1. Why Do People Care about the Sea Lion? -A fishing game to test the biodiversity value

2. Evidence of Positive Biodiversity Value Contingent valuation studies frequently report a positive wiliness to pay to conserve or improve biodiversity (hypothetical-- attitude) Endangered Species Act (Institutional, 1973) Volunteer activities and donations to environmental organizations (behavior) 2

3. 3

4. 4 Theory: Value of Biodiversity Anthropocentric value –“biodiversity performs a number of ecological services for humankind that have economic, aesthetic or recreational value. ” –Ecosystem productivity; Insurance; Knowledge; Ecosystem services Intrinsic value –“biodiversity has an intrinsic value that is worth protecting regardless of its value to humans.” –Other species has a right to exist even if this is inconvenient for us. We have a duty to respect this right.

5. The Current Research First incentivized study of biodiversity value –More realistic than contingent valuation survey –Direct measurement of value from behavior First laboratory game to investigate resource management by ordinary people –Mimic the real world decision making by fishermen Individual differences –Gender, Age, Environmental attitude 5

6. Experiment Design 2X2 between subject design –(With or without anthropocentric value) X (With or without intrinsic value ) A fishing game –Players make a series of resource management decisions on fishing –Anthropocentric value is in the form of financial value ( profit from the sea lion) –Intrinsic value is in the form of existence value (donation to an environmental organization) 6

7. 7 The Ecosystem Location

8. 8

9. 9 The Fishing Game Players harvest pollock for profits Sealion-pollock is in a predator -prey relationship Anthropocentric value and Intrinsic value of the sea lion –Financial (Anthropocentric) value of the sea lion (profits from sealion watching tickets based on the sea lion population) –Existence (Intrinsic) value of the sea lion (donation to the Alaska Sealife Center based on the sea lion population)

10. 4 Treatments Treatment 1 (Baseline): Participants profit from Pollock harvesting. The profit is increasing in both the harvest level and the population of Pollock. Treatment 2 (Financial Value of Biodiversity): Participants profit from Pollock harvesting and from selling sea lion watching tickets. Each unit of sea lion yields 30 Talers in profit. 10

11. 4 Treatments -- continued Treatment 3 (Existence Value of Biodiversity): Participants profit from Pollock harvesting. ALSC receives donations. Each unit of sea lion yields 30 Talers in the donation. Treatment 4 (Financial Value and Existence Value): Participants profit from Pollock harvesting and selling sea lion watching tickets. Each unit of sea lion yields 15 Talers in profit. ALSC receives donations. Each unit of sea lion yields 15 Talers in the donation. 11

12. Theoretical Models Maximizing profits in the baseline model (Treatment 1) Maximizing social welfare in Treatment 2,3, &4 (with Biodiversity Value) 12

13. Optimal Harvest Paths 13

14. 14 Game Interface in Baseline

15. Participants and Procedure 115 participants –Gender: 72 females; 43 males –Age: 71 participants: 34 Survey after the game –Strategy Survey –New Ecological Paradigm Survey 15

16. Hypotheses Derived from Previous Literature H1: People value biodiversity -- When a positive biodiversity value of the sea lion is introduced, participants keep more sea lion. –H1a: H1 is true for the financial value of biodiversity. –H1b: H1 is true for the existence value of biodiversity. H2: Existence value can be predicted by people’s environmental attitudes and their demographic characteristics. –H2a: Donation is positive correlated with the pro-NEP attitude measure. –H2b: Females donate more than Males –H2c: Younger Participants donate more than older ones. 16

17. H1: Do People Value Biodiversity? 17

18. H1a and H1b: Why do People Value Biodiversity? 18

19. H2: Individual Difference in Existence Value 19

20. Accepted & Rejected H1: People value biodiversity -- When a positive biodiversity value of the sea lion is introduced, participants keep more sea lion. –H1a: H1 is true for the financial value of biodiversity. –H1b: H1 is true for the existence value of biodiversity. H2: Existence value can be predicted by people’s environmental attitudes and their demographic characteristics. –H2a: Donation is positive correlated with the pro-NEP attitude measure. –H2b: Females donate more than Males –H2c: Younger Participants donate more than older ones. 20

21. Summary Our study confirm previous contingent valuation survey results that people have a positive value on biodiversity. Average people respond to anthropocentric value rather than intrinsic value, but there are individual differences: –Females value intrinsic biodiversity value more than males; –The intrinsic value correlates with people’s pro-environment attitude. 21

22. Implication and Discussion When educating the public about the biodiversity value, it is probably more efficient to focus on the anthropocentric perspectives than intrinsic values. There are systematic demographic differences in terms of intrinsic biodiversity value. Watch out for biased conclusions! 22