Public perception and valuation of long‐term ecological monitoring

Abstract Organizations tasked with implementing long‐term ecological monitoring programs often struggle to stay funded. Government agencies are typically the only entities with sufficient capacity and motivation to support long‐term scientific programs that generate data for environmental management...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Brian P. Vander Naald, Christopher J. Sergeant, Anne H. Beaudreau
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2019-10-01
Series:Ecosphere
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2875
id doaj-8e7fbf8bc43c4342b2fff41ff2e31af0
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8e7fbf8bc43c4342b2fff41ff2e31af02020-11-24T21:45:42ZengWileyEcosphere2150-89252019-10-011010n/an/a10.1002/ecs2.2875Public perception and valuation of long‐term ecological monitoringBrian P. Vander Naald0Christopher J. Sergeant1Anne H. Beaudreau2College of Business and Public Administration Drake University Des Moines Iowa USACollege of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks Juneau Alaska USACollege of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of Alaska Fairbanks Juneau Alaska USAAbstract Organizations tasked with implementing long‐term ecological monitoring programs often struggle to stay funded. Government agencies are typically the only entities with sufficient capacity and motivation to support long‐term scientific programs that generate data for environmental management and conservation. Taxpayers bear this funding burden, yet we know of no studies assessing public perception of government‐led long‐term monitoring. We present the results of a survey designed to assess willingness to pay (WTP) for the benefits resulting from long‐term ecological monitoring in Southeast Alaska for residents and visitors. We hypothesized that four factors have the potential to influence preferences for long‐term ecological monitoring: (1) type of ecosystem service monitored (intermediate vs. final); (2) place of residence; (3) prior knowledge of monitoring; and (4) sociodemographic characteristics. We defined final ecosystem services as ecosystem attributes that have clear relevance to human well‐being and intermediate ecosystem services as those required to produce final services. We found a greater WTP for programs monitoring intermediate ecosystem services, longer‐running programs, and programs covering a larger spatial extent. Respondents with higher income and conservative political preferences were more likely to choose no monitoring program at all (status quo), whereas respondents with previous knowledge of monitoring were generally more supportive of long‐term monitoring programs.https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2875choice experimentecological monitoringecosystem servicesnon‐market valuationpublic perceptionwillingness to pay
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Brian P. Vander Naald
Christopher J. Sergeant
Anne H. Beaudreau
spellingShingle Brian P. Vander Naald
Christopher J. Sergeant
Anne H. Beaudreau
Public perception and valuation of long‐term ecological monitoring
Ecosphere
choice experiment
ecological monitoring
ecosystem services
non‐market valuation
public perception
willingness to pay
author_facet Brian P. Vander Naald
Christopher J. Sergeant
Anne H. Beaudreau
author_sort Brian P. Vander Naald
title Public perception and valuation of long‐term ecological monitoring
title_short Public perception and valuation of long‐term ecological monitoring
title_full Public perception and valuation of long‐term ecological monitoring
title_fullStr Public perception and valuation of long‐term ecological monitoring
title_full_unstemmed Public perception and valuation of long‐term ecological monitoring
title_sort public perception and valuation of long‐term ecological monitoring
publisher Wiley
series Ecosphere
issn 2150-8925
publishDate 2019-10-01
description Abstract Organizations tasked with implementing long‐term ecological monitoring programs often struggle to stay funded. Government agencies are typically the only entities with sufficient capacity and motivation to support long‐term scientific programs that generate data for environmental management and conservation. Taxpayers bear this funding burden, yet we know of no studies assessing public perception of government‐led long‐term monitoring. We present the results of a survey designed to assess willingness to pay (WTP) for the benefits resulting from long‐term ecological monitoring in Southeast Alaska for residents and visitors. We hypothesized that four factors have the potential to influence preferences for long‐term ecological monitoring: (1) type of ecosystem service monitored (intermediate vs. final); (2) place of residence; (3) prior knowledge of monitoring; and (4) sociodemographic characteristics. We defined final ecosystem services as ecosystem attributes that have clear relevance to human well‐being and intermediate ecosystem services as those required to produce final services. We found a greater WTP for programs monitoring intermediate ecosystem services, longer‐running programs, and programs covering a larger spatial extent. Respondents with higher income and conservative political preferences were more likely to choose no monitoring program at all (status quo), whereas respondents with previous knowledge of monitoring were generally more supportive of long‐term monitoring programs.
topic choice experiment
ecological monitoring
ecosystem services
non‐market valuation
public perception
willingness to pay
url https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2875
work_keys_str_mv AT brianpvandernaald publicperceptionandvaluationoflongtermecologicalmonitoring
AT christopherjsergeant publicperceptionandvaluationoflongtermecologicalmonitoring
AT annehbeaudreau publicperceptionandvaluationoflongtermecologicalmonitoring
_version_ 1725904867257483264