Search

This paper presents the results of a stated preference choice experiment designed to estimate the non-market benefits derived by UK residents from the conservation of ecosystem goods and services resulting from implementation of proposed Marine Conservation Zones under the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill (2008). The results inform an impact assessment that compares benefits to projected policy costs. As demonstrated in a paper by Hussain et al (2010) ex ante benefit estimation is complicated by the scientific uncertainty and data gaps that hinder the development of a bottom–up valuation of the ecosystem goods and services provisioned by the policy. A choice experiment approach provides an alternative top–down valuation by approximating policy outcomes, which are spatially remote from beneficiaries and therefore arguably only appreciated passively or in terms of non-use or existence value for broadly defined attributes of the policy. The choice experiment shows preferences for both halting the loss of or increasing marine biodiversity, and the provision of other environmental services relative to current trajectories of decline. Survey respondents were indifferent to the levels of restrictions on activities needed to achieve these outcomes. As a top–down estimate of policy benefits, the study suggests that welfare improvements from the Marine Bill significantly outweigh projected regulatory costs. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This paper presents an estimate of the benefits of the proposed designation of a network of marine conservation zones (MCZs) in English territorial and UK offshore waters. This ex ante analysis was undertaken as part of a cost–benefit evidence base to inform implementation of the proposed UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill. This Bill is part of an ambitious plan to designate and manage UK marine areas using an Ecosystems Approach. Benefits are measured in terms of anticipated increases in the value of ecosystem goods and services provisioned by MCZs relative to the counterfactual, i.e. no designation. The principal valuation and thus policy challenge is presented by the need to use benefits transfer in a context where biophysical provisioning functions are not well-developed, where there are gaps in the valuation literature related to temperate marine ecosystem goods and services, and where values (where available) are presented in aggregate terms. This paper develops and applies a methodology that first apportions these aggregate benefits across the diverse range of marine landscapes and habitats and then estimates the marginal benefit of protection. The value of benefits was calculated for three different configurations of MCZs under two different management regimes. We estimate a benefit range from designation of between £10.2billion and £23.5billion in present value terms, applying a 3.5% discount rate. The study questions the extent to which a defensible policy evidence base can be developed in the absence of primary valuation data and where benefit estimates are reported in aggregate terms. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]