There is considerable interest in New Zealand in establishing “Customary Management Areas” (taiāpure and mātaitai) and Marine Reserves to support Māori cultural practices and restore declining biodiversity and fish stocks. Allocation of near-shore marine areas for these management systems potentially benefits the larger public, but it has often been vigorously opposed by recreational and commercial fishers. This paper reports estimates of the relative values held by the public toward four potentially conflicting uses of near-shore marine areas. These estimates come from a web-based choice survey completed by 1055 respondents recruited from throughout New Zealand. The response rate was especially high at 60%. We present results weighted to the characteristics of the population and test the results against a variety of well-known sources of survey bias. Scenario development suggests that some reallocation of near-shore marine areas to any of the management systems under discussion alternative to the status quo is likely to yield a welfare gain. A combination of marine reserves and taiāpure is most preferred. The exercise supports the use of discrete choice experiments to provide crucial information about difficult-to-quantify public values for aspects of management of near-shore marine areas, such as proposed taiāpure, mātaitai, or marine reserves.
References
[1]
Chhun, S.; Moller, H.; Thorsnes, P.; Kahui, V. Public and Ethnic Preferences for Ecosystem Attributes: Results from a Choice Experiment in Aotearoa New Zealand. In Proceedings of New Zealand Geographical Society Conference, Napier, New Zealand, 3–6 December 2012.
[2]
Chhun, S. Public Preferences for Near-Shore Marine Ecosystem Management in New Zealand. In Proceedings of CNREP(Challenges of Natural Resource Economics & Policy) 2013: 4th National Forum on Socio-economic Research in Coastal Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 24–26 March 2013; Centre for Natural Resource Economic and Policy, Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness, Louisian State University Agricultural Center: New Orleans, LA, USA, 2013.
[3]
Chhun, S. People, Profit and the Environment: Conflicting Goals and Values Surrounding Spatial Allocations of Near-Shore Marine Management in New Zealand (Chapter 3). In Valuation to Improve Spatial Management of Near-Shore Marine Areas in New Zealand; University of Otago: Dunedin, New Zealand, 2013. Unpublished Work.
[4]
Jacobson, C.; Moller, H. Two from the Same Cloth? Comparing the Operations and Outcomes of Mataitai and Taiapure for Delivering Sustainable Customary. A report prepared for He Kohinga Rangahau; University of Otago: Dunedin, New Zealand, 2009; p. 86.
[5]
Taiepa, T.; Lyver, P.; Horsley, P.; Davis, J.; Brag, M.; Moller, H. Co-management of New Zealand’s conservation estate by Maori and Pakeha: A review. Environ. Conserv. 1997, 24, 236–250, doi:10.1017/S0376892997000325.
[6]
Bess, R.; Rallapudi, R. Spatial conflicts in New Zealand fisheries: The rights of fishers and protection of the marine environment. Mar. Policy 2007, 31, 719–729, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2006.12.009.
[7]
Ackroyd, P.; Beattie, R.D. Akaroa Harbour Self-Management of Fisheries: A Discussion Paper for Akaroa Harbour User Groups; Sea-Right Investments Ltd.: Christchurch, New Zealand, 1998.
[8]
Freeman, A.M. Economic Valuation: What and Why. In A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation; Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., Brown, T.C., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 1–25.
[9]
The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers; TEEB: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. Available online: http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Local%20and%20Regional%20Policy%20Makers/D2%20Report/TEEB_Local_Policy-Makers_Report.pdf (accessed on 11 September 2013).
[10]
Biological Diversity Advisory Committee. Making Economic Valuation Work for Biodiversity Conservation; Department of the Environment and Heritage, Ed.; Land & Water Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2005.
[11]
Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of ecosystem services: Putting the issues in perspective. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 25, 67–72, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00019-6.
[12]
Loomis, J.; Kent, P.; Strange, L.; Fausch, K.; Covich, A. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 33, 103–117, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00131-7.
[13]
Adamowicz, V.; Bishop, R.C.; Boyle, K.J.; Brown, T.C.; Champ, P.A.; Dickie, M.; Flores, N.E.; Freeman, M.; Holmes, T.P.; Loomis, J.B.; et al. A Primer on Non-market Valuation; Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., Brown, T.C., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003.
[14]
Economic Valuation of the Environment: Methods and Case Studies; Garrod, G., Willis, K.G., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 1999.
[15]
Freeman, A.M. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
[16]
Brown, T.C. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Econ. 1984, 60, 231–246, doi:10.2307/3146184.
[17]
Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000.
[18]
Hanley, N.; Mourato, S.; Wright, R.E. Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation? J. Econ. Surv. 2001, 15, 435–462.
[19]
The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation; Bennett, J., Blamey, R., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2001.
[20]
Adamowicz, W.; Louviere, J.; Swait, J. Introduction to Attribute-based Stated Choice Methods. In Final Report to Resource Valuation Branch; Advanis Inc., Ed.; Damage Assessment Center, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), US Department of Commerce: Edmonton, Canada, 1998.
[21]
Lancaster, K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Pol. Econ. 1966, 74, 132–157.
[22]
Morrison, M.D.; Bennett, J.W.; Blamey, R.K. Valuing Improved Wetland Quality Using Choice Modelling; Research Report No. 6 April 1998; School of Economics and Management, The University of New South Wales: Canberra, Australia, 1998.
[23]
Rolfe, J.; Bennett, J.; Louviere, J. Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 35, 289–302, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00201-9.
[24]
Mallawaarachchi, T.; Blamey, R.K.; Morrison, M.D.; Johnson, A.K.L.; Bennett, J.W. Community values for environmental protection in a cane farming catchment in Northern Australia: A choice modelling study. J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 62, 301–316, doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0446.
[25]
Wang, X.; Bennett, J.; Xie, C.; Zhang, Z.; Liang, D. Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the conversion of cropland to forest and grassland program: A choice modeling approach. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 114–125, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.001.
[26]
Mansfield, C.; Phaneuf, D.J.; Johnson, F.R.; Yang, J.-C.; Beach, R. Preferences for public lands management under competing uses: The case of Yellowstone National Park. Land Econ. 2008, 84, 282–305.
[27]
McVittie, A.; Moran, D. Valuing the non-use benefits of marine conservation zones: An application to the UK Marine Bill. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 70, 413–424, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.013.
[28]
Zander, K.K.; Garnett, S.T.; Straton, A. Trade-offs between development, culture and conservation—Willingness to pay for tropical river management among urban Australians. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 2519–2528, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.07.012.
[29]
Boxall, P.C.; Adamowicz, W.L.; Swait, J.; Williams, M.; Louviere, J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18, 243–253, doi:10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0.
[30]
Adamowicz, W.; Boxall, P.; Williams, M.; Louviere, J. Stated preference approaches for measuringpassive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 1998, 80, 64–75, doi:10.2307/3180269.
[31]
Chhun, S. Dollar Values of Retaining Social-Ecological Near-Shore Marine Systems in New Zealand. In Valuation to Improve Spatial Management of Near-Shore Marine Areas in New Zealand; University of Otago: Dunedin, New Zealand, 2013. Chapter 5, Unpublished Work.
[32]
McCarthy, A.; Hepburn, C.; Scott, N.; Schweikert, K.; Turner, R.; Moller, H. Local people see and care most? Severe depletion of inshore fisheries and its consequences for Māori communities in New Zealand. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2013, doi:10.1002/aqc.2378.
[33]
Dick, J.; Stephenson, J.; Kirikiri, R.; Moller, H.; Turner, R. Listening to the Kaitiaki: Consequences of the loss of abundance and biodiversity of coastal ecosystems in Aotearoa New Zealand. MAI J. 2012, 1, 117–130.
[34]
2011.
[35]
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 3rd ed.; Boardman, A.E., Greenberg, D.H., Vining, A.R., Weimer, D.L., Eds.; Pearson Education, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006.
[36]
Hansen, P.; Ombler, F. A new method for scoring additive multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives. J. Multi Crit. Decis. Anal. 2009, 15, 87–107, doi:10.1002/mcda.428.
[37]
Smile City, What is Smile City? Available online: http://www.smilecity.co.nz/tour/ (accessed on 11 September 2013).
[38]
Kao, E.; Dam, Y. Panel Profile; Smile City: Auckland, New Zealand, 2011.
[39]
Glazer, J.; Kao, E. ESOMAR: 27 Questions; Smile City: Auckland, New Zealand, 2010.
[40]
39Statistics New Zealan Celebrating the International Year of Statistics 2013. Available online: http://www.stats.govt.nz (accessed on 4 September 2013).
[41]
Statistics for Management and Economics, 7th ed.; Keller, G., Ed.; Thomson South-Western: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005.
[42]
Sullivan, T. Priority-Setting in A Publicly-Funded Health System; Department of Economics, University of Otago: Dunedin, New Zealand, 2012.
[43]
Mitchell, R.C.; Carson, R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods; Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 1989.
[44]
Zander, K.K.; Straton, A. An economic assessment of the value of tropical river ecosystem services: Heterogeneous preferences among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2417–2426, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.010.
[45]
Birol, E.; Karousakis, K.; Koundouri, P. Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 145–156, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.002.
[46]
Wielgus, J.; Gerber, L.R.; Sala, E.; Bennett, J. Including risk in stated-preference economic valuations: Experiments on choices for marine recreation. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 3401–3409, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.05.010.
[47]
Gillespie, R.; Bennett, J. Non-Use Economic Values of Marine Protected Areas in the South-West Marine Area; Research Report No. 103; Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University: Canberra, Australia, 2011.
[48]
New Zealand’s National Aquatic Biodiversity Information System (NABIS) Home Page. Available online: http://www.nabis.govt.nz/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 23 May 2013).
[49]
Payne, R. A Guide to Regression, Nonlinear and Generalized Linear Models in GenStat？; VSN International: Hertfordshire, UK, 2012. Available online: http://www.vsni.co.uk/downloads/ genstat/release15/doc/RegressGuide.pdf (accessed on 11 September 2013).
[50]
Phipps, H.; Akins, A.; Moller, H.; Lyver, P.; Kahui, V.; Towns, D. Cross-Cultural Values for Restoring Coastal Forest Ecosystems in New Zealand; Landcare Research: Christchurch, New Zealand, 2011.
[51]
Phipps, H.; Akins, A.; Moller, H.; Kahui, V.; Towns, D. Cross-cultural restoration in New Zealand requires a pluralistic approach. Human Ecol. 2013. submitted.
[52]
Carson, R. Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope. Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 127–163. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5364-5_6 (accessed on 11 September 2013).
[53]
Spash, C.L. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: Rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Econ. 2006, 82, 602–622.
[54]
Spash, C.L.; Urama, K.; Burton, R.; Kenyon, W.; Shannon, P.; Hill, G. Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 955–964, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.013.
Hanley, N.; Spash, C.; Walker, L. Problems in valuing the benefits of biodiversity protection. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1995, 5, 249–272, doi:10.1007/BF00691519.
[57]
Ministry of Fisheries. Handout for Mataitai Reserves; Ministry of Fisheries: Wellington, New Zealand, 2010.
[58]
Batstone, C.J.; Sharp, B.M.H. New Zealand’s quota management system: The first ten years. Mar. Policy 1999, 23, 177–190, doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(98)00036-0.
[59]
Straker, G.; Kerr, S.; Hendy, J. A regulatory history of New Zealand’s quota management system: setting targets, defining and allocating quota. Case Studies on the Allocation of Transferable Quota Rights in Fisheries; Shotton, R., Ed.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2001.
[60]
Lock, K.; Leslie, S. New Zealand’s Quota Management System: A History of the First 20 Years. In Motu Economic and Public Policy Research; Motu and Ministry of Fisheries: Wellington, New Zealand, 2007.
[61]
Ministry of Fisheries. Taiapure Handout; Ministry of Fisheries: Wellington, New Zealand, 2010.
[62]
Petrolia, D.R.; Interis, M.G. America’s Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands. In Proceedings of CNREP(Challenges of Natural Resource Economics & Policy) 2013: 4th National Forum on Socio-Economic Research in Coastal Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 24–26 March 2013; Center for Natural Resource Economics and Policy, Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness, Louisian State University Agricultural Center: New Orleans, LA, USA, 2013.
[63]
Department of Conservation. Decision Made on Akaroa Marine Reserve: Media Releases (15th April 2013). Available online: http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/news/media-releases/decision-made-on-akaroa-marine-reserve/ (accessed on 6 August 2013).
