www.davidpannell.net
S
CHOOL OFA
GRICULTURAL &R
ESOURCEE
CONOMICSDo scientists and the public see
eye to eye?
Valuing the Kimberley’s tropical
waterways and wetlands
Acknowledgements
EERH (Environmental Economics Research Hub)
TRACK (Tropical Rivers & Coastal Knowledge
Research Hub)
Key points
Highly relevant to policy
Limited research
In the case of the
Kimberley’s waterways and
wetlands, preferences do
diverge
Comparing preferences of scientists and the
The issue
Historically, science & technology related policy
has been expert-based
Today, participatory claims are strong across
these policy arenas
Research on the topic
Studies have generally focused on differences in
perceptions
Previous efforts using CM to compare
public/scientist preferences for the environment
have not used the same elicitation method for
both populations, or have not asked the same
question of each group
Equivalent choice experiment
surveys administered to
scientist and public samples to estimate non-market
environmental values
An alternative approach
•
Requires considerable effort on survey design to:
(1) ensure scientist and public buy-in
(2) take into account potential differences in
understanding and cognitive processing
CERF Project
3 case studies
Specific
system
Broad scale
system
Urban &
agricultural
Further
research
Southwest
Australia
Ecoregion
Remote
Ningaloo
Marine
Park
Kimberley
Tropical
Waterways
Case study outline – Kimberley tropical
waterways
Institutional setting
Attribute definition
Survey and experimental design
Results:
Testing for preference homogeneity amongst samples
Institutional setting
Increasing political focus on Northern
Australia’s water resources
… whereby …
The Kimberley
Sustainable development will take
place by ‘
drawing on good science
’
and the ‘
knowledge of local
communities and stakeholders
’
Attribute definition
Knowledge base approach
Scientist knowledge
Activist knowledge
Indigenous knowledge
The mix of knowledge
bases sees a range of
attributes that could be
potentially included in CE
Attributes
Attributes Attribute Levels
Wild rivers Number of Priority 1 wild rivers 17 (base level) 26
35
Iconic places Percentage area of native vegetation in good condition at
iconic sites 80% (base level) 89% 98% Representative ecosystems
Number of bioregions with at least 10% protected by reserves 2 (base level) 3 4 Threatened species Split design
Split Attribute Levels Fish Upstream migration of Freshwater Sawfish in the
Fitzroy River during dry season
Restricted (base level) Unrestricted
Bird Number of Purple-crowned Fairy Wren populations protected by reserves
3 (base level) 6
9
Plant Number of Edgar Range Pandanus populations protected by reserves
0 (base level) 1
2
Split Attribute Levels Fish Upstream migration of Barramundi in the
Ord River during dry season
Restricted (base level) Unrestricted
Bird Chance of seeing Brolgas at wetland sites 70% (base level) 80%
90%
Plant Percentage of wetland margin covered by Blue Lily’s
20% (base level) 30%
40%
Survey design
Public
Bird species
attributes
Low
information
High
information
Plant species
attributes
Low
information
High
information
Fish species
attributes
Low
information
High
information
Scientist survey Fish species
attributes
High information
Information framework
Attribute Low Information High InformationDefinition Basic Detailed
Environmental significance Basic Detailed
Description of status quo Yes Yes
Explicit links between threats and abatement No Yes
Supporting diagrams No Yes
Photos
Choice set design
Payment vehicle:
Payment collected through increased taxes, user fees, goods and
services associated with the Kimberley
Levels: $0 (status quo only), $50, $100, $150
2 alternatives + status quo option
Experimental design
Experimental design:
Efficient designs generated by the Ngene software (Rose et al. 2008)
Public – 18 choice sets blocked in to 2 (9 sets per respondent)
Scientists – 15 choice sets
Two-way interactions in the design:
Representative ecosystems and the bird threatened species both used
reserves as a component of the attribute level
Representative ecosystems and the plant threatened species both used
reserves as a component of the attribute level
The fish threatened and iconic species both used migration ability as an
attribute level
Sample Statistics
Web-based
Public survey (November 2009)
West Australian public sample, collected by online research company
5% response rate
2,370 entered the survey
55% completion rate
1,302 completed the survey
Scientist survey (May-August 2010)
80 Australian tropical scientists invited to participate
43 responded
Public
Bird species
attributes
Low
information
High
information
Plant species
attributes
Low
information
High
information
Fish species
attributes
Low
information
High
information
Scientist survey Fish species attributes High information
Preference homogeneity across
samples
Partworths – fish models
***, **, * denotes significance at the 99%, 95% and 90% level of confidence respectively.
Attribute: Fish low info $ Fish high info $ Scientist $
Wild Rivers
26 pristine rivers 16* 20** 99***
35 pristine rivers 27** 40*** 168***
Iconic Place
89% vegetation in good condition 19** 36*** 46**
98% vegetation in good condition 44*** 40*** 19
Representative ecosystems
3 bioregions with >10% reserves 25*** 20** 41*
4 bioregions with >10% reserves 17* 18** 53**
Threatened species
Unrestricted sawfish migration 47*** 43*** 125***
Iconic species
Links between iconic places
and aesthetics
Attribute:
$’s:
Fish Public,
Low Information
Iconic Place 89% good veg. 98% good veg. Vegetation in good condition 19** 44***
If waterfalls were a feature of interest during visit to Kimberley
50*** 92***
Attribute:
$’s:
Fish Public,
High Information
Iconic Place 89% good veg. 98% good veg. Vegetation in good condition 36*** 40***
Membership of conservation
groups
Attribute:
$’s:
Fish Public,
High Information
Wild Rivers 26 rivers 35 rivers Pristine wild rivers 20** 40*** If belonged to an environmental/conservation group 65** 113***
Iconic species Unrestricted migration Barramundi migration 25***
If belonged to an environmental/conservation group 85***
Attribute:
$’s:
Fish Scientist
Representative ecosystems 3 bioregions 4 bioregions Bioregions with >10% protected by reserves 41* 53**
Conclusions
Preferences diverge
Public and scientist samples could not be combined
into one homogeneous model
Public WTP higher for iconic places and iconic
species
Scientist WTP higher for wild rivers, representative
ecosystems and threatened species
Implications
Where preferences are considered likely to
diverge, relying on scientific expert judgement
may not be adequate and public consultation
methods such as CM are an important
component to inform policy
Decision makers should be aware that scientists
have heterogeneous preferences when
interpreting their opinions
Integration
Comparing results from the three case studies:
SW Australia Ecoregion, Ningaloo Marine Park, Kimberley tropical
waterways & wetlands
Ningaloo results:
Evidence of preference divergence between public and scientists in
terms of opting for conservation programs
But: convergence of values for all of the attributes considered in the
study
Public knowledge and awareness factors are expected to have played a
role in this convergence
Further research
ARC linkage project
Swan River case study (the missing
quadrant)
with David Pannell, Michael Burton,
John Rolfe, Jessica Meeuwig
Will investigate how payment
vehicles may play a role in
preference formation for public and
scientists
For further information:
EERH Report No. 60
‘The Value of Tropical Waterways and Wetlands: does an increase in knowledge
change community preferences’
EERH Report No. 77
‘Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition: divergence between experts and the
public’
EERH Report No. 79
‘Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition: a knowledge base approach’
EERH Report No. 80
Comparing scientist and public preferences for conserving environmental systems: a
case of the Kimberley’s waterways and wetlands and the Southwest Australia
