socioeconomic valuation of biodiversity of the gulf of gdansk - contingent valuation method - tomasz...

Socioeconomic valuation of biodiversity of the Gulf of Gdansk

- Contingent Valuation Method -

Tomasz Zarzycki & Ilona Kaminska

Socioeconomic valuation of biodiversity of the Gulf of Gdansk- Structure of presentation -

Materials and methods

– Questionnaire adjustment

– Database creation and data treatment

Preliminary results

– Population

– Attitudes towards biodiversity

– Ecological concern

– Willingness To Pay

Discussion

– Hypothesis and assumptions verification

– Implementation in DSS

Socioeconomic valuation of biodiversity of the Gulf of Gdansk- Questionnaire adjustments -

scenario 10% scenario 20%

invertebrates 88 invertebrates

fish 60 fish

───────── 4 sea mammals

macroalgae 16 macroalgae

birds (waterfowl) 125 birds (waterfowl)

marine biodiversity as a whole ────── marine biodiversity as a whole

Adjustments

– Difficult translation but doable

– Additional levels of education

– Photomontage of species

Scenario and attributes of biodiversity

– value of change - decrease of number of species 10 and 25%

INVERTEBRATES

SEA MAMMALS

MACROALGAE

Socioeconomic valuation of biodiversity of the Gulf of Gdansk- database creation and data treatment -

Database

– data were gathered in Excel format

– all protest bids were excluded from database

– data were exported to SPSS format

Data treatment

– SPSS software for presentation and statistical analysis was used

Socioeconomic valuation of biodiversity of the Gulf of Gdansk- population -

Residents Visitors

– Examined residents are were randomly chosen from the closest administrational districts (powiat), Pomorskie Voivodeship (wojewodztwo).

– From range of regions of Poland and other countries.

– According to statistics on tourism in Pomorskie Region, 10% of all visitors are foreign (12 persons).

– Number of respondents = 268 – Number of respondents = 250

– Scenario 25% - 135




After removal of ‘protest bids’ there is 351 answers left.

Are you a:

177 50,4 50,4 50,4

174 49,6 49,6 100,0

351 100,0 100,0

visitor

resident

total

validfrequency percent

validpercent

cumulativepercent

Socioeconomic valuation of biodiversity of the Gulf of Gdansk- preliminary results -

frequency percent valid percent

cumulative percent

valid female 187 53,3 53,3 53,3 male 164 46,7 46,7 100,0 total 351 100,0 100,0


Mean visit duration: 5,8 nightsMedian: 3 nightsDominant: 2 nightsMinimum stay: 1 nightMaximum stay: 30 nights

How many persons are traveling with you?

58,8

15,3 14,1

6,2 5,6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

alone one more pers. two more pers. three more pers. four more pers.

%


Impact on decision to visit this region

19,416,7

14,1 11,7 11,4 10,8 9,1 6,7

0

5

10

15

20

25

busines

s/work

aqua

tic a

ctiv

ities

weath

er c

onditio

ns

natur

al la

ndscap

e

visi

ting

fam

ily

hospita

lity/

gastro

nomy

mar

ine

biodiv

ersi

ty

peace

fuln

ess

Pe

rce

nt

of

an

sw

ers

Socioeconomic valuation of biodiversity of the Gulf of Gdansk- attitudes towards biodiversity -

7,1%

Socioeconomic valuation of biodiversity of the Gulf of Gdansk- attitudes towards biodiversity -

Socioeconomic valuation of biodiversity of the Gulf of Gdansk- Willingness To Pay -

WTP

98 27,9 27,9 27,9

253 72,1 72,1 100,0

351 100,0 100,0

no

yes

Ogółem

WażneCzęstość Procent

Procentważnych

Procentskumulowany

77,0%

23,0%67,2%

32,8%

0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

70,0%

80,0%

wtp no wtp yes

visitor

resident


Reasons for not WTP

Reasons for Willingness To Pay

8,92 10,46

24,0025,85

30,77

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

existence value bequest/unknownvalue

ecosystemservices for

human

future value direct use value

%



Statystyki opisowe

127 4,2524 4,85016 ,00 25,00

127 9,2122 6,42132 ,00 25,00

127 13,4509 12,80384 ,10 50,00

127 6,4551 5,35604 ,00 25,00

127 3,6083 3,08439 ,00 10,00

127 18,7957 19,77687 ,00 100,00

25%WTP invertebratesvis res EURO

25%WTP fish vis resEURO

25%WTP mamm visres EURO

25%WTP birds vis resEURO

25%WTP algae vis resEURO

25%WTP mar. biodiv.vis res EURO

N ŚredniaOdchylenie

standardowe Minimum Maksimum25%

Statystyki testua

127

320,581

5

,000

N

Chi-kwadrat

df

Istotność asymptotyczna

Test Friedmanaa.

Statystyki opisowe

126 6,4472 9,95110 ,00 100,00

126 11,1786 12,36276 1,00 100,00

126 9,6984 14,04081 ,00 100,00

126 5,9087 9,66905 ,00 100,00

126 23,3056 40,37331 ,00 400,00

10%WTP invertebratesvisitors and residentsEURO

10%WTP fish visitorsand residents EURO

10%WTP birds visitorsand residents EURO

10%WTP algae visitorsand residents EURO

10%WTP mar. biodiv.visitors and residentsEURO

N ŚredniaOdchylenie

standardowe Minimum Maksimum10%

Statystyki testua

126

256,319

4

,000

N

Chi-kwadrat

df

Istotność asymptotyczna

Test Friedmanaa.

