Chinese Resident Preferences for African Elephant Conservation: Choice Experiment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Method
2.1. Choice Experiment Design
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Model Specifications
3. Results
3.1. Demographics
3.2. Respondent Attitudes Regarding Donations to Elephant Conservation
3.3. WTD to Conservation Strategies
3.4. Willingness-to-Donate for African Elephant Conservation
3.5. Simulation Preferences under Scenarios
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Caughley, G. The elephant problem—An alternative hypothesis. East Afr. Wildlife J. 1976, 14, 265–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanks, J. A Struggle for Survival: The Elephant Problem; Struik Publisher: Cape Town, South Africa, 1979; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Douglas-Hamilton, I. Elephant population trends and their causes. Oryx 1987, 21, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caughley, G.; Dublin, H.T.; Parker, I.S.C. Projected decline of the African elephant. Biolog. Conserv. 1990, 54, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eltringham, S.K. Wildlife carrying capacities in relations to human settlement. Koedoe 1990, 33, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kangwana, K. Human-elephant conflict: The challenge ahead. Pachydermm 1995, 19, 11–14. [Google Scholar]
- Hoare, R.E. African elephants and humans in conflict: The outlook for co-existence. Oryx 2000, 34, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wasser, S.; Poole, J.; Lee, P.; Lindsay, K.; Dobson, A.; Hart, J.; Douglas-Hamilton, I.; Wittemyer, G.; Granli, P.; Morgan, B.; et al. Conservation. Elephants, ivory, and trade. Science 2010, 327, 1331–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gao, Y.; Clark, S.G. Elephant ivory trade in China: Trends and drivers. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 180, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thouless, C.R.; Dublin, H.T.; Blanc, J.J.; Skinner, D.P.; Daniel, T.E.; Taylor, R.D.; Maisels, F.; Fredrick, H.L.; Bouche, P. African Elephant Status Report 2016: An Update from the African Elephant Database; Occasional Paper Series of the IUCN Species Survival Commissions; No. 60 IUCN/SSC Africa Elephant Specialist Group; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Stephenson, P.J. WWF Species Action Plan: African Elephant, 2007–2011; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Wasser, S.K.; Clark, B.; Laurie, C. The ivory trail. Sci. Am. 2009, 301, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breuer, T.; Maisels, F.; Fishlock, V. The consequences of poaching and anthropogenic change for forest elephants. Conserv. Biolog. 2016, 30, 1019–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillingham, S.; Lee, P.C. People and protected areas: A study of local perceptions of wildlife crop-damage conflict in an area bordering the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oryx 2003, 37, 316–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vedeld, P.; Jumane, A.; Wapalila, G.; Songorwa, A. Protected areas, poverty and conflicts A livelihood case study of Mikumi National Park, Tanzania. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 21, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alper, P. Integrated conservation and development project. BioSciences 1996, 46, 845–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Newmark, W.D.; Hough, J.L. Conserving wildlife in Africa: Integrated conservation and development projects and beyond. BioSciences 2000, 50, 585–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, Secretariat. Elephant Conservation, Illegal Killing and Ivory Trade. Conservation on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; SC65 DOC. 42.1; 2014; Available online: https://cites.org/eng/com/sc/65/inf/index.php (accessed on 12 July 2018).
- Gray, T.N.E.; Gaunlett, S. Scale up elephant anti-poaching funds. Nature 2017, 541, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brockington, D.; Scholfield, K. The conservationist mode of production and conservation NGOs in sub-Saharan Africa. Antipode 2010, 42, 551–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, E.M.; Bhammar, H.M.; Gonzalez Velosa, A.M.; Sobrevila, C. Analysis of International Funding to Tackle Illegal Wildlife Trade (English); World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/695451479221164739/Analysis-of-international-funding-to-tackle-illegal-wildlife-trade (accessed on 15 June 2018).
- State Forestry Administration (SFA), China Offers Fund to Botswana, Africa Wildlife Protection. 2015. Available online: http://english.forestry.gov.cn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=744:china-offers-fund-to-botswana-africa-wildlife-protection&catid=32:convention-and-implementation&Itemid=129 (accessed on 15 July 2018).
- Elephant Protection Imitative (EPI), Stop Talking. Please Stop Talking. It Is Now Time for Action. 2018. Available online: https://www.elephantprotectioninitiative.org/consultativegroupmeeting (accessed on 23 December 2018).
- de Greef, K.; Specia, M. Botswana Ends Ban on Elephant Hunting; The New York Times. 2019. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/world/africa/botswana-elephant-hunting.html (accessed on 17 July 2019).
- Matthew, J.W.; Nigel, L.W. Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2002, 11, 543–547. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, X.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, W.; Jin, Y.; Wang, Z.; Chai, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Cui, X.; MacMillan, D.C. Elephant poaching and the ivory trade: The impact of demand reduction and enforcement efforts by China from 2005–2017. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, Y. Ecological labeling and wildlife conservation: Citizen’s perceptions of the elephant ivory-labeling system in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 702, 134709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Yin, F. Wildlife consumption and conservation awareness in China: A long way to go. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 2371–2381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Gong, Y.; Mao, X. Exploring the value of overseas biodiversity to Chinese netizens based on willingness to pay for the African elephants’ protection. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 637–638, 600–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McFadden, D. Conditional analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics; Zambreka, P., Ed.; Academic, Elsevier Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 1973; pp. 105–142. [Google Scholar]
- Bartkowski, B.; Lienhoop, N.; Hansjurgens, B. Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic studies of biological diversity. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 113, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pascual, U.; Muradian, R.; Brander, L.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Martin-Lopez, B.; Verma, M. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundation; Kumar, P., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2010; pp. 183–256. [Google Scholar]
- Bakhtiari, F.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Thorsen, B.J.; Lundhede, T.H.; Strange, N.; Boman, M. Valuation of biodiversity protection across borders: Limits to the public good? Ecol. Econ. 2018, 147, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dallimer, M.; Strange, N. Why socio-political boarders and boundaries matter in conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 11, 221–233. [Google Scholar]
- Vogdrup-Schmidt, M.; Strange, N.; Thorsen, B.J. Support for transnational conservation in a gain-loss context. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 162, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamowicz, W.; Boxall, P.; Williams, M.; Louviere, J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 80, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horne, P.; Boxall, P.C.; Adamowicz, V. Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: A spatially explicit choice experiment. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 207, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paltriguera, L.; Ferrini, S.; Luisetti, T.; Tuner, R.K. An analysis of post-designation management aimed at maximising recreational benefits in coastal Marine Protected Areas. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 148, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.E.; Preez, M.D. Determining visitor preferences for rhinoceros conservation management at private, ecotourism game reserves in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: A choice modeling experiment. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 130, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyos, D. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1595–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X.; Ma, J.; Zhang, W. Economic evaluation of Amur tiger conservation in China: A case study of residents’ willingness to pay in Harbin. J. Northeast For. Univ. 2007, 5, 81–83. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; pp. 83–96. [Google Scholar]
- Hensher, D.; Rose, J.M.; Greene, W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 189–319. [Google Scholar]
- Champ, P.A.; Boyle, K.J.; Brown, T.C. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, 2nd ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, Germany, 2017; p. 150. [Google Scholar]
- Bennett, J.; Adamowicz, W. Some fundamentals of environmental choice modelling. In The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation; Bennett, J., Blamey, R.K., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Carlsson, F.; Martinsson, P. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2001, 41, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seip, K.; Strand, J. Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1992, 2, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Layton, D.F. A market solution for preserving biodiversity: The black rhino. In Protecting Endangered Species in the United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices; Shogren, J., Tschirhart, T., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Carson, R.T.; Flores, N.E. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Econ. 1996, 72, 80–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Bai, H.; Zhang, Q.; Jing, Q.; Xu, H. Why are obsolete mobile phone difficult to recycle in China? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 141, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- China Internet Network Information Center. The 29th Statistical Report on Chinese Internet Network Development. 2012. Available online: http://www.cnnic.net.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/hlwtjbg/ (accessed on 24 November 2015).
- McFadden, D.; Train, K.E. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 2000, 15, 447–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, C.M. Policy Implication of Alternative Economic Approaches to Population Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Surveys. In Proceedings of the American Agricultural Economics Association Meeting, Montreal, QC, Canada, 27–30 July 2003; Agricultural and Applied Economics Association: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Layton, D. Random coefficient models for stated preference survey. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2000, 40, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, F.; Frykblom, P.; Liljenstolpe, C. Valuing wetland attributes: An application of choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 47, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguilar, F.X.; Cernusca, M.M.; Gold, M.A. Exploratory assessment of consumer preferences for chestnut attributes in Missouri. Hortic. Technol. 2009, 19, 206–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Veisten, K. Willingness to pay for ecolabeled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation. J. For. Econ. 2007, 13, 29–48. [Google Scholar]
- Mohebalian, P.M.; Aguilar, F.X.; Cernusca, M.M. Conjoint analysis of U.S. consumers’ preference for Elderberry jelly and juice products. Hortic. Sci. 2013, 48, 338–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ai, C.; Norton, E. Interaction terms in logit and probit model. Econ. Lett. 2003, 80, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. How to Conduct a Discrete Choice Experiment for Health Workforce Recruitment and Retention in Remote and Rural Areas: A User Guide with Case Studies; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Lusseau, D.; Lee, P.C. Can we sustainably harvest ivory? Curr. Biol. 2016, 26, 2951–2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Grady, M.J.; Harper, E.E.; Garlisle, K.M.; Ernst, K.H.; Shwiff, S.A. Assessing public support for restrictions on transport of invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in the United States. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 237, 488–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- China Daily. No Trade, No Killing of Elephants. 2016. Available online: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2016-03/23/content_24028968.htm (accessed on 12 July 2019).
- DeGeorges, P.A.; Reilly, B.K. The realities of community based natural resource management and biodiverisity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 2009, 1, 734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Poirier, R.; Ostengren, D. Evicting people from nature: Indigenous land rights and national parks in Australia, Russia, and the United States. Nat. Resour. J. 2002, 42, 331–351. [Google Scholar]
- Phoofolo, P. Epidemics and revolution: The rinderpest epidemic in late nineteenth century southern Africa. Past Present 1993, 138, 112–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, F. Why Africa’s National Parks Are Failing to Save Wildlife. Environment 360. 2010. Available online: https://e360.yale.edu/features/why_africas_national_parks_are_failing_to_save_wildlife (accessed on 11 November 2020).
- Wato, Y.A.; Heikonig, I.M.A.; van Wieren, S.E.; Wahungu, G.; Prins, H.H.T.; van Langevelde, F. Prolonged drought results in starvation of African elephant (Loxodonta africana). Biol. Conserv. 2017, 203, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Twyman, V. Participatory conservation? Community based natural resource management in Botswana. Geogr. J. 2000, 166, 323–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoare, R.E.; du Toit, J.T. Coexistence between people and elephants in African savannas. Conserv. Biol. 1999, 13, 633–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attribute | Level | Description of Level |
---|---|---|
Donation | 0 (current) | Annual donation for the support of African elephant conservation |
RMB 50 (USD 7.27) | ||
RMB 100 (USD14.53) | ||
RMB 500 (USD 72.67) | ||
Habitat | Yes No (current) | Improvement of habitat quality |
Poaching | Yes No (current) | Anti-poaching |
Conflict | Yes No (current) | Alleviation of human–elephant conflict |
Illegal trade | Yes No (current) | Combating illegal ivory trade |
Question | Management Practice A | Management Practice B | Management Practice C | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Donation for support of African elephant conservation annually | RMB 50 | RMB 100 | 0 | |
Management strategy used | Improvement of habitat quality | Yes | No | No |
Anti-poaching | Yes | No | No | |
Alleviation of human–elephant conflicts | No | Yes | No | |
Combating the illegal ivory trade | No | Yes | No |
Characteristic | Survey Sample | China |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 46.45% | 51.17% a |
Female | 53.55% | 48.83% a |
Age | ||
Younger than 20 | 5.69% | 24.10% a |
Between 21 and 30 years old | 44.31% | 17.14% a |
Between 31 and 40 years old | 36.26% | 16.14% a |
Between 41 and 50 years old | 9.95% | 17.28% a |
Between 51 and 60 years old | 1.90% | 12.01% a |
Older than 60 | 1.90% | 13.32% a |
Education | ||
No School | 0 | 5.00% a |
Primary only | 0.47% | 28.75% a |
Middle school | 3.79% | 41.70% a |
High school | 23.93% | 15.02% a |
Bachelor’s degree | 60.19% | 14.10% a |
Master’s degree | 9.48% | 0.55% a |
Doctoral degree | 1.18% | 0.10% a |
Annual household income | ||
Less than RMB 30,000 (USD 4360) | 6.16% | 0.02% b |
Between RMB 30,001 (USD 4360) and RMB 80,000 (USD 11,628) | 16.11% | 36.98% b |
Between RMB 80,001 (USD 11,628) and RMB 150,000 (USD 21,802) | 27.96% | 34.00% b |
Between RMB 150,001 (USD 21,802) and RMB 300,000 (USD 43,604) | 37.68% | 15.64% b |
Between RMB 300,001 (USD 43,604) and RMB 1,000,000 (USD 145,348) | 10.66% | 10.71% b |
Greater than RMB 1,000,000 (USD 145,348) | 1.42% | 2.65% b |
Importance of environmental protection | ||
Extremely Important | 25.12% | N/A |
Model 1 (n = 10,128) | Model 2 (n = 10,128) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attributes | Coef. | Se. | Odds Ratio | Coef. | Se. | Odds Ratio |
Donation | −0.0011 *** | 0.0001 | 0.9989 | −0.0025 *** | 0.0005 | 0.9975 |
Habitat | 0.4120 *** | 0.0488 | 1.5099 | 0.4123 *** | 0.0487 | 1.5103 |
Poaching | 0.7358 *** | 0.0498 | 2.0872 | 0.7397 *** | 0.0500 | 2.0952 |
Conflict | 0.2729 *** | 0.0515 | 1.3138 | 0.2765 *** | 0.0517 | 1.3186 |
Illegal trade | 0.4081 *** | 0.0503 | 1.5039 | 0.4097 *** | 0.0503 | 1.5063 |
Variables interacted with social and economic factors | ||||||
Donation_age | −0.0007 | 0.0007 | 0.9993 | |||
Donation_gender | −0.0003 | 0.0002 | 0.9997 | |||
Donation_income | 0.0003 *** | 0.0001 | 1.0003 | |||
Donation_attitude | 0.0007 *** | 0.0003 | 1.0007 | |||
Donation_Beijing | 0.0008 *** | 0.0003 | 1.0008 | |||
Donation_Fuzhou | 0.0007 *** | 0.0004 | 1.0007 | |||
Donation_Shangai | 0.0002 | 0.0003 | 1.0002 | |||
Derived standard derivation of parameter distribution | ||||||
Habitat | 0.4981 *** | 0.0730 | N/A | 0.4928 *** | 0.0737 | N/A |
Poaching | 0.5076 *** | 0.0690 | N/A | 0.5131 *** | 0.0691 | N/A |
Conflict | 0.5801 *** | 0.0700 | N/A | 0.5826 *** | 0.0701 | N/A |
Illegal trade | 0.5542 *** | 0.0699 | N/A | 0.5543 *** | 0.0702 | N/A |
Model Characteristics | ||||||
Log-likelihood | −3230.11 | −3220.62 | ||||
Pseudo-R2 | 0.117 | 0.128 |
Attributes | Model 1 † |
---|---|
Habitat | RMB 359.07 (251.65,466.49) |
Poaching | RMB 641.25 (496.72,785.78) |
Conflict | RMB 237.85 (141.53,334.18) |
Illegal trade | RMB 355.63 (247.30,463,95) |
Attribute Change | Model 1 † | Model 2 † |
---|---|---|
Donation increase | ||
RMB 0 to 500 | −27.93% (−33.57%, −22.28%) | −57.41% (−73.09%, −41.73%) |
RMB 0 to 100 | −5.73% (−6.95%, −4.51%) | −12.99% (−17.59%, −8.40%) |
RMB 0 to 50 | −2.87% (−3.48%, −2.25%) | −6.52% (−8.85%, −4.19%) |
Conservation strategy | ||
Habitat Improvement | 20.31% (15.73%, 24.89%) | 20.33% (15.75%, 24.91%) |
Combating poaching | 35.22% (30.94%, 39.49%) | 35.39% (31.11%, 39.68%) |
Alleviating conflicts | 13.56% (8.61%, 18.51%) | 13.74% (8.78%, 18.71%) |
Combating illegal trade | 20.13% (15.39%, 24.85%) | 20.20% (15.47%, 24.94%) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, S.; Cai, Z.; Hu, Y.; Cirella, G.T.; Xie, Y. Chinese Resident Preferences for African Elephant Conservation: Choice Experiment. Diversity 2020, 12, 453. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12120453
Wang S, Cai Z, Hu Y, Cirella GT, Xie Y. Chinese Resident Preferences for African Elephant Conservation: Choice Experiment. Diversity. 2020; 12(12):453. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12120453
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Shuokai, Zhen Cai, Yuxuan Hu, Giuseppe T. Cirella, and Yi Xie. 2020. "Chinese Resident Preferences for African Elephant Conservation: Choice Experiment" Diversity 12, no. 12: 453. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12120453