Advertisement

Measuring Recreation Benefit Loss under Climate Change with Revealed and Stated Behavior Data: The Case of Lac Saint-Pierre World Biosphere Reserve (Québec, Canada)

  • Jie HeEmail author
  • Hermann Enomana
  • Jérôme Dupras
  • Charlène Kermagoret
  • Thomas Poder
Article
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

Based on a case study carried out on the Lac Saint-Pierre (LSP) World Biosphere Reserve (Québec, Canada), this paper estimates ecosystem service loss, more precisely the loss related to cultural and recreational activities of the LSP due to the fall of its water level under the pressure of climate change. We measure two dimensions of this loss. As a first step, the extrapolation of our representative survey reports $100 million annual loss in terms of recreation revenue due to the trip reduction to LSP, which is about 60% of current level. Subsequently, the travel-cost data and the contingent behavior data are combined in a revealed and stated behavior panel random-effect estimation, which reports an additional loss measured by consumer surplus that visitors can obtain from their trips up to $232 million, signifying 42% of reduction in their current value.

Keywords

Revealed-Stated preference combination Ecosystem service related to cultural and recreational activities Climatic changes World Biosphere Reserve Lake Saint-Pierre 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgärtner S, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Härdtle W, Heinrichs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, Walmsley D (2014) Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol Econ 103:p29–p37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo CD, Herriges JA, Kling CL (2003) Combining revealed and stated preferences: consistency tests and their interpretations. Am J Agric Econ 85(3):525–537 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1244980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BCDM Conseil Inc. (2005a) Rapport III: La pêche sportive au lac Saint-Pierre en 2003. Pêche sur la glace: évaluation des retombées économiques. Pour leministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Direction de la recherche sur la faune, Québec. p 67Google Scholar
  4. BCDM Conseil Inc. (2005b) Rapport IV: La pêche sportive au lac Saint-Pierre en 2003. Pêche en eau libre: évaluation des retombées économiques. Pour leministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Direction de la recherche sur la faune, Québec. p 89Google Scholar
  5. Bouchard A, Morin J (2000) Reconstitution des débits du fleuve Saint-Laurent entre 1932 et 1998. Environnement Canada, Service météorologique du Canada, Section Hydrologie. Rapport technique RT–101Google Scholar
  6. Boulding KE (1945) The concept of economic surplus. Am Economic Rev 35(5):851–869Google Scholar
  7. Bridgewater P, Babin D (2017) UNESCO–MAB Biosphere Reserves already deal with ecosystem services and sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114(22):E4318.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702761114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CAA (2013) Coûts d’utilisation d’une automobile. Au-delà de l’étiquette de prix: comprendre les dépenses liées au véhicule. Édition 2013. Association Canadienne des AutomobilistesGoogle Scholar
  9. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):181–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CBD (2010) Decision UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its tenth meeting. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268
  11. Chae D-R, Wattage P, Pascoe S (2012) Recreational benefits from a marine protected area: a travel cost analysis of Lundy. Tour Manag 33(2012):971–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collard A, Villeneuve F, Dombrowski P, Couture R (2010) Portrait faunique du Centre-du-Québec, Rapport préparé par la Fédération québécoise des Chasseurset pêcheurs, Région 17, pour la Commission Régionale sur les Ressources Naturelles et le Territoire du Centre-du-QuébecGoogle Scholar
  13. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de-Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neil R, Paruelo J, Raskin R, Sutton P, van den Belt J (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol Econ 25(1):3–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00020-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daily G (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, Bartuska A, Baste IA, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, Chan KMA, Figueroa VE, Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Hill R, Koetz T, Leadley P, Lyver P, Mace GM, Martin-Lopez B, Okumura M, Pacheco D, Pascual U, Pérez ES, Reyers B, Roth E, Saito O, Scholes RJ, Sharma N, Tallis H, Thaman R, Watson R, Yahara T, Hamid ZA, Akosim C, Al-Hafedh Y, Allahverdiyev R, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Asfaw Z, Bartus G, Brooks LA, Caillaux J, Dalle G, Darnaedi D, Driver A, Erpul G, Escobar-Eyzaguirre P, Failler P, Moustafa A, Fouda M, Fu B, Gundimeda H, Hashimoto S, Homer F, Lavorel S, Lichtenstein G, Mala WA, Mandivenyi W, Matczak P, Mbizvo C, Mehrdadi M, Metzger JP, Mikissa JB, Moller H, Mooney HA, Mumby P, Nagendra H, Nesshover C, Oteng-Yeboah AA, Pataki G, Roué M, Rubis J, Schultz M, Smith P, Sumaila R, Takeuchi K, Thomas S, Verma M, Yeo-Chang Y, Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework-connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. du Preez M, Hosking SG (2011) The value of the trout fishery at Rhodes, North Eastern Cape, South Africa: a travel cost analysis using count data models. J Environ Plan Manag 54(2):267–282.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.505837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ehrlich P, Mooney H (1983) Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services. BioScience 33(4):248–254.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1309037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2009) Valuing the protection of ecological systems and services. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator, Science Advisory Board. Washingtin, DC, p 139Google Scholar
  19. Grilli G, Landgraf G, Curtis J, Hynes S (2018) A travel cost evaluation of the benefits of two destination salmon rivers in Ireland. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 3292018:1–7Google Scholar
  20. Groupe Conseil Genivar Inc. (2005) Étude des impacts socioéconomiques: La sauvagine en migration dans le Québec méridional, particulièrement la Grande Oie desneiges et la Bernache du Canada. Environnement Canada, Ottawa, Canada. 63 pages and appendixGoogle Scholar
  21. Huard D (2016) Étude économique régionale des impacts et de l’adaptation liés aux changements climatiques sur le fleuve Saint-Laurent: Description des scénarios climatiques. Rapport présenté à la Division des impacts et de l’adaptation liés aux changements climatiques, Ressources naturelles Canada et au gouvernement du Québec. Montréal: OuranosGoogle Scholar
  22. Hausman J, Hall B, Griliches Z (1984) Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R & D Relationship. Econometrica 52(4):909–938.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1911191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ishwaran N (2012) Science in intergovernmental environmental relations: 40 years of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme and its future. Environ Dev 1:91–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2011.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Environ Resour Econ 20(3):241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Little J, Berrens R (2004) Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ Bull 3(6):1–13Google Scholar
  26. MA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Vol 2: Current states and trends. Island Press, Washington DC, p 917Google Scholar
  27. MDDEFP (2013) Retombées économiques des activités de chasse, de pêche et de piégeage au Québec en 2012 : Synthèse. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs, p 26. https://www.mffp.gouv.qc.ca/publications/faune/statistiques/retombees-economique-ccp.pdf
  28. Mingelbier M, Trencia G, Dumas R, Dumas B, Mailhot Y, Bouchard C, Manolesco DC, Brodeur P, Hudon C, Ouellette G (2001) Avis scientifique concernant la mortalité massive des carpes dans le Saint-Laurent durant l'été 2001. Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, Ministère de l’environnement, Biodôme de Montréal, Environnement Canada. p 25Google Scholar
  29. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resour Econ 30(3):313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olaussen J (2016) Catch-and-release and angler utility: evidence from an Atlantic salmon recreational fishery. Fish Manag Ecol 23(3–4):253–263.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ovaskainen V, Neuvonen M, Pouta E (2012) Modeling recreation demand with respondent-reported driving cost and stated cost of travel time. J For Econ 18(4):303–317Google Scholar
  32. Poe GL, Lauber B, Connelly NA, Creamer S, Ready RC, Stedman RC (2013) Net benefits of recreational fishing in the Great Lakes Basin: a review of the literature. Department of Natural Resources, N.Y.S. College of Agricultural and Life Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, p 79. HURU Series no. 13–10. http://dnr.cornell.edu/hdru/pubs/HDRUReport13-10.pdf
  33. Pokki H, Artell J, Mikkola J, Orell P, Ovaskainen V (2018) Valuing recreational salmon fishing at a remote site in Finland: a travel cost analysis. Fish Res 208(2018):145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Randall A (1994) A difficulty with the travel cost method. Land Econ 70(1):88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schultz L, Duit A, Folke C (2011) Participation, adaptive co-management, and management performance in the world network of biosphere reserves. World Dev 39(4):662–671.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. TEEB (2010) Kumar P (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. UNESCO (2008) Madrid action plan for biosphere reserves (2008–2013). UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  38. UNESCO (2016) Lima Action Plan for UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme and Its World Network of Biosphere Reserves (2016–2025)Google Scholar
  39. von Haefen RH, Phaneuf DJ (2008) Identifying demand parameters in the presence of unobservables: A combined revealed and stated preference approach. J Environ Econ Manage 56(1):19–32Google Scholar
  40. Vossler CA, Doyon M, Rondeau D (2012) Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am Economic J 4(4):145–171Google Scholar
  41. Whitehead JC, Haab TC, Huang J (2000) Measuring recreation benefits of quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data. Resour Energy Econ 22:339–354.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928-7655(00)00023-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whitehead JC, Pattanayak SK, Van Houtven GL, Gelso BR (2008) Combining Revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket value of ecological services: an assessment of the state of the science. J Economic Surv 22(5):872–908.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2008.00552.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département d’ÉconomiqueUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.Département d’ÉconomiqueUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  3. 3.Département des Sciences NaturellesUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisSherbrookeCanada
  4. 4.École de santé publique-Département de gestion, d’évaluation et de politique de santéUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations