Valuing the Wolf in Sweden: Are Benefits Contingent on the Supply?

Abstract

In Sweden the future existence of a considerable number of animals and plants is very uncertain. The Swedish Environmental Protection Board (SNV) currently classifies 465 species as endangered (Eriksson and Hedlund, 1993; Sjöberg, 1993). These are species in danger of extinction, as reproducing populations, within the near future if the causal factors currently in place continue operating. “Endangered” is the most severely threatened class (with the exception of “extinct”) in the SNV classification.¹ The impoverishment of biodiversity as a result of species extinction is thus an increasing problem in society today. Although preservation of biodiversity involves a cost to society, it may also represent an economic value. An important concept in this respect is the term existence value (cf. Krutilla, 1967). Economists use this term to describe the anthropocentric notion that nature (and consequently mankind) suffers a loss when biodiversity is degraded. Existence value is often used as a collective term for all kinds of nonuse benefits. As Mitchell and Carson (1989) show, existence value can be composed of several different benefit subcategories, such as vicarious consumption, bequest and inherent existence components. There is virtually no way to gain information on the relative importance of existence value from people’s behaviour in the market-place, with the possible exception of donations to environmental organisations. Following Krutilla’s seminal article, several authors have attempted to clarify the nature of existence value (e.g. Brookshire et al., 1983; Edwards, 1986; Stevens et al., 1991; Walsh et al., 1984). The total value of an environmental good such as a wolf population may consist of more than just existence values, it may also contain a use category of benefits. Use benefits are derived from the individual’s direct or indirect physical use of an environmental amenity.