How much Fear? Exploring the Role of Integral Emotions on Stated Preferences for Wildlife Conservation

Sandra Notaro,Gianluca Grilli

doi:10.1007/s00267-022-01593-z

Abstract

Scientific evidence suggests that emotions affect actual human decision-making, particularly in highly emotionally situations such as human-wildlife interactions. In this study we assess the role of fear on preferences for wildlife conservation, using a discrete choice experiment. The sample was split into two treatment groups and a control. In the treatment groups the emotion of fear towards wildlife was manipulated using two different pictures of a wolf, one fearful and one reassuring, which were presented to respondents during the experiment. Results were different for the two treatments. The assurance treatment lead to higher preferences and willingness to pay for the wolf, compared to the fear treatment and the control, for several population sizes. On the other hand, the impact of the fear treatment was lower than expected and only significant for large populations of wolves, in excess of 50 specimen. Overall, the study suggests that emotional choices may represent a source of concern for the assessment of stable preferences. The impact of emotional choices is likely to be greater in situations where a wildlife-related topic is highly emphasized, positively or negatively, by social networks, mass media, and opinion leaders. When stated preferences towards wildlife are affected by the emotional state of fear due to contextual external stimuli, welfare analysis does not reflect stable individual preferences and may lead to sub-optimal conservation policies. Therefore, while more research is recommended for a more accurate assessment, it is advised to control the decision context during surveys for potential emotional choices.

Highlights

The aim of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 2010) to halting biodiversity loss was followed by policies and management actions to protect species worldwide
When stated preferences towards wildlife are affected by emotional states due to contextual external stimuli, welfare analysis does not reflect stable individual preferences and may lead to sub-optimal conservation policies. This is the first study that analyses willingness to pay for wildlife conservation in relation to fear due to external stimuli using a Discrete Choice Experiment (Bateman et al 2002, Louviere et al 2000), which is a knowledge gap in the literature
Integral emotional states are not stable but context-dependent, which may lead to biased welfare estimates, thereby communicating incorrect policy recommendations to policy makers and wildlife managers

Summary

Introduction

The aim of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 2010) to halting biodiversity loss was followed by policies and management actions to protect species worldwide. While costs of such policies and actions are clearly identified, their benefits are difficult to determine. Assessing the value of biodiversity preservation becomes important to compare costs and benefits of policies and Environmental Management and survey elements have been proved to play a role in preference formation and in the explanation of individual choices. Monetary valuations of the environment are based on the assumptions that (1) individuals make rational choices and that (2) preferences are stable and consistent (Hanley and Barbier 2009).

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion