Valuing Marine and Coastal ecosystem service benefits: Case study of St Vincent
and the Grenadines' proposed Marine Protected Areas.
Michael Christiea,b, Kyriaki Remoundoua, Ewa Siwickaa and Warwick Wainwrighta
a School of Management and Business, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Wales, UK,
SY233AL
b Corresponding author - email: [email protected], tel: 01970 622217
Abstract
This paper reports the results of a choice experiment (CE) that values the ecosystem service
benefits from extending the current network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in St Vincent
and the Grenadines (SVG), Caribbean. We considered two future options: an ‘improved’
scenario in which marine protection is increased, and a ‘decline’ scenario in which current
protection mechanisms are removed. The CE was administered at two sites (the degraded St
Vincent South Coast and the pristine Tobago Cays) and to tourists and local residents. Results
suggest that both groups value health protection, fishing, coastal protection, ecosystem
resilience, and diving / snorkelling. Values are higher for the ‘decline’ scenario compared to
the ‘improved’ scenario. Also, tourists had significantly higher WTP values than locals. Our
analysis also enabled an evaluation of the benefits derived from alternative policy
interventions that may be used to protect and enhance SVG’s marine parks. Stopping
pollution from agriculture run-off and sewage was found to generate the highest ecosystem
service benefits, with restricting over-fishing and bad fishing practices also being important.
We demonstrate economic valuation of marine ecosystem service might be used to design and
target marine conservation policies that maximise welfare benefits.
Keywords: marine and costal ecosystems, ecosystem services, choice experiment, Caribbean
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the Government of St Vincent and the
Grenadines for supporting this research.
1
1 Introduction: Marine and coastal ecosystems, ecosystem services and
valuation.
Marine and coastal ecosystems are one of the most productive, diverse and valuable
ecosystems on Earth (Souter and Linden, 2000; Spalding et al., 2001; Wilkinson,
2008; Wilkinson and Buddemeier, 1994). For example, coral reefs are thought to host
25% of the World’s fish species (Spalding et al., 2001). However, marine and coastal
ecosystems are currently being threatened worldwide from a wide range of
anthropocentric as well as non-anthropocentric pressures including unsustainable
fishing practices, the development of tourism and urban infrastructure, pollution from
land-based sources, ocean acidification and sea level rise (Allsopp et al., 2009;
Beharry-Borg and Scarpa, 2010; Butchart et al., 2010; Cinner et al., 2012; Secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010; van Beukering et al., 2007). This
has resulted in a significant loss and degradation of these important habitats (Butchart
et al., 2010; Jameson et al., 1995; Moberg and Folke, 1999) which in turn is likely to
negatively impact the welfare and livelihood of people living in coastal areas (MEA,
2005; van Beukering et al., 2007). Wilkinson (2004) estimates that 30 million people
in coastal and island communities are totally reliant on reef-based ecosystems for their
primary means of food production, income and livelihoods, while Cesar et al. (2003)
estimates that the global reef-based tourism and recreation market is worth US$9.6
billion per annum.
Marine and coastal ecosystems provide a wide array of services, which are of value to
human populations. Waite et al. (2014) classifies marine and coastal ecosystem
services into provisioning services (Food / fisheries, Raw materials, Medicinal
2
resources and Genetic resource), regulating services (Flood / storm / erosion
regulation, Climate regulation), cultural services (Tourism and recreation, History,
cultural and traditions, Science, knowledge and education) and supporting services
(Primary production, Nutrient cycling, Species / ecosystem protection). Increasingly,
however, it is being recognised that a key contributing factor to the loss and
degradation of ecosystems has been a failure of people to fully recognise, and account
for, the range of ‘ecosystem service’ benefits provided by those ecosystems (Costanza
et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; MA, 2005; Sachs et al., 2009; Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, 2000; TEEB, 2010). Understanding the values of biodiversity
and ecosystem services and embedding these values in decision-making is essential
for ensuring more equitable, cost effective and sustainable biodiversity conservation
policies (TEEB, 2011a, b). Further, demonstrating the economic and societal benefits
from marine conservation is important to (i) justify expenditures on marine
conservation programmes, and (ii) to provide evidence to help better target resources
to policy actions that maximise societal benefits (or minimise costs). The ecosystem
services approach to policy appraisal provides a mechanism to achieve such ambitions
(TEEB, 2011a, b; Waite et al., 2014).
Over the past decade, there has been a significant research effort to value the
ecosystem services provided by marine and coastal biodiversity (Schuhmann, 2012;
Schumann and Mahon, 2014; van Beukering et al., 2007; Waite et al., 2014), and
explore how these values may be embedded into decision making (TEEB, 2011a, b;
Waite et al., 2014). Most of these studies, however, tend to only address a handful of
ecosystem services with only a limited number of studies having attempted to value
the full range of provisioning, regulating and cultural services.
3
This paper contributes to the literature eliciting values for marine and coastal
ecosystem services by implementing a stated preference choice experiment that aims
to evaluate the benefits derived from protecting and enhancing a range of ecosystem
services delivered through two proposed Marine Protected Areas in St Vincent and
the Grenadines (SVG), Caribbean. The two case study sites are the proposed 2.5 Ha
South Coast marine park that is currently in a degraded condition due to human
pressures and the almost pristine 11.25 Ha Tobago Cays marine park. The evidence
collected in this study demonstrates that locals and tourists value different aspects of
SVG’s marine ecosystems, and we argue that these findings provide useful evidence
as to how MPA conservation policies might best be designed to maximise societal
benefits.
This paper is organised as follows. In the next section we provide some background to
the two case study marine parks in SVG. We then describe the choice experiment that
was used to value a bundle of ecosystem services provided by the two proposed parks.
The results from the CE are then reported. We conclude the paper with some policy
recommendation for the future management of SVG’s MPAs based on the findings of
the choice experiment.
4
2 Case study: Marine Protected Areas in St Vincent and the Grenadines
St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) comprise a series of islands located in the
Eastern Caribbean. The main island of St. Vincent is 345 km2, while the Grenadines
are 44 km2 and comprise a series of smaller islands including Bequia, Mustique,
Canouan, Mayreau, Union Island, Palm Island, Petit St. Vincent, and 28 uninhabited
islets including those of the Tobago Cays. The combined population of SVG is
approximately 109,400 people (World Bank, 2012).
St. Vincent has a mountainous landscape that includes 12,700 ha of tropical forests,
while the Grenadines comprises low dry islands. All of the SVG islands are
surrounded by extensive coral reefs and seagrass beds that are globally significant and
are host to several endemic species (NPRBA, 2009). However, these important
ecosystems are currently being threatened by a number of anthropocentric activities,
including:
Tourism Development - In response to the downturn in the banana industry, the
Government of St Vincent and the Grenadines (GoSVG) made a strategic decision
to fill the void created in the national economy by targeting growth of the tourism
sector. Direct incomes from tourism account for a large proportion of the GDP.
However, uncontrolled tourism development is likely to be a major cause of
ecosystem degradation through: (i) destruction of habitats for the development of
infrastructure; (ii) degradation of habitats from an increased quantity of waste
generated; (iii) damage to habitats as a result of recreational activities; and (iv)
transportation facilitating the introduction of invasive alien species.
Over-exploitation and Unsustainable Uses of Biodiversity - Over-fishing, over-
hunting, over-grazing and over-harvesting are major causes of biodiversity loss in
5
the island ecosystems. Overfishing, for instance, can cause significant declines in
fish populations of coral reefs and can have long-lasting negative effects on all
aspects of reef ecology. Furthermore, overharvesting significantly threatens queen
conchs, spiny lobsters and hawksbill among other species.
Pollution and Waste Disposal - Pollution from liquid (e.g. agrochemicals) and
solid waste / sewage, is causing degradation of rivers, subsurface and coastal
water quality, compromising island habitats and having adverse effects on
recreational activities.
Deforestation and Land Degradation – The loss of forests to agriculture (legal and
illegal) in watershed areas is leading to soil erosion and land degradation,
reducing the capacity of the land to provide nutrient cycling and to support
biodiversity. Siltation of rivers and coastal areas due to run-off also threaten
sensitive riverine and coastal ecosystems.
Human activities are clearly impacting SVG’s marine ecosystems, which in turn
undermine the capacity of these habitats to deliver ecosystem services that are
fundamental for people’s well-being and livelihoods. To tackle some of these issues,
as well as to meet its commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), the Government of SVG (GoSVG) has established a suite of protected areas.
These policies are set out in the GoSVG’s ‘SVG National Parks and Protected Areas
System Plan 2010 – 2014’ report (NPRBA, 2009). Currently, the GoSVG has
designated 35 protected area sites in SVG; of which there is one Marine Park, one
Marine Reserve and six Marine Conservation Areas (Table 1). Following
recommendations from Jackson (2004), the GoSVG now wish to consolidate and
6
upgrade SVG’s marine protected areas. The proposed new system would include five
Marine Parks, three Marine Reserves and three Marine Conservation Areas (Table 1).
Table 1: Current and proposed marine protected area designations in SVG.
Incr
easi
ng le
vels
of p
rote
ctio
n
Designation Current Protection Proposed Protection
MarineParks Tobago Cays
Tobago CaysSt Vincent South Coast
Chateaubelair Islet Marine ParkPetit Byahaut Marine ParkAnchor Reef Marine Park
MarineReserves Tobago Cays
CanouanIsle de Quatre
Mustique
MarineConservation
Areas
BequiaPetit St Vincent
Union Island / Palm IslandCanouan
Isle de QuatreMustique
BequiaPetit St Vincent
Union Island / Palm Island
To provide evidence to support these developments, the GoSVG commissioned this
study to assess the costs and benefits provided by with the proposed expansion of its
marine protected areas network. Specifically, this research will explore local people’s
and tourist’s preferences for a range of ecosystem services provided by the marine
and coastal ecosystems in SVG and the values they attached to the protection and
enhancement of their provision.
3 Research method
Quantifying the costs and benefits associated with changes in the provision of
ecosystem services requires researcher to first understand the complex ecological
linkages between biodiversity (the ecosystem) and ecosystem service provision, and
then perform a valuation study to examine how much people value the changes to
ecosystem service provision (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2008). Accordingly, in this
paper, we first conducted a series of stakeholder workshops to explore how MPA
policy in SVG may affect the capacity of marine ecosystems to deliver ecosystem
7
services. Once the linkages were established, preferences and values were elicited
through a choice experiment. Below, we detail on our research approach.
3.1 Stakeholder workshops: Linking policy interventions to changes in the
provision of ecosystem services.
A series of stakeholder workshops were conducted at the two case study sites in 2011
to collate information that would be used to inform the design of the choice
experiment survey instrument. Stakeholders participating in the workshops included
local policy makers, ecologists, ecosystem managers, fishermen, tourist businesses,
community based organisations, local residents and tourists. The workshops were
organised around a series of discussion topics that aimed to identify: the key
ecosystem service benefits derived from coastal ecosystems in SVG; the key threats to
these coastal ecosystems; the impact of these threats on the provision of ecosystem
services; and possible policy interventions to protect and enhance the delivery of
ecosystem services.
A key outcome of these workshops was a ‘Linkage table’, which quantifies the
strength of the linkage between alternative policy interventions and the provision of
ecosystem services (see Table 2). Policy interventions identified by the stakeholders
as being important for the protection and enhancement of marine ecosystem services
included: the elimination of marine pollution due to sewage discharge and runoff from
yachts, houses and hotels; the prevention of overfishing and bad fish practices; the
reduction of land-based pollution (mainly from agricultural activities) that contributes
to eutrophication and sedimentation; the prohibition of sand mining and coral
extraction; and the introduction of ‘No take zones’ that would ban fishing and
8
anchoring. Following the identification of policy interventions, the stakeholders were
then asked to consider the potential impact of these interventions on the delivery of
six ecosystem services. The services considered included: provisioning services
(fishing), regulation services (coastal protection; and water quality which was linked
to the risk of contracting a water-related disease), habitat services (species richness /
resilience) and cultural / recreational services (beach recreation; and diving /
snorkelling).
The resultant Linkage table is reported in Table 2. It is clear that there is a high degree
of variation in terms of the impacts of the alternative policy interventions on the
delivery of marine ecosystem services. For example, stopping overfishing was
considered to have a high impact on species diversity and diving / snorkelling; but
was not thought to impact water quality / human health. Similarly, stopping sand
mining and coral damage would have a high impact on coastal protection and beach
recreation, but have no impact on fishing, water quality / human health, or diving /
snorkelling. In our analysis, we use this Linkage table to help develop the policy
scenarios for the choice experiment, and to allocate the ecosystem service values
derived from the choice experiment to the alternative policy interventions. This, in
turn, will allow us to measure the economic value associated with each of the five
policy interventions listed in Table 2 in terms of how they impact the delivery of
marine ecosystem services.
9
Table 2: Links between policy interventions and the provision of ecosystem servicesPolicy interventions
Stop Sewage (yachts, houses
and hotels)
Stop Overfishing / bad fishing
practices
Stop Land Based Pollution (mainly agricultural, such
as pesticides, eutrophication and
sedimentation)
Stop sandmining / extraction of
coral
Introduce ‘No take zones’
that would ban fishing and anchoring
Eco
syst
em se
rvic
e im
pact
s
Provisioning:Fishing: increases in fish numbers, size
and desirable species
++ ++ ++ 0 +
Regulating:Coastal protection
Water quality / human health
+
++
+
0
+
++
+++
0
++
0
Habitat:Species diversity,
ecosystem resilience and genetic pool
+ +++ ++ + +++
Cultural / recreational:
Beach recreation
Diving / snorkelling recreation
+
++
+
+++
+
++
+++
0
0
++
Notes: ‘+++’ indicates a high level of linkages; ‘++’ a moderate level; ‘+’ a low level; and ‘0’ no linkage
During the workshops, we also asked the stakeholders to identify the current and
future levels of the ecosystem service delivery at the two case study MPA sites (St
Vincent South Coast and the Tobago Cays) under different policy scenarios. To
achieve this, stakeholders were first asked to describe what they felt may be the worst
and best case scenarios in terms of the provision of each of the six ecosystem services
across SVG as a whole. These descriptions are shown in column 2 and 5 in Table 3.
Next, using a scoring system in which the worst case scenario = 1 and the best case
scenario = 5, the stakeholders were asked to quantify the levels of ecosystem service
provision that would be attained at each of the two Marine Parks in their current state,
under an improved state (in which the case study sites would be effectively managed
10
as Marine Parks) and in a declined state (in which there was no management of the
parks). The results from this exercise are reported in Table 3.
As expected, the stakeholders indicated that improved management of the marine
parks would result in a higher level of ecosystem service delivery than the current
situation, while a reduction in the levels of management would reduce the levels of
ecosystem service delivery (Table 3). The stakeholders also identified that the Tobago
Cays had the capacity to deliver higher levels of services than St Vincent South Coast:
this largely reflects the fact that the Tobago Cays ecosystems are in a much better
condition than those on the South Coast (Table 3).
This information on the levels of ecosystem service delivery associated with different
management options was then used to design the choice experiment (see Section
3.2.2).
Table 3: Levels of ecosystem services in MPA for the Decline, Current and Improved scenarios
Ecosystem service Worst case scenario description
(1)
South coast
DeclineCurrentImprove
Tobago Cays
DeclineCurrentImprove
Best case scenario description
(5)
Fishing: increases in fish numbers, size and desirable species
No fish for fishing in and / or around MPA
234
345
A sustainable catch of large, desirable fish in and / or around
MPA
Coastal protection No coastal protection with very high risk of
flooding
234
245
Excellent coastal protection with no threat of flooding
Water quality / human health
High risk of gastro intestinal disorder/ skin rashes / ear infections
124
235
No health problems
Species diversity, ecosystem resilience and genetic pool – Existence value
Low species diversity and low resilience
124
245
High species diversity and very resilient
Beach recreation Beach largely eroded away
245
345
Large stable beaches
Diving / snorkelling recreation Poor quality dive site
1 3Excellent dive site
11
24
45
Notes: The numbers in the table relate to the three possible future scenarios: Current situation, Improved MPA management, Declined MPA management, where 1 = the worst case scenario and 5 = the best case scenario.
3.2 The choice experiment: valuing changes to the delivery of ecosystem
services
3.2. 1. Choice experiments
Choice experiments (CE) are a stated preference valuation technique where individual
preferences and values for bundles of ecosystem services are elicited with the use of
questionnaires (Louviere et al., 2000). In CE, respondents are presented with a series
of choice tasks in which they are asked to choose their preferred policy option from a
list of future options. Each option is described in terms of a bundle of attributes
describing the good presented at various levels. In this application, the CE attributes
are the six marine ecosystem services outlined in Table 2.
To analyse choices we use a random parameter logit (RPL) model. The RPL model
allows the coefficients associated with each attribute to vary randomly across
respondents therefore can model preference heterogeneity in the sample (Revelt and
Train, 1998).
Under a RPL specification, the utility a respondent i derives from an alternative j in
each choice situation t is given by:
ijtjtiijt eXU
, where X is a vector of observed attributes associated with each policy alternative
(i.e. the ecosystem services) and ijte is the random component of the utility that is
12
assumed to be independently and identically distributed (iid) and follow a Type 1
extreme value distribution. The probability that an individual i chooses alternative j in
a choice situation t is:
df
XX
kkti
jtiijt
expexp
Pr
,
with f (b) being the mixing distribution. A normal distribution is assigned to the
random parameters to allow respondents to have either positive or negative marginal
utilities for the levels of the attributes (Kataria 2009; Carlsson et al. 2003; Hanley et al
2005). To facilitate the estimation of the welfare measures, the monetary coefficient is
specified as constant, implying fixed marginal utility of money (Train 2003; Revelt
and Train 1998).
Assuming a linear in parameters utility function, the implicit price of each attribute
associated with changes to SVG’s MPAs is calculated as the ratio of the attribute’s
estimated coefficient to the estimated coefficient of the monetary attribute:
payment
attribute
bb
WTP
For a comprehensive discussion of the design, administration and analysis of CE, see
Louviere et al. (2000) and Hensher et al. (2005) .
3.2.2 Survey design and administration
The choice experiment was administered to a random sample of tourists and locals in
the two proposed marine parks. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews
13
by the authors in 2012 and 2013. The survey administration resulted in 710 people
completing the survey: 374 were interviewed at the South Coast marine park (of
which 204 were locals and 170 were tourists), and 336 at the Tobago Cays marine
park (of which 194 were locals and 142 were tourists).
The selection of attributes and their levels under different policy options was guided
by information collected during the stakeholder workshops (see Section 3.1) and
refined following feedback from local and tourist developmental focus groups. The
final design of the CE included six ecosystem service attributes (which are presented
in Table 4). Each attribute could take three levels: currently condition, an
improvement scenario (in which the levels of attributes were enhanced) and a
deterioration scenario (which referred to the future condition of the attributes in the
absence of any policy response). A cost attribute was also included in the design of
the CE, in which the payment vehicle was specified as a tourist tax (for tourists) or an
increase in the general taxation (for locals). The payment attribute could take six
levels ranging from US$0 to $160 per annum. Table 4 below presents the attributes
and their levels for the South Coast site, while Table 5 for the Tobago Cays site.
14
Table 4: Attributes and their levels in St Vincent South Coast
Ecosystem service Decline Current Improve
Fishing:
Number, size and desirability of
fish species in and around the
MPA
Some small fish only
Moderate fish numbers
incl.some large fish. Few
desirable fish.
Moderate numbers of
large fish including some
desirable fish.
Coastal protection: Level of risk
from coastal flooding
Minimal coastal protection
with a moderate risk of
flooding
Moderate coastal
protection with a some
risk of flooding
Good coastal protection
with minimal threat of
flooding
Human health:
Risk of gastoral intestinal
disorder/ skin rashes / ear
infections from poor sea water
quality.
High risk to human health
Moderate risk to human
health
Virtually no risk to human
health
Ecosystem resilience:
Contribution of genetic diversity
to long term resilience of marine
ecosystem
Low genetic diversity with
poor resilience
Low genetic diversity with
short term resilience
High genetic diversity
with medium term
resilience
Beach recreation:
Size and stability of beaches
Small, stable beach
Large, stable beach
Large, actively growing,
stable beaches
Diving / snorkelling:
Diving experience: condition of
coral and abundance of marine
life
Very poor diving
experience: coral badly
degraded and limited
marine life
Poor diving experience:
coral badly degraded and
moderate marine life
Good diving experience:
coral in good condition
and good marine life
15
Table 5: Attributes and their levels in Tobago Cays
Ecosystem service Decline Current Improve
Fishing:
Number, size and desirability of
fish species in and around the
MPA
Moderate numbers of large
fish including some
desirable fish.
Moderate numbers of large
fish including some
desirable fish.
A sustainable catch of
large, desirable fish
Coastal protection: Level of risk
from coastal flooding
Minimal coastal protection
with a moderate risk of
flooding
Good coastal protection
with minimal threat of
flooding
Good coastal protection
with minimal threat of
flooding
Human health:
Risk of gastoral intestinal
disorder/ skin rashes / ear
infections from poor sea water
quality.
Moderate risk to human
health
Minimal risk to human
health
No health problems
Ecosystem resilience:
Contribution of genetic diversity
to long term resilience of marine
ecosystem
Low genetic diversity with
short term resilience
High genetic diversity
with medium term
resilience
High genetic diversity
with long term resilience
Beach recreation:
Size and stability of beaches
Moderate, stable beach
Large, actively growing,
stable beaches
Large, actively growing,
stable beaches
Diving / snorkelling:
Diving experience: condition of
coral and abundance of marine
life
Moderate diving
Excellent diving
Excellent diving
16
experience: coral in
reasonable condition and
moderate marine life
experience: coral in
excellent condition and
abundant marine life
experience: coral in
excellent condition and
abundant marine life
The survey questionnaire comprised three parts. The first part introduced the survey
and asked respondents to provide information on the SVG islands that they had
visited and what activities they had undertaken on these islands. Respondents were
then presented with information on the current and proposed system of marine
protection in SVG, including information on the levels of protection provided by
future scenarios of SVG’s marine protected areas. Subsequently, the six ecosystem
service benefits derived from marine protection were introduced and respondents
were asked to indicate how important these benefits are to them. Finally, respondents
were asked to consider how their activities may affect the potential of the marine
parks to deliver the six ecosystem services. This aimed to make respondents aware of
the potential trade-offs that they personally may have to make in order to attain the
ecosystem service benefits. For example, they might have to change the way they fish
to ensure the long-term resilience of coral reefs.
The second part introduced the choice experiment tasks. Respondents were first
informed that the SVG government was planning to revise its marine protection
policies and that depending on how it targets resources, different combinations of
ecosystem service benefits may be attained. Respondents were also informed that in
order to attain these benefits, funds would have to be raised through increases in
taxation / tourist tax. Respondents were then presented with an example choice task
17
(which was described in detail) before being presented with a series of five choice
tasks.
provides an example of a typical choice task used in this study. In each choice task,
participants were presented with three choice options each described in terms of the
six ecosystem service attributes. A consistent ‘Baseline’ scenario was used across all
choice tasks. In the baseline scenario, all the ecosystem service attributes were
presented at the ‘continued decline’ scenario level, while the taxation was set at no
additional cost to participants (i.e. US$ 0). In the choice tasks, the levels of the
ecosystem services and taxation attributes used for the Option A and Option B
scenarios were determined using a main effects orthogonal, fractional factorial
experimental design. This design reduced the number of possible choice combinations
from 4344 choice tasks to 25 choice tasks. To reduce the cognitive burden, each
participant was presented with only five choice tasks.
Option A Option B Baseline(Continued decline)
Fishing:Number, size and desirability of fish species in and around the MPA
Some small fish only
Moderate fish numbers including
some large fish. Few desirable fish.
Some small fish only
Coastal protection: Level of risk from coastal flooding
Good coastal protection with minimal threat of flooding
Minimal coastal protection with a
moderate risk of flooding
Minimal coastal protection with a
moderate risk of floodingHuman health:Risk of gastoral intestinal disorder/ skin rashes / ear infections from poor sea water quality.
Moderate risk to human health
High risk to human health
High risk to human health
Ecosystem resilience:Contribution of genetic diversity to long term resilience of marine ecosystem
High genetic diversity with
medium term resilience
Low genetic diversity with poor
resilience
Low genetic diversity with poor
resilience
Beach recreation:Size and stability of beaches
Large, actively growing, stable
beaches
Large, actively growing, stable
beaches
Small, stable beach
18
Diving / snorkelling:Diving experience: condition of coral and abundance of marine life
Very poor diving experience:
coral badly degraded and limited marine life
Good diving experience: coral in good condition and good marine
life
Very poor diving experience:
coral badly degraded and limited marine life
Cost (EC$ per year) EC$ 20 EC$160 0
I prefer: Option A Option B Baseline q q q
How confident do you feel about this choice? (Not confident) 0 – 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (Very confident)
Figure 1: Example of a typical choice task
A number of steps was undertaken to ensure that participants were fully informed and
made thoughtful choices. Specifically, respondents were reminded of the scope of the
marine protection policy, informed about potential substitute sites and provided with
a ‘cheap talk’ statement asking them to fully consider their budget constraints.
Once participants had completed all five choice tasks, they were asked to state their
motivations for their choices, which was used to identify genuine choices from protest
bids; the latter subsequently being removed from the analysis.
In the third part of the survey respondents were asked to provide information on their
socio-economic background. This information was collected to (i) test the
representativeness of the survey sample, and (ii) feed into a theoretical validity test.
4 Results
4.1 Characteristics of our survey respondents
Table 6 summarizes the socio-economic background of our respondents at the South
Coast and Tobago Cays study sites. In both study sites, tourists have higher household
income than locals. Also, in the South Coast locals interviewed are also older than the
tourists. Table 6 also reports the frequency of the activities undertaken by our survey
19
respondents. Across all sites, beach recreation was the most popular activity with
around half of respondents stating that this was their main activity. For locals this is
followed by snorkelling and diving, while 44% of Tobago Cays locals participated in
sailing / yachting. Snorkelling and diving along with wildlife watching were also
popular activities for tourists in Tobago Cays. Testing reveals significant differences
in the frequency of activities. The last column for each sample in Table 6 reports the
relevant p-values.
Table 6: Characteristics of the survey samplesSocio-economics South Coast Tobago Cays
Locals Tourists Signif Diff(P-value)
Locals Tourists Signif Diff(P-value)
Age_Below 30 0.54(0.50)
0.61(0.49)
0.18 0.37(0.48)
0.49(0.50)
0.03
Age_30-60 0.40(0.49)
0.35(0.48)
0.30 0.56(0.50)
0.48(0.50)
0.08
Age_Above 60 0.06(0.24)
0.03(0.17
0.18 0.07(0.25)
0.03(0.18)
0.16
Gender (0=female,1=male)
0.44(0.48)
0.40(0.49)
0.43 0.45(0.50)
0.41(0.49)
0.49
Mean Annual Household income
$16,650 $45,000 0.00 $16,650 $35,000 0.00
Income > $30.000 0.26(0.48)
0.65(0.50)
0.00 0.36(0.48)
0.53(0.50)
0.00
Hiking 5.9 % 11.2% 0.00 5.2 % 5.9 % 0.23
Waterfalls 6.8 % 11.8% 0.00 3.6 % 5.3 % 0.004
Wildlife watching 3.5 % 6.6 % 0.00 13.4 % 13.2 % 0.78
Fishing 3.5 % 6.6 % 0.00 3.1 % 10.3 % 0.00
Beach Activities 52.5 % 42.3 % 0.00 42.3 % 43.3 % 0.69
Snorkelling 17.6% 4.1 % 0.00 32 % 12.5% 0.00
Diving 9.3% 6.1 % 0.00 11.3 % 11.1 % 0.80
Yachting/sailing 10.2% 3.5% 0.00 43.8 % 8.6 % 0.02No of observations
204 170 194 142
20
4.2 Analysis of the choice experiment utility coefficients
The RPL models for the locals and tourists are reported in Table 7 for both the South
Coast and Tobago Cays marine parks. In the table, we report the estimated utility
coefficients (in the top half of the table) and the coefficient’s standard deviation (in
the bottom half of the table). The models were estimated in Nlogit using simulated
maximum likelihood with 100 Halton draws. We used effects coding in the model to
allow us to discriminate among Willingness to Pay to avoid a deterioration of the
current condition of ecosystem services (‘decline’) and Willingness to Pay for
improvements over the status quo (‘improve’). The use of effects coding has been
advocated in the stated preference literature (Bech and Gyrd-Hansen, 2005).
Table 7: Results of the RPL models for ecosystem services derived from SVG’s MPAAttribute South Coast Tobago Cays
Locals Tourists Locals TouristsFish (decline) 0.05
(0.125)-0.60***(0.160)
-0.22*(0.127)
-0.41***(0.132)
Fish (improve) -0.01(0.109)
0.26*(0.134)
0.02(0.117)
0.03(0.130)
Coastal protection (decline)
-0.44***(0.098)
-0.45***(0.13)
-0.54***(0.116)
-0.54***(0.121)
Coastal protection (improve)
0.38***(0.129)
0.30*(0.16)
0.35***(0.130)
0.22(0.135)
Health (decline) -1.21***(0.142)
-1.35***(0.22)
-0.72***(0.124)
-0.36***(0.138)
Health (improve) 1.15***(0.129)
1.26***(0.18)
0.73***(0.127)
0.39***(0.114)
Ecosystem (decline)
-0.44***(0.131)
-0.63***(0.160)
-0.84***(0.153)
-0.61***(0.146)
Ecosystem (improve)
0.52***(0.113)
0.78***(0.084)
0.60***(0.127)
0.58***(0.134)
Beach (decline) -0.25(0.234)
-0.07(0.28)
-0.27(0.246)
0.17(0.254)
Beach (improve) -0.02(0.227)
0.15(0.28)
0.05(0.232)
0.37(0.251)
21
Diving (decline) -0.067(0.123)
-0.20(0.158)
-0.252**(0.118)
-0.25*(0.145)
Diving (improve) 0.26*(0.135)
0.28*(0.152)
0.28**(0.132)
0.12(0.133)
Tax -0.04***(0.006)
-0.03***(0.003)
-0.07***(0.008)
-0.02***(0.003)
Alternative Specific Constant
-3.41***(0.373)
-3.21***(0.47)
-3.85***(0.408)
-1.69***(0.324)
Log likelihood -691.3325 -637.29 -726.00 -633.28
No of observations 1020 850 970 710
Parameters standard deviation
Fish (decline) 0.62***(0.181)
0.78***(0.256)
0.34(0.228)
0.08(0.223)
Fish (improve) 0.53**(0.21)
0.69***(0.238)
0.66***(0.207)
0.72***(0.179)
Coastal protection (decline)
0.08(0.218)
0.46*(0.246)
0.42*(0.243)
0.37*(0.223)
Coastal protection (improve)
0.15(0 .189)
0.45(0.321)
0.25(0.310)
0.47**(0.222)
Health (decline) 0.04(0.310)
0.44(0.485)
0.06(0.261)
0.51**(0.253)
Health (improve) 0.62***(0.186)
0.58**(0.258)
0.13(0.438)
0.17(0.385)
Ecosystem (decline)
0.05(0.221)
0.12(0.349)
0.50(0.354)
0.39(0.274)
Ecosystem (improve)
0.25(0.196)
0.72***(0.277)
0.80***(0.191)
0.47*(0.264)
Beach (decline) 0.93***(0.234)
0.44(0.485)
1.23***(0.209)
1.20***(0.190)
Beach (improve) 0.93***(0.234)
1.12***(0.240)
1.23***(0.209)
1.20***(0.190)
Diving (decline) 0.07(0.174)
0.87***(0.276)
0.05(0.275)
0.58**(0.265)
Diving (improve) 0.65***(0.243)
0.34(0.342)
0.42(0.304)
0.29(0.238)
Notes: Figures in cell are model coefficients, with standard errors in parenthesis.***Indicates significance at 1%, **Indicates significance at 5%,*Indicates significance at 10%.
Across all the choice models reported in Table 7 the majority of the estimated
coefficients are highly significant indicating that the selected ecosystem service
attributes are indeed important determinants of individual choice. The key exception
22
is beach recreation, which was not significant in any of the models. The model
coefficients also have the expected signs with negative coefficients for the
deterioration scenarios, and positive coefficients for improvement scenarios.
Respondents are thus more likely to select alternatives associated with improvements
in Ecosystem resilience, Human health, Coastal protection, Fishing and diving
opportunities, while less likely to choose alternatives were Ecosystem resilience,
Human health, Coastal protection and Fishing are in decline. Conforming to economic
theory, the coefficient for the Tax was significant and negative, suggesting that
respondents are less likely to select alternatives associated with a higher tax. The
negative and significant coefficient on the alternative specific constant indicates that
respondents desire to move away from the status quo and in principle favour the MPA
policy.
Results also point to significant differences between the preferences of locals and
tourists. In the South Coast, tourists were more concerned about changes to Fishing
than locals, while in the Tobago Cays only the locals were willing to pay to improve
coastal protection and diving. Differences between the two study sites are also
apparent. For example, locals at the Tobago Cays appeared concerned about declines
in Fishing and Diving, whereas locals at South Coast were not willing to pay to hedge
against a deterioration scenario. Equally, tourists at the South Coast held positive
values for improvements in Fishing, Coastal protection and Diving, while
improvements in these services did not significantly contribute to the utility of their
counterparts in Tobago Cays.
23
Finally, across all respondent groups, the standard deviations of the coefficients in the
random utility models are statistical significant indicating that marginal utilities do
vary in the population and are thus correctly treated as random.
4.3 Willingness to Pay for SVG’s Marine Protected Areas
Table 8 reports the marginal WTP values for each of the marine ecosystem service for
locals and tourists in South Coast and Tobago Cays marine parks respectively. WTP
was estimated using the Wald method. Standard errors and 95% confidence intervals
are estimated using the bootstrap method proposed by Krinsky and Robb (1986).
Table 8: Willingness to pay estimates (US$ per household per annum) for SVG’s marine parks.
EcosystemService
South Coast Tobago Cays
Locals Tourists Signif Dif
Poe test(p-value)
Locals Tourists Signif DifPoe test
(p-value)
Fish (decline) $1.28[-4.15, 8.03]
-$20.56[-31.23 -10.39] 0.001 -$3.22
[-6.58, 0.48]-$18.24
[-29.47, -6.98] 0.007
Fish (improve)
-$0.24[-5.57, 4.95]
$8.80[0.18, 18.63] 0.046 $0.23
[-3.21, 3.54]$1.49
[-10.52, 12.72] 0.426
Coastal protection (decline)
-$10.63[-15.73, -6.41]
-$15.31[-23.54, -7.32] 0.167 -$7.81
[-11.02, -4.78]-$24.06
[-35.60, -14.28] 0.002
Coastal protection (improve)
$9.01[3.18, 14.78]
$10.26[-0.20, 20.38] 0.422 $5.05
[1.42, 8.36]$9.78
[-1.70, 21.25] 0.223
Health (decline)
-$29.00[-40.24, -
21.92]
-$46.14[-50.39, 35.06] 0.018 -$10.45
[-14.44, -7.13]-$16.05
[-28.70, -4.76] 0.14
Health (improve)
$27.50[21.18, 37.64]
$42.95[34.45, 53.71] 0.013 $10.56
[7.21, 14.16]$17.61
[7.95, 28.56] 0.083
Ecosystem (decline)
-$10.58[-16.42, -4.73]
-$21.57[-30.87, -12.12] 0.027 -$12.17
[-15.97, -8.43]-$27.21
[-40.87, -15.05] 0.002
Ecosystem (improve)
$12.37[7.71, 18.16]
$11.73[3.57, 21.34] 0.446 $8.67
[5.48, 12.25]$25.98
[15.27, 39.18] 0.002
Beach (decline)
-$6.00[-18.99, 4.86]
-$2.58[-22.47, 16.20] 0.375 -$3.90
[-11.14, 3.18]$7.61
[-15.45, 30.20] 0.168
Beach (improve)
-$0.55[-12.39, 10.01]
$5.28[-13.88, 23.31] 0.298 $0.76
[-6.20, 7.23]$16.68
[-5.16, 38.81] 0.091
Diving (decline)
-$1.59[-8.18, 4.05]
-$6.89[-18.57, 3.75] 0.022 -$3.66
[-7.49, -0.18]-$11.16
[-25.20, 1.71] 0.134
24
Diving (improve)
$6.32[0.22, 13.14]
$9.46[-0.23, 20.22] 0.307 $4.09
[0.53, 8.00]$5.53
[-5.88, 18.20] 0.413
Decline in all services -$56.52 -$113.05 -$41.21 -$89.11
Improvement to all services $54.41 $88.48 $29.36 $77.07
AGGREGATE VALUATION OF SVG’s MPA POLICYLower bound Upper bound
($’000) ($’000)
Decline in all services -$661 -$1,823 -$4,638 -$7,152 -$77 -$1,330 -$2,08 -$3,529
Improvement to all services
$636 $1,755 $3,630 $5,597 $55 $947 $1,801 $3,052
Note: Values shown in bold relate to those ecosystem services that were significant in the choice models are therefore are robust value estimates. The coefficients of those services not in bold were insignificant in the choice models, and therefore these WTP estimates are not robust estimates. 95% confidence intervals are reported in parentheses.
WTP estimates suggest that both locals and tourists were willing to pay more to hedge
against future deterioration in ecosystem services provision than for improving the
delivery of these services. This finding is not uncommon in valuation studies and
reflects the fact the people tend to value what they already have more than increasing
current provision (Christie and Rayment, 2012). Mirroring the result from the utility
coefficients’ estimation WTP values suggest significant differences between tourists
and locals. To examine whether the values for the two groups are similar we perform
the complete combinatorial test proposed by Poe et al. (2005)1. The null of equal
WTP can be rejected for the majority of the attributes in both sites, suggesting that
tourists generally had higher values than locals. Much of this can be explained by that
fact that tourists, on average, have higher annual incomes (Table 6). Finally our
results point to significant differences in values between sites. WTP estimates were
generally higher in the South Coast compared to the Tobago Cays. This finding was
initially surprising since the reefs and sea grass beds at the Tobago Cays are in much
better condition than those in the South Coast. However, further discussions with 1 This test calculates every possible difference between the two empirical distributions generated by the Krinsky-Robb procedure and computes the proportion of negative values in the distribution of differences to approximate a one-sided p-value for the null of equal WTP values between the two groups.
25
respondents and stakeholders suggest that respondents did not consider the Tobago
Cays to be under significant threat, whereas in the South Coast there was clear
evidence of damage. Thus, respondents were more aware of the impacts of human
activities in the South Coast, and therefore had higher values for policies to protect
them.
In terms of the values for specific ecosystem services, preventing a deterioration in
Human health was the attribute that was most highly valued in the South Coast among
both locals (-$29.00 per household per year) and tourists (-$46.14 per household per
year) followed by improvements to Human health (Locals = $27.50 per household per
year; Tourists = $42.95 per household per year)2. In Tobago Cays, both locals and
tourists were willing to pay? most to hedge against future deteriorations in ecosystem
resilience (Locals = -$12.17 per household per year; Tourists = $25.98 per household
per year) followed by improvements to Human health for locals ($10.56 per
household per year) and improvements in Ecosystem resilience by tourists ($25.98 per
household per year).
The second panel of Table 8 provides aggregate value estimates for the changes to the
provision of ecosystem services at the two marine parks under the improved and
decline scenarios. The aggregate values were estimated by multiplying the mean
household values (Table 8) with a lower and upper bound estimate of the number of
local households and tourists impacted by the proposed MPA designations. In terms
of locals, the lower bound estimate for the South Coast was the number of households
2 To examine whether low risk to human health is a dominant attribute we calculate the share of
choices that are associated with low health risk. These are 64% of the choices in South Coast.
However, only 28.6% of the sample is always selecting the low health risk option which does
not provide evidence of health risk being a dominant attribute.
26
in the three districts on the South Coast (Kingstown, Calliaqua and South Grenadines
= 11,687 households), while the lower bound estimate for the Tobago Cays was the
number of households in Mustique, Canouan and Union islands (1,872 households).
For both MPA sites, the upper bound of locals impacted was the number of all
households in SVG (32,262 households). For tourists, the lower bound estimate of the
number of tourists visiting the South Coast was approximated by the number of
visitors staying in tourist accommodation in the South Coast (41,028), while the upper
bound was the total number of tourists visiting St Vincent (63,263). For the Tobago
Cays, the lower bound estimate of tourists was estimated using the number of Marine
Park permits sold to individuals (27,355), while the upper bound was based on
number of visitors arriving in the islands of Mustique, Canouan and Union Island
(39,602).
The aggregate local value of ecosystem services that would be delivered through
improvements is estimated to range between US$0.63m and US$1.75m at the South
Coast and between US$0.05m and US$0.94m at the Tobago Cays. The locals’ values
to protect against a deterioration in ecosystem services ranges between -US$0.66m
and -US$1.82m at the South Coast and between -US$0.07m and -US$1.33m at the
Tobago Cays (Table 8). The equivalent tourists’ values for improvements is estimated
between US$3.63m and US$5.59m per year at the South Coast, and between
US$1.80m to US$3.05m at the Tobago Cays, while the benefits from preventing a
deterioration in services is found to range between –US$4.63m and –US$7.15m at the
South Coast and between –US$2.08m and –US$3.53m at the Tobago Cays (Table 8).
Thus, overall, tourists attain higher aggregate benefits from the MPA policies than
locals. These higher values are based on (i) higher individual WTP values (which are
27
to a large extent a reflection of the higher incomes of tourists compared to locals), and
(ii) the fact that there are more tourists using the MPAs than locals.
4.4 Benefits from different policy scenarios
WTP values from this study can be used to estimate the economic benefits that may
be attained from the various policy interventions aiming to achieve the protection and
enhancement of ecosystem services in MPAs. For this analysis we combine the
information on the links between policy interventions and the provision of ecosystem
services (Table 2) with the values of ecosystems services at the case study sites (Table
8). To combine the information, we multiply the aggregate WTP values by a
weighting factor of 1 if there are high levels of linkages (i.e. ‘+++’ in Table 2), by
0.66 if moderate levels of linkages (i.e. ‘++’) and by 0.33 if low level of linkages
(‘+’). To avoid double counting of benefits we also make an adjustment to the
weighting factors so that the contribution of the different policy interventions equals 1
across the individual services. To illustrate, Fishing was identified in Table 2 to have
moderate links with the ‘stopping of sewage’, ‘stopping overfishing’, and ‘stopping
land based pollution’ policy interventions, and low level links with introducing ‘No
take’ zones. Since moderate links were weighted by 0.66 and low level links by 0.33,
this gave a total weighting score of 2.32 across all policy interventions affecting the
provision of fish. To avoid problems of double counting, all weightings for Fish
services were divided by 2.32 so that the weighting coefficient used for Fish services
equalled 1 across all interventions. Thus, the weighting used in the analysis for the
moderately linked interventions was 0.286, while that for the low level linked
interventions was 0.143. The output from our analysis of the ecosystem service
benefits attained from the policy interventions is reported in Table 9. Based on this
28
analysis, it is predicted that stopping land based pollution in the South Coast would
generate the greatest ecosystem services benefits (US$1.43m / yr), followed by
controlling sewage (US$1.37m / yr), stopping sand mining / extraction of coral
US$0.51m / yr) and introducing ‘No take’ zones (US$0.47m / yr). The highest values
for the Tobago Cays were found for controlling land based pollution (US$0.27m / yr)
and for stopping sewage (US$0.23m / yr) and introducing ‘No take’ zones sewage
(US$0.17m / yr). These figures should be considered as lower bound estimates since
(i) they are based on only those ecosystem services that were valued by respondents
and (ii) the values are aggregated using the lower bound estimate the affected
population. However, they do provide useful information on the potential benefits
associated with alternative policy interventions that may be used to enhance marine
protection at different locations in SVG, and these values may then be directly
compared to the costs of controlling these damaging activities.
Table 9: Economic benefits (US$’000 / yr) of policy interventions to enhance MPAs.Stop Sewage
(yachts, houses and
hotels)
Stop Overfishin
g / bad fishing
practices
Stop Land Based Pollution (mainly agricultural, such
as pesticides, eutrophication
and sedimentation
Stop sandmining / extraction
of coral
Introduce ‘No take
zones’ that would ban fishing and anchoring
St V
ince
nt S
outh
Coa
st
Fishing 103 103 103 0 52Coastal protection 66 66 66 199 131Water quality / human health 1,042 0 1042 0 0
Species diversity, ecosystem resilience and genetic pool
62 189 124 62 189
Beach recreation 0 0 0 0 0Diving / snorkelling 102 155 102 0 102TOTAL VALUE (US$’000/ yr) 1,375 512 1,437 261 473
Toba
go C
ays
Fishing 0 0 0 0 0Coastal protection 22 22 22 65 43Water quality / human health 165 0 165 0 0
Species diversity, ecosystem resilience and genetic pool
40 122 81 40 122
Beach recreation 0 0 0 0 0Diving / snorkelling 11 16 11 0 11
29
TOTAL VALUE (US$’000/ yr) 237 160 277 106 176
5 Discussion and policy implications
This study aimed to provide an assessment of the economic value of ecosystem
services provided by Marine Protected Areas in SVG. To meet this aim, we
implemented a choice experiment to estimate the values that both locals and tourists
have for a range ecosystem services delivered at two marine parks in SVG (the
proposed St Vincent South Coast marine park and the Tobago Cays Marine Park).
Our results demonstrate that both locals and tourists have high values to protect
against a deterioration in current levels of service provision (i.e. the ‘decline’
scenario) but also significantly value improvements in the level of service provision
(the ‘improved’ scenario) (Table 8).
Our analysis further points to differences in the values between the two sites. At the
South Coast, the ecosystem services that were most highly valued included Human
health, Ecosystem resilience and Fishing, while at the Tobago Cays the highest valued
services were Ecosystem resilience and Coastal protection (Table 8). Although we did
not collect data to identify the reason why preferences may differ at the two marine
parks, further discussions with respondents and feedback from local and tourist
developmental focus groups pointed to potential contributing factors which include:
(i) that the condition of the ecosystems were very different between the two MPAs
(the South Coast is degraded and the Tobago Cays is pristine), and (ii) the level of
external pressures on the MPAs is different (there are greater human-induced
pressures at the South Coast). Based on these observations, we conclude that one
30
cannot directly infer that there is a single bundle of ecosystem services that is
important and valued across all MPAs and therefore policies need to be tailored to
individual sites. This finding also has implication for future applications of the value
transfer methods, which allows values from a study site to be transferred to a policy
site under consideration. Our results suggest that values are not directly transferable
and attention should be given to differences in the current condition of, and pressures
on, those sites.
We also find that tourists have significantly higher values for marine ecosystem
services than locals (Table 8). Furthermore, our analysis also points to significant
differences in preferences between tourists and locals in both sites. For example, at
the South Coast, fishing was significant for tourists, but not for locals. The fact that
different groups of people have different preferences and values may have policy
implications in terms of who benefits from alternative policy scenarios that deliver
different bundles of services. Furthermore, our research findings may have
implications in terms of how funds for protecting MPAs might most equitably be
raised. Our research suggests that there is a case for raising funds from tourists,
through e.g. a tourist tax, to fund marine conservation programmes in SVG.
6. Conclusions
This study has generated a wealth of evidence on the economic values delivered by
the protection and enhancement of MPAs in SVG. There are clearly some
uncertainties and caveats with this data, many of which we have highlighted above. In
presenting the results we have attempted to account for these uncertainties by
presenting the economic values as either lower bound conservative estimates or where
possible as ranges. We argue that the lower bound estimates are robust and therefore
31
can be used in policy analysis with confidence, while the upper bound values might
best be considered as representing the potential value of services delivered.
In this paper, we only assess the benefits derived from alternative policy interventions
that may be used to deliver the ambitions of SVG’s new MPA policy. The GoSVG
now needs to compare these benefit estimates with the costs of expanding marine
protection, to determine whether future expansions of the marine parks can be
justified within a cost benefit framework. It is our hope that our value evidence will
contribute towards the continued protection of SVG’s marine resources, whilst also
providing opportunities to reduce poverty and enhance well-being.
Finally, although the research reported here directly links to the evaluation of the
proposed expansion of SVG’s MPAs, the way in which the research was set up should
allow the findings to be readily transferred to MPA appraisals in other parts of the
Caribbean and possibly further afield. Specifically, in the choice experiment, we
presented the ecosystem service attributes using a continuous condition score scale (1
= worst condition and 5 = good condition). Thus, our analysis of the choice
experiment allows us to identify the value of a unit change in the condition of the
ecosystem services, which in turn can be readily transferred to other case study sites.
7. References
Allsopp, M., Page, R., Johnston, P., Santillo, D., 2009. State of the World’s Oceans.
Springer, Dordrecht.
Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P., 2003. Using Choice ExPeriments for Non-
Market Valuation. Econ Issues 8: 83–110.
32
Bech, M., and Gyrd-Hansen, D., 2005. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments.
Health Economics 14, 1079–1083.
Beharry-Borg, N., Scarpa, R., 2010. Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal
waters for heterogeneous beach visitors. Ecol Econ 69, 1124-1139.
Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W.,
Almond, R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K.E.,
Carr, G.M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A.M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N.C., Dentener, F.,
Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J.N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R.D., Hockings, M.,
Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M.A., McRae, L.,
Minasyan, A., Morcillo, M.H., Oldfield, T.E.E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C.,
Sauer, J.R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S.N., Symes, A.,
Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T.D., Vie, J.-C., Watson, R., 2010. Global Biodiversity:
Indicators of Recent Declines. Science 328, 1164-1168.
Carlsson F., Frykblom, P., Liljenstolpe,C., 2003. Valuing wetland attributes: an
application of choice experiments. Ecol Econ 47, 95-103.
Cesar, H., Burke, L., Pet-Soede, L., 2003. The economics of worldwide coral reef
degradation. Cesar Environmental Economics Consulting, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Christie, M., Rayment, M., 2012. An economic assessment of the ecosystem service
benefits derived from the SSSI biodiversity conservation policy in England and
Wales. Ecosystem Services 1, 70-84.
Cinner, J.E., McClanahan, T.R., Graham, N.A.J., Daw, T.M., Maina, J., Stead, S.M.,
Wamukota, A., Brown, K., Bodin, O., 2012. Vulnerability of coastal communities to
key impacts of climate change on coral reef fisheries. Global Environ Chang 22, 12-
20.
Costanza, 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 387,
253-260.
33
Daily, g.C., 1997. Nature's Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.
Island Press, Washington, D.C., p. 392.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2008. England's Terrestrial Ecosystem Services and
the Rationale for an Ecosystem Approach: Full Technical Report. DEFRA, London.
Hanley, N., Wiktor A., Wright, R.E., 2005. Price vector effects in choice experiments:
an empirical test. Resourc Energ Econ 27 (3), 227-234.
Hanemann, W.M., 1994. Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation.
The Journal of Economic Perspektives, 19-44.
Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H., 2005. Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jackson, I., 2004. Master Plan: System of Protected Areas and Heritage Sites, St.
Vincent and the Grenadines. Ivor Jackson and Associates.
Jameson, S.C., McManus, J.W., Spalding, M.D., 1995. State of the Reefs: Regional
and Global Perspectives. ICRI., US Department of State., Washington D.C.
Kataria M., 2009. Willingness to pay for environmental improvements in hydropower
regulated rivers. Energ Econ 31:69–76.
Krinsky, I., Robb, A.L., 1986. ON APPROXIMATING THE STATISTICAL
PROPERTIES OF ELASTICITIES. Rev Econ Stat 68, 715-719.
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., 2000. Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and
Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
MA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being.
Island Press, Washington D.C.
34
MEA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being.
Island Press, Washington D.C.
Moberg, F., Folke, C., 1999. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems.
Ecol Econ 29, 215-233.
NPRBA, 2009. SVG National Parks and Protected Areas System Plan 2010 - 2014.
National Parks Rivers and Beaches Authority, SVG.
Poe, G.L., Giraud, K.L., Loomis, J.B., 2005. Computational methods for measuring
the difference of empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
87, 353-365.
Revelt, D., Train, K., 1998. Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households' choices of
appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stats 80, 647-657.
Sachs, J.D., Baillie, J.E.M., Sutherland, W.J., Armsworth, P.R., Ash, N., Beddington,
J., Blackburn, T.M., Collen, B., Gardiner, B., Gaston, K.J., Godfray, H.C.J., Green,
R.E., Harvey, P.H., House, B., Knapp, S., Kumpel, N.F., Macdonald, D.W., Mace,
G.M., Mallet, J., Matthews, A., May, R.M., Petchey, O., Purvis, A., Roe, D., Safi, K.,
Turner, K., Walpole, M., Watson, R., Jones, K.E., 2009. Biodiversity Conservation
and the Millennium Development Goals. Science 325, 1502-1503.
Schuhmann, P., 2012. The Valuation of marine ecosystem goods and services in the
Wider Caribbean Region., CERMES Technical Report no 61. University of the West
Indies - Cave Hill, Barbados.
Schumann, P.W., Mahon, R., 2014. The Valuation of marine Ecosystem Goods and
Services in the Caribbean: A literature review and framework for future valuation
efforts. Ecosystem Services, Forthcoming.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000. Sustaining Life on Earth.
How the Convention on Biological Diversity promotes nature and human well-being.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.
35
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010. Global Biodiversity
Outlook 3., Montreal.
Souter, D.W., Linden, O., 2000. The health and future of coral reef systems. Ocean &
Coastal Management 43, 657-688.
Spalding, M.D., Ravilious, C., Green, E.P., 2001. United Nations Environment
Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre. World Atlas of Coral Reefs.
Univeristy of California Press, Berkeley.
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and
Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London.
TEEB, 2011a. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Local and Regional
Policy and Management. Earthscan, London.
TEEB, 2011b. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and
International Policy. EarthScan, London.
van Beukering, P., Brander, L.M., Tompkins, E., McKenzie, E., 2007. Valuing the
Environment in Small Islands: An environmental economics toolkit. Joint Nature
Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Train, K.E., 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Waite, R., Burke, L., Gray, E., van Beukering, P., Brander, L., McKenzie, E.,
Pendleton, L., Schuhmann, P., Tompkins, E., 2014. Coastal Capital: Ecosystem
Valuation for Decsion Making in the Caribbean. World Resources Institute,
Wahsington DC.
36
Wilkinson, C.R., 2004. Status of the coral reefs of the world: Volumes 1 and 2.
Australian Institute for Marine Sciences, Townsville, Australia.
Wilkinson, C.R., 2008. Status of the Coral Reefs of the World. Global Coral Reef
Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, Australia.
Wilkinson, C.R., Buddemeier, R.W., 1994. Global climate change and coral reefs:
implications for people and reefs. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
World Bank, 2012.
37