- -

Evaluando las condiciones de racionalidad y plausibilidad en la valoración de conservar la biodiversidad de un país megabiodiverso. El caso del Manu en Perú

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Evaluando las condiciones de racionalidad y plausibilidad en la valoración de conservar la biodiversidad de un país megabiodiverso. El caso del Manu en Perú

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre: DavilaVasquez-Lav ...
Tamaño: 737.5Kb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión editorial
Abrir
dc.contributor.author Dávila, José es_ES
dc.contributor.author Vásquez-Lavín, Felipe es_ES
dc.contributor.author Orihuela, Carlos Enrique es_ES
dc.contributor.author Ponce Oliva, Roberto D. es_ES
dc.contributor.author Lavado-Solis, Karol es_ES
dc.contributor.author Paredes-Vilca, Oscar es_ES
dc.contributor.author Mogollón Ñañez, Raymundo es_ES
dc.contributor.author Díaz, Sabrina es_ES
dc.coverage.spatial east=-70.3625; north=-12.9076075; name=3JRQ+X2 Chaspi, Perú
dc.date.accessioned 2023-07-11T12:39:57Z
dc.date.available 2023-07-11T12:39:57Z
dc.date.issued 2023-06-26
dc.identifier.issn 1578-0732
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/194821
dc.description.abstract [EN]  According to NOAA, the results of an economic valuation are applicable as public policy if they fulfill two conditions: rationality and plausibility. In this study, we carried out the valuation of biodiversity conservation in Manu National Park in Peru (a megabiodiverse country), based on three representations: species, habitat and functionality. We identify sensitivity to scope in most of the attributes used. When we add socioeconomic characteristics, we identify that gender and salary levels affect preferences. Our total analysis shows that number of threatened plant species and functionality better fulfill both conditions. es_ES
dc.description.abstract [ES] Según la NOAA, los resultados de una valoración económica son aplicables como política pública si cumplen dos condiciones: racionalidad y plausibilidad. En el presente estudio, se realiza la valoración económica de conservar la biodiversidad del Parque Nacional del Manu en Perú (país megabiodiverso), a partir de tres representaciones: especies, hábitat y funcionalidad. Se identificó la presencia de sensibilidad al alcance en la mayor parte de atributos empleados. Al incluir características socioeconómicas se identificó que el género y los niveles salariales afectan las preferencias. Los resultados muestran que las especies de flora amenazada y la funcionalidad cumplen con ambas condiciones. es_ES
dc.language Español es_ES
dc.publisher Universitat Politècnica de València es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales - Agricultural and Resource Economics es_ES
dc.rights Reconocimiento - No comercial - Sin obra derivada (by-nc-nd) es_ES
dc.subject Biodiversity conservation es_ES
dc.subject Choice experiment es_ES
dc.subject Functionality es_ES
dc.subject Sensitivity to scope es_ES
dc.subject Plausibility es_ES
dc.subject Funcionalidad es_ES
dc.subject Sensibilidad al alcance es_ES
dc.subject Conservación de biodiversidad es_ES
dc.subject Experimento de elección es_ES
dc.subject Plausibilidad es_ES
dc.title Evaluando las condiciones de racionalidad y plausibilidad en la valoración de conservar la biodiversidad de un país megabiodiverso. El caso del Manu en Perú es_ES
dc.title.alternative Assessing the conditions of Rationality and Plausibility in the valuation of biodiversity conservation in a mega-biodiverse country. The case of Manu in Perú es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.7201/earn.2023.01.02
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation Dávila, J.; Vásquez-Lavín, F.; Orihuela, CE.; Ponce Oliva, RD.; Lavado-Solis, K.; Paredes-Vilca, O.; Mogollón Ñañez, R.... (2023). Evaluando las condiciones de racionalidad y plausibilidad en la valoración de conservar la biodiversidad de un país megabiodiverso. El caso del Manu en Perú. Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales - Agricultural and Resource Economics. 23(1):35-54. https://doi.org/10.7201/earn.2023.01.02 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod OJS es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion https://doi.org/10.7201/earn.2023.01.02 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 35 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 54 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.volume 23 es_ES
dc.description.issue 1 es_ES
dc.identifier.eissn 2174-7350
dc.relation.pasarela OJS\17014 es_ES
dc.contributor.funder Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico, Tecnológico y de Innovación Tecnológica, Perú es_ES
dc.contributor.funder Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Perú es_ES
dc.description.references Adams, C., Seroa Da Motta, R., Ortiz, R.A., Reid, J., Ebersbach Aznar, C. & de Almeida Sinisgalli, P. A. (2008). "The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: Economic valuation of Morro do Diabo State Park, Atlantic Rainforest, São Paulo State (Brazil)". Ecological Economics, 66(2-3), 359-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.008 es_ES
dc.description.references Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R. & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, January 11, 1993. Obtenido de: https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4473366/mod_folder/intro/Arow_WTP.pdf es_ES
dc.description.references Bakhtiari, F., Jacobsen, J.B., Thorsen, B.J., Lundhede, T.H., Strange, N. & Boman, M. (2018). "Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders". Ecological Economics, 147, 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.019 es_ES
dc.description.references Bakhtiari, F., Lundhede, T.H., Gibbons, J., Strange, N. & Jacobsen, J.B. (2014). "Testing embedding or reversed embedding effects in valuation of forest biodiversity". Comunicación presentada al 5th World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Estambul. es_ES
dc.description.references Bartkowski, B., Lienhoop, N. & Hansjürgens, B. (2015). "Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity". Ecological Economics, 113, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.023 es_ES
dc.description.references Bartkowski, B. (2019). Economic Valuation of Biodiversity: An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Perspective. London and New York: Routledge. es_ES
dc.description.references Beaudet, C., Tardieu, L. & David, M. (2022). "Are citizens willing to accept changes in public lighting for biodiversity conservation?" Ecological Economics, 200, 107527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107527 es_ES
dc.description.references Becker, G.S. & Murphy, K.M. (1993). "A Simple Theory of Advertising as a Good or Bad". The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(4), 941-964. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118455 es_ES
dc.description.references Bhat, M.Y., Bhatt, M.S. & Sofi, A.A. (2020). "Valuing biodiversity attributes: A choice experiment design". Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 192, 499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08420-0 es_ES
dc.description.references Borzykowski, N., Baranzini, A. & Maradan, D. (2018). "Scope Effects in Contingent Valuation: Does the Assumed Statistical Distribution of WTP Matter?" Ecological Economics, 144, 319-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.005 es_ES
dc.description.references Boyle, K.J., Bishop, R.C., Welsh, M.P. & Ahearn, M.C. (1998). Test of Scope in Contingent-Valuation Studies: Are the Numbers for the Birds. Obtenido de: https://www.academia.edu/22396027/Test_of_Scope_in_Contingent_Valuation_Studies_Are_the_Numbers_for_the_Birds es_ES
dc.description.references Boyle, K.J., Desvousges, W.H., Johnson, F., Dunford, R.W. & Hudson, S.P. (1994). "An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(1), 64-83. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1026 es_ES
dc.description.references Burrows, J., Newman, R., Genser, J. & Plewes, J. (2017). "Do contingent valuation estimates of willingness to pay for non-use environmental goods pass the scope test with adequacy? A review of the evidence from empirical studies in the literature". En: McFadden, D. & Train, K. (ed.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods (pp. 82-152). Cheltenham, Reino Unido: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786434692.00011 es_ES
dc.description.references Carson, R.T. & Mitchell, R.C. (1995). "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28(2), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1995.1011 es_ES
dc.description.references CBD (2016). Like-minded mega-diverse countries carta to achieve Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. Obtenido de: Convention on Biological Diversity: https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-13/information/cop-13-inf-45-en.pdf es_ES
dc.description.references Constanza, R., D'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B, Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & Van Den Belt, M. (1997). "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital". Nature Search Journal, 387, 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 es_ES
dc.description.references Cummings, R. & Taylor, L. (1999). "Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method". American Economic Review, 89(3), 649-665. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.649 es_ES
dc.description.references Czajkowski, M. & Hanley, N. (2009). "Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods". Environmental and Resource Economics, 44, 521-535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9299-z es_ES
dc.description.references Granado-Díaz, R., Villanueva, A.J., Gómez-Limón, J.A. & Rodríguez-Entrena, M. (2018). "Análisis de la heterogeneidad de la demanda de bienes públicos procedentes del olivar de montaña en Andalucía". ITEA. Información Técnica Económica Agraria, 114(2): 158-182. https://doi.org/10.12706/itea.2018.011 es_ES
dc.description.references Granado-Díaz, R., Gómez-Limón, J.A., Villanueva, A.J. & Rodríguez-Entrena, M. (2020). "Spatial analysis of demand for sparsely-located ecosystem services using alternative index approaches". European Review of Agricultural Economics, 47(2), 752-784. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz036 es_ES
dc.description.references Ferrini, S. & Turner, K. (2018). "McFadden, Daniel and Train, Kenneth: Contingent valuation of environmental goods-a comprehensive critique". Journal of Economics, 125, 205-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-018-0606-4 es_ES
dc.description.references Hanemann, W.M. (2001). "The Economic Theory of WTP and WTA". En Bateman, I. J & Willis, K. G. (Eds.) Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries (pp. 42-96). New York, USA: Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199248915.003.0003 es_ES
dc.description.references Hausman, J. & McFadden, D. (1984). "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit". Econometrica, 52(5), 1219-1240. https://doi.org/10.2307/1910997 es_ES
dc.description.references Holmes, T.P. & Adamowicz, W.L. (2003). "Attribute-based methods". En Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J. & Brown, T.C. (eds.): A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (pp.171-219) New York, USA: Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0826-6_6 es_ES
dc.description.references Hynes, S., Chen, W., Vondolia, K., Armstrong, C. & O'Connor, E. (2021). "Valuing the ecosystem service benefits from kelp forest restoration: A choice experiment from Norway". Ecological Economics, 179, 106833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106833 es_ES
dc.description.references Jacobsen, J.B., Boiesen, H., Thorsen, B.J., & Strange, N. (2008). "What's in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus' Iconised' species when valuing biodiversity". Environmental and Resource Economics, 39, 247-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9107-6 es_ES
dc.description.references Jacobsen, J.B., Hedemark, T., Martinsen, L., Hasler, B. & Thorsen, B.J. (2011). "Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental preservation projects". Ecological Economics, 70(6), 1170-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.013 es_ES
dc.description.references Jordano, P. (2016). "Chasing Ecological Interactions". PLOS Biology. 14(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002559 es_ES
dc.description.references Jorgensen, B.S., Wilson, M.A. & Heberlein, T.A. (2001). "Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: Attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope". Ecological Economics,36(1), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00210-X es_ES
dc.description.references Kahneman, D. & Knetsch, J. (1992). "Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1), 57-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(92)90019-S es_ES
dc.description.references Kasting, J.F.& Schultz, P.A. (1996). "Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation a Statement of Principles". Science, 272 (5268), 1571-1572. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.272.5268.1571.c es_ES
dc.description.references Lancaster, K.J. (1966). "A new approach to consumer theory". Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157. https://doi.org/10.1086/259131 es_ES
dc.description.references Lew, D.K., Layton, D.F. & Rowe, R.D. (2010). "Valuing Enhancements to Endangered Species Protection under Alternative Baseline Futures: The Case of the Steller Sea Lion University of California". Marine Resource Economics, 25(2), 133-154. https://doi.org/10.5950/0738-1360-25.2.133 es_ES
dc.description.references Lew, D.K. & Wallmo, K. (2011). "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation". Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9394-1 es_ES
dc.description.references Loomis, J., Lockwood, M. & DeLacy, T. (1993). "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25(1), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1993.1025 es_ES
dc.description.references Louviere, J., Hensher, D.A., & Swait, J. (2000). Stated Choice Methods Analysis and Applications. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831 es_ES
dc.description.references Martin-Ortega, J., Mesa-Jurado, M. & Berbel, J. (2015). "Revisiting the impact of order effects on sensitivity to scope: A contingent valuation of a common-pool resource". Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3) 705-726. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12105 es_ES
dc.description.references McFadden, D. (1974). "Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour". En Zarembka, P. (ed.): Economic Theory and Mathematical Economics (pp. 105-142). New York, EEUU: Academic Press. es_ES
dc.description.references Morrison, G. (2000). Embedding and substitution in willingness to pay. Obtenido de: University of Nottingham: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/documents/discussion-papers/00-10.pdf es_ES
dc.description.references Morse-Jones, S., Bateman, I. J., Kontoleon, A., Ferrini, S., Burgess, N.D. & Turner, R.K. (2012). "Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects". Ecological Economics, 78, 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.002 es_ES
dc.description.references Musgrave, R.A. (1959). The theory of public finance. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill. es_ES
dc.description.references Mwebaze, P., Marris, G. C., Brown, M., MacLeod, A., Jones, G. & Budge, G. E. (2018). "Measuring public perception and preferences for ecosystem services: A case study of bee pollination in the UK". Land Use Policy, 71, 355-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.045 es_ES
dc.description.references Nijkamp, P., Vindigni, G. & Nunes, P. (2008). "Economic valuation of biodiversity: A comparative study". Ecological Economics, 67(2), 217-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.003 es_ES
dc.description.references Nunes, P.A.L.D. & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. (2001). "Economic valuation of biodiversity: Sense or nonsense?" Ecological Economics, 39(2), 203-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00233-6 es_ES
dc.description.references Ojea, E. & Loureiro, M.L. (2009). "Valuation of Wildlife: Revising some additional considerations for scope tests". Contemporary Economic Policy, 27(2), 236-250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2008.00129.x es_ES
dc.description.references Olar, M., Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., West, G.E., Lessard, F. & Cantin, G. (2007). Estimation of the Economic Benefits of Marine Mammal Recovery in the St. Lawrence Estuary. Obtenido de: Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Quebec Region. Policy and Economics Branch: https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/mpo-dfo/Fs124-2-2008-eng.pdf es_ES
dc.description.references Orihuela, C.E., Minaya, C.A., Mercado, W., Jiménez, L.A., Estrada, M. & Gómez, H.J. (2020). "Efecto distancia en la disposición a pagar por la conservación de la biodiversidad: el caso de un área protegida megadiversa". Economía Agraria y Recursos Naturales - Agricultural and Resource Economics, 20(1), 167-188. https://doi.org/10.7201/earn.2020.01.08 es_ES
dc.description.references Patterson, B., Stotz, D. & Solari, S. (2006). "Mammals and Birds of the Manu Biosphere Reserve, Peru". Fieldiana Zoology, 110, 1. https://doi.org/10.3158/0015-0754(2006)110[1:MABOTM]2.0.CO;2 es_ES
dc.description.references Pouta, E. (2005). "Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland". Forest Policy and Economics, 7(4), 539-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2003.09.002 es_ES
dc.description.references Remoundou, K., Diaz-Simal, P., Koundouri, P. & Rulleau, B. (2015). "Valuing climate change mitigation: A choice experiment on a coastal and marine ecosystem". Ecosystem Services, 11, 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.003 es_ES
dc.description.references Ressurreição, A., Gibbons, J., Dentinho, T., Kaiser, M., Santos, R. & Edwards-Jones, G. (2011). "Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea". Ecological Economics, 70(4), 729-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.11.009 es_ES
dc.description.references Ring, I., Hansjürgens, B., Elmqvist, T., Wittmer, H. & Sukhdev, P. (2010). "Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: The TEEB initiative". Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1-2), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.005 es_ES
dc.description.references Rolfe, J. & Windle, J. (2012). "Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National Values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia". Environmental and Resource Economics, 53, 347-365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9565-3 es_ES
dc.description.references Rollins, K. & Lyke, A. (1998). "The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36(3), 324-344. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1045 es_ES
dc.description.references Rudd, M.A. (2009). "National values for regional aquatic species at risk in Canada". Inter-Research Science Publisher, 6(3), 239-249. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00160 es_ES
dc.description.references Samuelson, P.A. (1954). "The pure theory of public expenditure". The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387-389. https://doi.org/10.2307/1925895 es_ES
dc.description.references Samuelson, P.A. (1955). "Diagrammatic exposition of a theory of public expenditure". The Review of Economics and Statistics, 37(4), 350-356. https://doi.org/10.2307/1925849 es_ES
dc.description.references SERNANP, (2014). Plan Maestro del Parque Nacional del Manu. Diagnóstico 2013-2018. Obtenido de: Servicio Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas: https://global.wcs.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?EntryId=27461&PortalId=94&DownloadMethod=attachment es_ES
dc.description.references Spencer-Cotton, A., Kragt, M.E. & Burton, M. (2018). "Spatial and Scope Effects: Valuations of Coastal Management Practices". Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69(3), 833-851. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12301 es_ES
dc.description.references Szabó, Z. (2011). "Reducing protest responses by deliberative monetary valuation: Improving the validity of biodiversity valuation". Ecological Economics, 72, 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.025 es_ES
dc.description.references Talebi, Y., Najafi, H., Esmaili, R., Asadi, M., Mosavi, S. & Vakilpoor, M. (2022). "Estimation of the monetary value of biodiversity in the Central Alborz Protected Area". Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(13), 19553-19562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17147-5 es_ES
dc.description.references Train, K. (2009). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press. es_ES
dc.description.references Vedogbeton, H. & Johnston, R. (2020). "Commodity Consistent Meta-Analysis of Wetland Values: An Illustration for Coastal Marsh Habitat". Environmental and Resource Economics, 75, 835-865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00409-0 es_ES
dc.description.references Villanueva, A.J., Granado-Díaz, R. & Gómez-Limón, J.A. (2018). La producción de bienes públicos por parte de los sistemas agrarios. Córdoba, España: UCOpress, Editorial Universidad de Córdoba. es_ES
dc.description.references Wallmo, K. & Lew, D.K. (2016). "A comparison of regional and national values for recovering threatened and endangered marine species in the United States". Journal of Environmental Management, 179, 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.04.053 es_ES
dc.description.references Wheeler, S. & Damania, R. (2001). "Valuing New Zealand recreational fishing and an assessment of the validity of the contingent valuation estimates". Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 45(4), 599-621. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.00159 es_ES
dc.description.references Whitehead, J.C. (2016). "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation". Ecological Economics, 128, 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.011 es_ES


Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem