¿Es representada apropiadamente la conservación de la biodiversidad en los estudios de valoración económica?


  • José Dávila Doctorado en Economía de los Recursos Naturales y el Desarrollo Sustentable, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina. Lima, Perú.



Palabras clave:

conservación de biodiversidad, experimento de elección, revisión sistemática, valoración contingente, insensibilidad al alcance


En las últimas dos décadas, las técnicas de preferencias declaradas han sido utilizadas para estimar la disposición a pagar por la conservación de la biodiversidad. Sin embargo, los resultados de estas técnicas pueden presentar fenómenos que contradicen la teoría económica, como la teoría de la utilidad y el bienestar. A partir de una revisión sistemática, se identificaron las características de aplicaciones de Valoración Contingente y Experimento de Elección para el caso de la biodiversidad, cuya conservación es un bien público. Se identificó que la conservación de la biodiversidad es estudiada mayormente a partir de representaciones de especies (flora y fauna) y hábitats. Los estudios que incluyeron la representación de funcionalidad contribuyeron en la no aparición de insensibilidad al alcance, lo que respaldaría el uso de sus resultados en políticas públicas ambientales.


Los datos de descarga aún no están disponibles.


Arrow, K.J.; Cropper, M.L.; Schultz, P.; Eads, G. C.; Hahn, R.W., Lave, L.B.; Stavins, R.N. 1996. Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation A Statement of Principles.

Arrow, K.; Solow, R., Portney, P.R.; Leamer, E.E.; Radner, R.; Schuman, H. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. In Federal Register, 58.

Bakhtiari, F.; Lundhede, T.H.; Gibbons, J.; Strange, N.; Jacobsen, J. B. 2014. Testing embedding or reversed embedding effects in valuation of forest biodiversity. Ttanbul.

Barrio, M.; Loureiro, ML. 2010. A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecological Economics, 69(5):1023-1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.016.

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.

Birol, E.; Hanley, N.; Koundouri, P.; Kountouris, Y. 2009. Optimal management of wetlands: Quantifying trade-offs between flood risks, recreation, and biodiversity conservation. Water Resources Research, 45. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006955

Birol, E.; Karousakis, K.; Koundouri, P. 2006. Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.002

Börger, T.; Hooper, T.L.; Austen, M.C. 2015. Valuation of ecological and amenity impacts of an offshore windfarm as a factor in marine planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.018

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

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.

Boyle, K.J.; Desvousges, W.; Johnson, F.R.; Dunford, R.W.; Hudson, S.P. 1994. An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27, 64–83.

Brander, LM.; Van Beukering, P.; Cesar, HSJ. 2007. The recreational value of coral reefs: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 3:209-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.002.

Brouwer, R.; Langford, IH.; Bateman, IJ. 1999. A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change, 1, 47-57.

Carlsson, F.; Frykblom, P.; Liljenstolpe, C. 2003. Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 47, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2002.09.003

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

Cerda, C.; Barkmann, J.; Marggraf, R. 2013a. Application of choice experiments to quantify the existence value of an endemic moss: a case study in Chile. Environment and Development Economics, 18(2), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355770x12000472

Cerda, C.; Losada, T. 2013. Assessing the value of species: A case study on the willingness to pay for species protection in Chile. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185(12), 10479–10493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3346-5.

Cerda, C.; Ponce, A.; Zappi, M. 2013b. Using choice experiments to understand public demand for the conservation of nature: A case study in a protected area of Chile. Journal for Nature Conservation, 21(3), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.11.010

Chan-Halbrendt C.; Lin, T. 2010. Hawaiian Residents’ Preferences for Miconia Control Program Attributes Using Conjoint Choice Experiment and Latent Class Analysis. Environmental Management, 45, 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9415-4

Chen, H.-S.; Chen, C.-W. 2019. Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method. Sustainability, 11(2), 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020403

Christie, M.; Hanley, N.; Warren, J.; Murphy, K.; Wright, R.; Hyde, T. 2006. Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 58, 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.034

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

Delibes-Mateos, M.; Giergiczny, M.; Caro, J.; Viñuela, J.; Riera, P.; Arroyo, B. 2014. Does hunters’ willingness to pay match the best hunting options for biodiversity conservation? A choice experiment application for small-game hunting in Spain. Biological Conservation, 177, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.004

Eggert, H.; Olson, B. 2009. Valuing multi-attribute marine water quality. Marine Policy, 33, 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.05.011

Estifanos, T.; Polyakov, M.; Pandit, R.; Hailu, A.; Burton, M. 2019. What are tourists willing to pay for securing the survival of a flagship species? The case of protection of the Ethiopian wolf. Tourism Economics, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816619880430

Farnsworth, K.D.; Adenuga, A.H.; de Groot, R. S. 2015. The complexity of biodiversity: A biological perspective on economic valuation. Ecological Economics, 120, 350–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.003

Forbes, K.; Boxall, P.C.; Adamowicz, W.L.; De Maio Sukic, A. 2015. Recovering Pacific rockfish at risk: the economic valuation of management actions. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2015.00071

Frontuto, V.; Dalmazzone, S.; Vallino, E.; Giaccaria, S. 2017. Earmarking conservation: Further inquiry on scope effects in stated preference methods applied to nature-based tourism. Tourism Management, 60, 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.11.017

Fujino, M.; Kuriyama, K.; Yoshida, K. 2017. An evaluation of the natural environment ecosystem preservation policies in Japan. Journal of Forest Economics, 29, 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.08.003

Garber-Yonts, B.; Kerkvliet, J.; Johnson, R. 2004. Public Values for Biodiversity. Forest Science, 50(5), 589–602. https://https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/50.5.589

Giraud, K.L.; Loomis, J.B.; Johnson, R.L. 1999. Internal and external scope in willingness-to-pay estimates for threatened and endangered wildlife. Journal of Environmental Management, 56, 221–229.

Giraud, K.; Valcic, B. 2004. Willingness-to-pay estimates and geographic embedded samples: Case study of Alaskan Steller sea lion. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 7(1–2), 57–72. https://https://doi.org/10.1080/13880290490480167

Greiner, R. 2015. Factors influencing farmers’ participation in contractual biodiversity conservation: a choice experiment with northern Australian pastoralists. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12098

Grilli, G.; Notaro, S. 2019. Exploring the influence of an extended theory of planned behaviour on preferences and willingness to pay for participatory natural resources management. Journal of Environmental Management, 232, 902–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.103

Haddaway, NR.; Pullin, AS. 2014. The Policy Role of Systematic Reviews: Past, Present and Future. Springer Science Reviews 2(1-2):179-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-014-0023-1.

Hanemann, W.M. 1999. Neo-Classical Economic Theory and Contingent Valuation. In I. J. Bateman & K. G. Willis (Eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries (Oxford Uni). New York.

Hanley, N.; Macmillan, D.; Patterson, I.; Wright, R. E. 2003. Economics and the design of nature conservation policy: a case study of wild goose conservation in Scotland using choice experiments. Animal Conservation, 6, 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943003003160

Hausmann, A.; Slotow, R.; Fraser, I.; Minin, E. Di. 2015. Ecotourism marketing alternative to charismatic megafauna can also support biodiversity conservation. Animal Conservation, 20, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12292

Heberlein, T.A.; Wilson, M.A.; Bishop, R.C.; Schaeffer, N.C. 2005. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2004.09.005

Hjerpe, E.; Hussain, A.; Phillips, S. 2015. Valuing type and scope of ecosystem conservation: A meta-analysis (en línea). Journal of Forest Economics, 21(1), 32-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2014.12.001.

Hueth, D.L.; Just, R.E. 1991. Applied General Equilibrium Welfare Analysis: Discussion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(5), 1517. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242414

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

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

Jacobsen, J.B.; Lundhede, T.H.; Thorsen, B.J. 2012. Valuation of wildlife populations above survival. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21, 543–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0200-3

Jin, J.; Indab, A.; Nabangchang, O.; Dang, T., Harder, D.; Subade, R. F. 2010. Valuing marine turtle conservation: A cross-country study in Asian cities. Ecological Economics, 69, 2020–2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.05.018

Johnston, RJ.; Besedin, EY.; Iovanna, R.; Miller, CJ.; Wardwell, RF.; Ranson, MH. 2006. Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Aquatic Resource Improvements and Implications for Benefit Transfer: A Meta-Analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(2005):221-248.

Jordano, P. 2016. Chasing Ecological Interactions. PLOS Biology, 14(9), e1002559. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002559

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

Juutinen, A.; Mitani, Y.; Mäntymaa, E.; Shoji, Y.; Siikamäki, P.; Svento, R. 2011. Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application. Ecological Economics, 70(6), 1231–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.006

Kahneman, D.; Knetsch, J. 1992. Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57–70.

Lee, D.E.; Preez, M.Du. 2016. Determining visitor preferences for rhinoceros conservation management at private, ecotourism game reserves in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: A choice modeling experiment. Ecological Economics, 130, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.022

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. Marine Resource Economics, 25(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.5950/0738-1360-25.2.133

Lew, D.K.; Wallmo, K. 2011. External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9394-1

Lindhjem, H. 2007. 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis. Journal of Forest Economics 12:251-277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2006.09.003.

Lindhjem, H.; Grimsrud, K.; Navrud, S.; Kolle, S.O. 2014. The social benefits and costs of preserving forest biodiversity and ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4(2), 202–222. doi:10.1080/21606544.2014.982201

Liquete, C.; Piroddi, C.; Drakou, EG.; Gurney, L.; Katsanevakis, S.; Charef, A.; Egoh, B. 2013. Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 8(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067737.

Loomis, J.; Ekstrand, E. 1997. Economic Benefits of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using a Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey. 22(2), 356–366.

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, 24, 45–55.

Macdonald, H.; McKenney, D. 1996. Varying levels of information and the embedding problem in contingent valuation: the case of Canadian wilderness. Canadian Journal Forest Research, 26, 1295–1303.

Martin-Ortega, J.; Mesa-Jurado, A.; 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/https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12105

Martinez-Paz, J.M. 2019. Understanding social demand for sustainable nature conservation. The case of a protected natural space in south-eastern Spain. Journal for Nature Conservation, 125722. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125722

Matta, J.R.; Alavalapati, J.R.R.; Mercer, D.E. 2009. Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation Beyond the Best Management Practices: Are Forestland Owners Interested? Land Economics, 85, 132–143.

Mattmann, M.; Logar, I.; Brouwer, R. 2016. Wind power externalities: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 127:23-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.005.

McVittie, A.; Moran, D. 2010. Valuing the non-use bene fits of marine conservation zones: An application to the UK Marine Bill. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.013

Meinard, Y.; Grill, P. 2011. The economic valuation of biodiversity as an abstract good. Ecological Economics, 70(10), 1707–1714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.003

Mendieta López, J. 1999. Manual de valoración económica de bienes no mercadeables: aplicaciones de las técnicas de valoración no mercadeables y el análisis costo beneficio y medio ambiente. Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.

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

Mwebaze, P.; Marris, G.C.; Brown, M.; MacLeod, A.; Jones, G.; Budge, G. E. 2018. Land Use Policy 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

Nordén, A.; Coria, J.; Jönsson, A. M.; Lagergren, F.; Lehsten, V. 2017. Divergence in stakeholders’ preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden. Ecological Economics, 132, 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.032

Nunes, P.A.L.; van den Bergh, J.C.J. 2001. Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Ecological Economics, 39(2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(01)00233-6

Ojea, E.; Loureiro, M. 2011. Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies. Resource and Energy Economics, 33, 706–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.03.002

Ojea, E; Martin-Ortega, J. 2015. Understanding the economic value of water ecosystem services from tropical forests: A systematic review for South and Central America. Journal of Forest Economics, 21(2), 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2015.02.001.

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

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. Quebec.

ONU. 1992. Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica.

Pouta, E. 2005. Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2003.09.002

Rakotonarivo, OS.; Schaafsma, M.; Hockley, N. 2016. A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods. Journal of Environmental Management, 183:98-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.032.

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

Ressurreição, A.; Zarzycki, T.; Kaiser, M.; Edwards-jones, G.; Ponce Dentinho, T., Santos, R.S.; Gibbons, J. 2012. Towards an ecosystem approach for understanding public values concerning marine biodiversity loss. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09967

Richardson, L.; Loomis, J. 2009. The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1535-1548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.10.016.

Rolfe, J.; Bennett, J.; Louviere, J. 2000. Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecological Economics, 35(2), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(00)00201-9

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

Rudd, MA. 2009. National values for regional aquatic species at risk in Canada. Endang Species Res 6:239-249. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00160

Smith, VK.; Osborne, LL. 1996. Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a ‘‘Scope’’ Test? A Meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31:287-301.

Spencer-Cotton, A.; Kragt, M.E.; Burton, M. 2018. Spatial and Scope Effects: Valuations of Coastal Management Practices. Journal Of, 69(3), 833–851. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12301

Stanley, D.L. 2005. Local Perception of Public Goods: Recent Assessments of Willingness-to-pay for Endangered Species. Contemporary Economic Policy, 23(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/cep/byi013

United Nations. 2010. Group of Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/unga-hlm/statements/Megadiverse_Countries.pdf

Vásquez, F.; Urrutia, A. C.; Suaza, S. O. 2007. Valoración económica del ambiente: Fundamentos económicos, econométricos y aplicaciones. http://www.sidalc.net/cgi- bin/wxis.exe/?IsisScript=camoa.xis&method=post&formato=2&cantidad=1&expresion= mfn=002126

Vedogbeton, H.; Johnston, R.J. 2020. Commodity Consistent Meta-Analysis of Wetland Values: An Illustration for Coastal Marsh Habitat. Environmental and Resource Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00409-0

Veisten, K.; Hoen, H. F.; Navrud, S.; Strand, J. 2004. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Management, 73, 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.07.008

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

Wang, E. 2014. Valuing natural and non-natural attributes for a national forest park using a choice. Tourism Economics, 20(6), 1199–1213. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2013.0329

Wheeler, S.; Damania, R. 2001. Valuing New Zealand recreational fishing and an assessment of the validity of the contingent valuation estimates. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 45(4), 599–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.00159

Woodward, RT.; Wui, Y. 2001. The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. 37:257-270.






Artículo de revisión / Review article

Cómo citar

Dávila, J. (2022). ¿Es representada apropiadamente la conservación de la biodiversidad en los estudios de valoración económica?. Natura@economía, 7(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.21704/ne.v7i1.1672

Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a

1 2 3 4 5 6 > >>