Giant Panda, published
for the Chengdu Association for External
Cultural Exchanges by Chengdu Press.)
TABLE 1Sample Summary Statistics of WTP Responses for
Alternative Panda
Conservation Scenarios
WTP for PandaWTP WTP for WTP for Conservation
for Cage Pen Reserve When ProbabilityScenario Scenario Scenario
of Success Is Low(US$) (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
-
492 Land Economics November 2003
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).
-
79(4) Kontoleon and Timothy Swanson: Property Rights for the
Giant Panda 493
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.
-
494 Land Economics November 2003
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.
-
79(4) Kontoleon and Timothy Swanson: Property Rights for the
Giant Panda 495
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.
-
496 Land Economics November 2003
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.
-
79(4) Kontoleon and Timothy Swanson: Property Rights for the
Giant Panda 497
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]
-
498 Land Economics November 2003
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]
-
79(4) Kontoleon and Timothy Swanson: Property Rights for the
Giant Panda 499
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]