Hypothesis 1- attributes -

• Society attach value to marine biodiversity.• Value is not the same for each attribute of biodiversity.• Willingness To Pay (WTP) varies between different groups of species

• Tool:

– H. Kruskal-Wallis test


25% invertebrates Vs. fish P=0,000 – statistical significance

25% invertebrates Vs. mammals P=0,000 – statistical significance

25% invertebrates Vs. algae P=0,000 – statistical significance

25% invertebrates Vs. birds P=0,000 – statistical significance

25% invertebrates Vs. mar. biodiv. P=0,008 – statistical significance

25% fish Vs. mammals P=0,000 – statistical significance

25% fish Vs. algae P=0,000 – statistical significance

25% fish Vs. birds P=0,000 – statistical significance

25% fish Vs. mar. biodiv. P=0,000 – statistical significance

25% algae Vs. mammals P=0,000 – statistical significance

25% algae Vs. birds P=0,000 – statistical significance

25% algae Vs. mar. biodiv. P=0,048 – statistical significance

25% birds Vs. mammals P=0,000 – statistical significance

25% birds Vs. mar. biodiv. P=0,000 – statistical significance

10% invertebrates Vs. fish P=0,000 – statistical significance

10% invertebrates Vs. algae P=0,000 – statistical significance

10% invertebrates Vs. birds P=0,000 – statistical significance

10% invertebrates Vs. mar. biodiv. P=0,000 – statistical significance

10% fish Vs. algae P=0,000 – statistical significance

10% fish Vs. birds P=0,000 – statistical significance

10% fish Vs. mar. biodiv. P=0,000 – statistical significance

10% algae Vs. birds P=0,000 – statistical significance

10% algae Vs. mar. biodiv. P=0,000 – statistical significance

• Society attach value to marine biodiversity. Value is not the same for each attribute of biodiversity. Willingness To Pay (WTP) varies between different groups of species

YES

• There are statistically significant differences between WTP for preservation of each examined components of biodiversity

Hypothesis 1 verification


Hypothesis 2- scenarios -

• Two scenarios were presented: avoiding 25% and 10% decrease of the number of species

a) Are the differences between WTP declarations (in case of 10 or 25% scenario) statistically significant?

b) If YES, what are the differences, what are the amounts?

• Tool for a):

– U. Mann -Whitney (SPSS)


invertebrates 10% Vs. 25% P=0,061 – no statistical significance

mammals 10% Vs. 25% P=0,100 – no statistical significance

algae 10% Vs. 25% P=0,297 – no statistical significance

birds 10% Vs. 25% P=0,123 – no statistical significance

marine biodiversity 10% Vs. 25% P=0,864 – no statistical significance

Statisticsa

6962,500 7079,000 7157,500 7435,000 7903,000

14963,500 15080,000 15158,500 15436,000 15904,000

-1,876 -1,645 -1,542 -1,043 -,171

,061 ,100 ,123 ,297 ,864

U Mann-Whitney

W Wilcoxon

Z

Significance asimptotic(double-tailed)

inverts fish birds algae marbio

Zmienna grupująca: Scenarioa.

Ranges

127 135,18 17167,50

126 118,76 14963,50

253

127 134,26 17051,00

126 119,68 15080,00

253

127 133,64 16972,50

126 120,31 15158,50

253

127 131,46 16695,00

126 122,51 15436,00

253

127 127,77 16227,00

126 126,22 15904,00

253

Scenario25%

10%

Ogółem

25%

10%

Ogółem

25%

10%

Ogółem

25%

10%

Ogółem

25%

10%

Ogółem

inverts

fish

birds

algae

marbio

N Average rangeSum ofranges


– Are the differences between WTP declarations (in case of 10 or 25% scenario) statistically significant?

NO

There are no statistically significant differences between WTP for avoiding 10 either 25% decrease of number of species.



Hypothesis 3- residents vs. visitors -

• Willingness To Pay (WTP) that is declared by respondents is different for residents and visitors.

It would be expected that residents would pay more for preservation of marine biodiversity in the area they live …

or

… visitors would pay more for preservation of biodiversity of the site they visiting and spending vacations.

• Tool:– U. Mann-Whitney test– According to the proof that there are no statistically significant

differences between 10% and 25% scenario, WTP data for both scenarios were analyzed.


Statistics (a)

invertebrate

s fish mammals birds algae mar bio

U Mann-Whitney

6980,000 6319,500 1173,500 6395,500 6535,500 7046,500

W Wilcoxon 16025,000 15364,500 3318,500 15440,500 15580,500 16091,500

Z -1,797 -2,955 -4,176 -2,888 -2,653 -1,624

Asymptotic significance

0,072 0,003 0,000 0,004 0,008 0,104

(a) Variable: Are you a:


• Willingness To Pay (WTP) that is declared by respondents is different for residents and visitors.

Not a rule for each attribute of biodiversity

YES for:fish

sea mammalsbirdsalgae

NO for:invertebrates

marine biodiversity



Socioeconomic valuation of biodiversity of the Gulf of Gdansk- Implementation in DSS -

???

Local decision makersFirst such study for marine biodiversity in Poland

Environmental education

European scale through the case studies comparable analysisBenefit transfer?

socioeconomic valuation of biodiversity of the gulf of gdansk - contingent valuation method - tomasz...

Documents