www.davidpannell.net

SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURAL &

RESOURCE ECONOMICS

Do scientists and the public see

eye to eye?

Valuing the Kimberley’s tropical

waterways and wetlands

Jonelle Cleland and Abbie McCartney

Acknowledgements

EERH (Environmental Economics Research Hub)

TRACK (Tropical Rivers & Coastal Knowledge

Research Hub)

Key points

Highly relevant to policy

Limited research

In the case of the

Kimberley’s waterways and

wetlands, preferences do

diverge

Comparing preferences of scientists and the

public for different conservation outcomes:

The issue

Historically, science & technology related policy

has been expert-based

Today, participatory claims are strong across

these policy arenas

… But consultation is resource intensive!

Research on the topic

Studies have generally focused on differences in

perceptions

Previous efforts using CM to compare

public/scientist preferences for the environment

have not used the same elicitation method for

both populations, or have not asked the same

question of each group

Equivalent choice experiment surveys administered to

scientist and public samples to estimate non-market

environmental values

An alternative approach

• Requires considerable effort on survey design to:

(1) ensure scientist and public buy-in

(2) take into account potential differences in

understanding and cognitive processing

CERF Project

3 case studies

Specific system

Broad scale system

Urban & agricultural

Further research

Southwest Australia Ecoregion

Remote

Ningaloo Marine

Park

Kimberley Tropical

Waterways

Case study outline – Kimberley tropical waterways

Institutional setting

Attribute definition

Survey and experimental design

Results:

Testing for preference homogeneity amongst samples

Partworths for public and scientists

Institutional setting

Increasing political focus on Northern

Australia’s water resources

… whereby …

The Kimberley

Sustainable development will take

place by ‘drawing on good science’

and the ‘knowledge of local

communities and stakeholders’

(Government of Australia 2008)

Attribute definition

Knowledge base approach

Scientist knowledge

Activist knowledge

Indigenous knowledge

The mix of knowledge

bases sees a range of

attributes that could be

potentially included in CE

Attributes Attributes Attribute Levels

Wild rivers

Number of Priority 1 wild rivers

17 (base level)

26

35

Iconic places

Percentage area of native vegetation in good condition at

iconic sites

80% (base level)

89%

98%

Representative

ecosystems

Number of bioregions with at least 10% protected by

reserves

2 (base level)

3

4

Threatened

species

Split design

Iconic species

Split design

Split Attribute Levels

Fish

Upstream migration of Freshwater Sawfish in the

Fitzroy River during dry season

Restricted (base level)

Unrestricted

Bird

Number of Purple-crowned Fairy Wren populations

protected by reserves

3 (base level)

6

9

Plant

Number of Edgar Range Pandanus populations

protected by reserves

0 (base level)

1

2

Threatened species attributes

Split Attribute Levels

Fish

Upstream migration of Barramundi in the

Ord River during dry season

Restricted (base level)

Unrestricted

Bird

Chance of seeing Brolgas at wetland sites

70% (base level)

80%

90%

Plant

Percentage of wetland margin covered by

Blue Lily’s

20% (base level)

30%

40%

Iconic species attributes

Survey design

Public

Bird species attributes

Low information

High information

Plant species attributes

Low information

High information

Fish species attributes

Low information

High information

Scientist survey Fish species

attributes

High

information

Information framework

Attribute Low

Information

High

Information

Definition

Basic

Detailed

Environmental significance

Basic

Detailed

Description of status quo

Yes

Yes

Explicit links between threats and abatement

No

Yes

Supporting diagrams

No

Yes

Photos

Yes

Yes

Choice set design

Payment vehicle:

Payment collected through increased taxes, user fees, goods and

services associated with the Kimberley

Levels: $0 (status quo only), $50, $100, $150

2 alternatives + status quo option

Status quo – zero cost, zero conservation improvement (base levels).

Experimental design

Experimental design:

Efficient designs generated by the Ngene software (Rose et al. 2008)

Public – 18 choice sets blocked in to 2 (9 sets per respondent)

Scientists – 15 choice sets

Two-way interactions in the design:

Representative ecosystems and the bird threatened species both used

reserves as a component of the attribute level

Representative ecosystems and the plant threatened species both used

reserves as a component of the attribute level

The fish threatened and iconic species both used migration ability as an

attribute level

Choice scenario

Sample Statistics

Web-based

Public survey (November 2009)

West Australian public sample, collected by online research company

5% response rate 2,370 entered the survey

55% completion rate 1,302 completed the survey

Scientist survey (May-August 2010)

80 Australian tropical scientists invited to participate

43 responded

33 completed

Utility Function

Public

Bird species attributes

Low information

High information

Plant species attributes

Low information

High information

Fish species attributes

Low information

High information

Scientist survey Fish species

attributes High information

Preference homogeneity across samples

Partworths – fish models

***, **, * denotes significance at the 99%, 95% and 90% level of confidence respectively.

Attribute: Fish low info $ Fish high info $ Scientist $

Wild Rivers

26 pristine rivers 16* 20** 99***

35 pristine rivers 27** 40*** 168***

Iconic Place

89% vegetation in good condition 19** 36*** 46**

98% vegetation in good condition 44*** 40*** 19

Representative ecosystems

3 bioregions with >10% reserves 25*** 20** 41*

4 bioregions with >10% reserves 17* 18** 53**

Threatened species

Unrestricted sawfish migration 47*** 43*** 125***

Iconic species

Unrestricted barramundi migration 57*** 25*** -4

Links between iconic places and aesthetics

Attribute: $’s:

Fish Public,

Low Information

Iconic Place 89% good veg. 98% good veg.

Vegetation in good condition 19** 44***

If waterfalls were a feature of interest during visit to

Kimberley

50*** 92***

Attribute: $’s:

Fish Public,

High Information

Iconic Place 89% good veg. 98% good veg.

Vegetation in good condition 36*** 40***

If gorges were a feature of interest during visit to Kimberley 66*** 79***

Membership of conservation groups

Attribute: $’s:

Fish Public,

High Information

Wild Rivers 26 rivers 35 rivers

Pristine wild rivers 20** 40***

If belonged to an environmental/conservation group 65** 113***

Iconic species Unrestricted migration

Barramundi migration 25***

If belonged to an environmental/conservation group 85***

Attribute: $’s:

Fish Scientist

Representative ecosystems 3 bioregions 4 bioregions

Bioregions with >10% protected by reserves 41* 53**

If belonging to an environmental/conservation group 151*** 172***

Conclusions

Preferences diverge

Public and scientist samples could not be combined

into one homogeneous model

Public WTP higher for iconic places and iconic

species

Scientist WTP higher for wild rivers, representative

ecosystems and threatened species

Scientists have heterogeneous preferences

Implications

Where preferences are considered likely to

diverge, relying on scientific expert judgement

may not be adequate and public consultation

methods such as CM are an important

component to inform policy

Decision makers should be aware that scientists

have heterogeneous preferences when

interpreting their opinions

Integration

Comparing results from the three case studies:

SW Australia Ecoregion, Ningaloo Marine Park, Kimberley tropical

waterways & wetlands

Ningaloo results:

Evidence of preference divergence between public and scientists in

terms of opting for conservation programs

But: convergence of values for all of the attributes considered in the

study

Public knowledge and awareness factors are expected to have played a

role in this convergence

Further research

ARC linkage project

Swan River case study (the missing

quadrant)

with David Pannell, Michael Burton,

John Rolfe, Jessica Meeuwig

Will investigate how payment

vehicles may play a role in

preference formation for public and

scientists

For further information: EERH Report No. 60

‘The Value of Tropical Waterways and Wetlands: does an increase in knowledge

change community preferences’

EERH Report No. 77

‘Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition: divergence between experts and the

public’

EERH Report No. 79

‘Putting the Spotlight on Attribute Definition: a knowledge base approach’

EERH Report No. 80

Comparing scientist and public preferences for conserving environmental systems: a

case of the Kimberley’s waterways and wetlands and the Southwest Australia

Ecoregion