Valuing the diversity of biodiversity

By Michael Christie, N. Hanley, J. Warren, Kevin T. Murphy, Robert E. Wright, T. Hyde. 2006

413 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/681a44bdce531ff7d767d750faa2837f7c4f5061

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

What are shared and social values of ecosystems (2015, background): “Participatory and deliberative processes are appealing in that they provide participants of valuation studies with time to learn about the good under investigation, as well as time to reflect upon (and construct or potentiallymodify) their preferences (Christie et al., 2006;Macmillan et al., 2002; S”
Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects (2012, positive): “This follows recent findings that numeric information may lack the ‘evaluability’ of visual representations of the same data and that the latter are more suitable for presenting biodiversity to respondents (Bateman et al., 2009; Christie et al., 2006).”
Twenty thousand sterling under the sea : Estimating the value of protecting deep-sea biodiversity (2014, methodology): “Participants are able to learn during an 529 experiment (Christie et al., 2006) and to tell us about their newly developed preferences based on 530 deeper held moral values (Kenter et al., 2011).”
Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity (2015, background): “Both Wätzold et al. (2008) and Christie et al. (2006) applied deliberative methods in hope for learning effects and to overcome issues of unfamiliarity and complexity of the valued goods.”
Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay (2014, methodology): “Christie et al. (2006) used CE to examine a range of biodiversity policy attributes including familiarity of species, species rarity, habitat, and ecosystem processes.”
Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation? (2009, background): “For studies looking at wildlife and habitat conservation, the specific habitat or species being considered and whether it is known to the public is important (Christie et al. 2006).”
An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies (2012, background): “Scientific knowledge and education: The link between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human welfare is complex (Christie et al., 2006).”
How to value biodiversity in environmental management (2015, neutral): “Paulrud (2004), Parkkila (2005), Christie et al. (2006),”
Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments (2011, background): “Others have proposed the use of intensive valuation workshops (Christie et al. 2006).”
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations (TEEB D0). (2010, background): “The common metric in economics is monetary valuation and some critics say the reliance on this metric has plagued many ecosystem services assessments, failing to incorporate several types of value which are critical to understanding the relationship between society and nature (e.g. Norgaard et al. 1”
Estimating the cost of air pollution in South East Queensland: An application of the life satisfaction non-market valuation approach (2013, background): “…practitioner’s perspective, the life satisfaction approach avoids the problem of how to make the environmental issue understandable to the population of interest; a task that can be particularly difficult when valuing complex environmental goods such as biodiversity (cf. Christie et al., 2006).”
What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity (2008, background): “ Christie et al. (2006) find that people express higher WTP for specific ‘rare species’ compared to ‘common species’—even if both are unfamiliar.”