EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 8 ( 2 00 8 ) 3 6 2 –3 69

a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m

w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n

ANALYSIS

Valuing local endangered species: The role of

intra-species substitutes☆

Maria L. Loureiroa,b,⁎, Elena Ojeab

a
Department of Economic Analysis, Universidade de Santiago, Spain
b
IDEGA, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Campus Sur, Avda das Ciencias, S/N. 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

AR TIC LE I N FO ABS TR ACT

Article history: Valuation of endangered species is important in many circumstances, and particularly
Received 5 November 2007 when assessing the impact of large accidental oil spills. Previous studies have tested the
Received in revised form effects of including in the contingent valuation survey reminders about the existence of
10 February 2008 diverse substitutes (in terms of other natural resources also in danger of extinction in the
Accepted 6 April 2008 same area, other programs to be valued, or alternative uses of money). We include a
Available online 14 May 2008 reminder about the existence of the same biological species not being under danger of
extinction elsewhere. We believe this reminder allows individuals to make an easy
Keywords: assessment of the biological scarcity of the species they are supposed to value. Thus, the key
Contingent valuation difference with previous studies is that valuation of endangered species is combined with
Endangered species an assessment of preferences towards conservation of local and native species. Our WTP
Substitutes results are not sensitive to the information provided about other foreign substitutes.
Implications of this finding are discussed.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
It is expected that the existence of a substitute of the good or
asset being valued may decrease the mean willingness to pay
(WTP) estimate when valuing such a resource. This expecta-
tion was put forward when the NOAA panel (Arrow et al.,
1993) recommended the inclusion of references to possible
substitutes of the good being valued. In line with the NOAA
panel guidelines, there is an important debate about the role
that substitute goods may potentially play on the valuation
process of the good or resource of interest. Diverse studies
have tested the effects of considering substitute goods or
substitute prices in the valuation scenario (Boyle et al., 1990;
Loomis et al., 1994; Neill, 1995; Whitehead and Blomquist,
1995; Kotchen and Reiling, 1999) with mixed results. Boyle
et al. (1990) value single day hunting trips when participants
are reminded about variations of prices of substitutes, pro-
viding unclear results with respect to the changes of sub-
stitute prices on WTP estimates for hunting different species.
Loomis et al. (1994) and Kotchen and Reiling (1999) reminded
survey participants of the existence of other species threa-
tened by extinction, or other places in which the recovery
program of interest would have no effect. A number of these
studies rejected the hypothesis of sensitivity of the WTP
estimates when substitutes are presented (see for example
Loomis et al., 1994; Kotchen and Reiling, 1999), while others
have shown that information about reminders can signifi-
cantly affect WTP estimates (Whitehead and Blomquist,
1995). Cummings et al. (1994) and Hailu et al. (2000) examine
the effect of substitute programs on the one being valued,

☆
The authors whish to thank, without implicating, John Loomis for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript, participants of the
BIOECON-2006 conference, and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 981563100 14337; fax: +34 981528031.
E-mail address: maria.loureiro@usc.es (M.L. Loureiro).

0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.04.002
 EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 08 ) 36 2 –3 69
asking participants to value all programs simultaneously.
Overall, the results obtained from this last set of studies show
that the value of the program is sensitive to the inclusion of
other programs. Hoehn and Loomis (1993) have shown that
when valuing jointly different programs affecting different
resources located in the same geographical area, these turned
out to be valued as substitutes instead of complementary
goods. Thus, there appear to be conflicting results about the
effects of information regarding substitutes in the valuation
process. However, a majority of studies recommend the need
to remind individuals about the existence of substitutes in
any case, since the reminder increases the efficiency of the
welfare estimates (Kotchen and Reiling, 1999; Whitehead and
Blomquist, 1995). Based on this recommendation, an impor-
tant area of research deals with the type of information and
content that should be transmitted in the valuation process.
The current paper adds to the literature providing some
insights about the type of information that should be
included.
Prior CVM studies which included other substitutes did
mainly consider the role of reminders about the fact that
many other different species, in addition to the one being
valued, were in danger of extinction (Loomis et al., 1994;
Kotchen and Reiling, 1999). As indicated by Whitehead and
Blomquist (1999), the inclusion of reminders in the valuation
scenario that indicate that other different species may also be
threatened by extinction may generate confusion or anoma-
lies in the valuation process, mainly due to the respondents'
lack of experience with CVM. These anomalies may not
necessarily correspond with any rational economic response
linked to the information provided. In this paper, we apply
Whitehead and Blomquist's (1999) recommendation, which
refers to the desirability of informing individuals about the
existence of other close substitutes which are not threatened
by extinction. Currently, we are unaware of any work that
tested the effects of including a reminder of this type in the
valuation exercise. Thus, the main objective of this paper is to
present further evidence about the effect of close substitute
reminders in the valuation of endangered species. In general
terms, we expect that individuals which are presented with
information about the existence of closely related substitutes
should have a lower WTP estimate for the restoration program
being valued. Many studies have already valued endangered
species (Giraud et al., 2002; Jakobsson and Dragun, 2001;
Langford et al., 2001) or the re-introduction of a particular
species (Chambers and Whitehead, 2003). In the current
research we expand this prior literature by evaluating the
sensitivity of WTP values when reminders about the existence
of other close substitutes are included in the valuation
process. Furthermore, in our valuation exercise individual
preferences towards preserving local resources are also
discussed.
In the empirical analysis that follows, we will assess the
importance of substitute populations of the guillemot bird
species (also known as common murre), which are threatened
by extinction in Spain. This paper has the following structure.
Next, we present the main motivation and empirical hypoth-
esis to be tested, followed by the data description, the
empirical analysis, and obtained results. We conclude with a
number of recommendations and remarks.
363
2. Background and main motivation
In the present study, we value a program to recover the
guillemot population (Uria aalge) in Galicia, Spain, which was
significantly affected by the Prestige oil spill in 2002. The
Galician coast experienced the greatest amount of damage as
a result of the spill and is also the only geographical area in
Southern Europe that is home to local colonies of guillemots.
In addition to the Prestige oil spill, the intensive fishing
activity in this area and the consequences of global climate
change have all contributed to the depletion of available food
resources for the guillemot. The guillemot is now threatened
by extinction in Spain (Martí and Del Moral, 2003). The
guillemot colonies in Spain are populated by only 3–5 adult
pairs (Rodriguez and Furelos coord, 2004). However, in contrast
to this very small local population, guillemot colonies
throughout Northern Europe are not threatened by extinction.
Winter migrations bring these Northern European popula-
tions to Southern Europe, where they coexist with the local
Spanish guillemot. In the analysis that follows, we consider
these Northern European colonies as substitutes of the local
guillemot population, given that they are classified as belong-
ing to the same subspecies (Uria aalge albionus) in the Spanish
red list of endangered birds1 (Martí and Del Moral, 2003).
In the present study all participants were informed about
the critical situation of the guillemot in Galicia, Spain. Fur-
thermore, and in order to introduce realism in the survey, they
were also informed that 13 other species (including reptiles,
fishes, mammals and other birds) are also in danger of extinc-
tion in Galicia. To test the possible effect of close substitutes,
half of the sample received information about the existence of
Northern European guillemot colonies which are not in danger
of extinction (survey version with substitutes), while the other
half did not receive such information (survey version without
substitutes).
Thus, the null hypothesis of interest in this valuation
exercise is whether the welfare estimates (WTP) are equal
across treatments:
WTPðwithout substitutesÞ ¼ WTPðwith subsitutesÞ : ð1Þ
We expect that given a rational valuation process and
according to the principles of micro-economic theory, indivi-
duals who are aware of the existence of close substitutes will
value the recovery program for the local guillemot less than
those who are unaware of the existence of intra-species
substitutes.
3. Data
Our data has been obtained via personal surveys. The recovery
program valued in this survey has been designed following the
recommendations of previous feasibility studies for the local
1
The Spanish Bird Atlas is the Spanish IUCN red list for birds,
and it is the national reference for species status in Spain. In the
international IUCN red list the guillemot is not endangered (listed
as Least Concern-LC) while the Spanish population is classified as
CR (critically endangered).
364 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 8 ( 2 00 8 ) 3 6 2 –3 69
population of guillemot (Rodríguez and Furelos coord, 2004),
and was completed with other information provided by
similar restoration programs applied in California (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1995). The local recovery plans contained
the following actions: re-introduction of mature birds, an
effective surveillance (via video-cameras) and the creation of a
comfortable habitat for their growth and reproduction. The
creation of such habitat would imply reductions and stricter
regulations in terms of fishery activities, as well as commer-
cial cargo transportation. In this way, we aimed to create a
very realistic recovery action. This recovery action was at the
time considered as an actual restoration program promoted by
several NGOs and developed by the Galician government.2
The survey indicated that the main goal of the recovery
program was to increase the number of the total number of
adult pairs of guillemots living in Galicia from the current
critical levels (3–5) to 20 pairs in about 10 years. Survey
participants were also informed that a threshold of 20 pairs
was the minimum viable population (MVP) according to recent
biological studies (Rodríguez and Furelos coord, 2004). This
recovery objective would be reached via four basic restoration
actions: 1) creating protected areas, 2) restricting commercial
fishing in the designated protected areas, 3) increasing the
control over spills and pollution episodes, and 4) constant
surveillance of the existing and new colonies (via cameras and
radio telecommunications).
The survey design followed the NOAA panel recommenda-
tions, including the use of dichotomous choice WTP questions
(with follow ups), the reminder of other forgone alternative
uses of the money paid for the recovery program; as well as
the inclusion of precise information about the good in
question (including the existence of other species also in
danger of extinction that would not be affected by this
recovery program). In addition, other features of previous
surveys conducted by Giraud et al. (2002), and Kotchen and
Reiling (2000) were also incorporated in terms of general
survey structure.
The survey was administered in 12 municipalities of Galicia,
with an equal distribution of coastal and non-coastal commu-
nities. These municipalities also offered a representation of
semi-rural, semi-urban, and urban areas. The main criteria
followed to select these locations were related to their simi-
larities with the current Galician Population Census (IGE, 2004).
The main socio-economic variables in our sample correspond
well with the Census profile, in terms of age distribution and
gender. However, and replicating common features to many
other surveys, our sample is more educated, with about 26% of
the individuals having a university degree, while this figure is
about 11% for the population of reference (IGE, 2004).
The survey and visual aids were intensively pre-tested for
comprehensiveness in several focus groups and in test
surveys. The final surveys were conducted in June and July
2005, and administered following a random route, so that the
selection of the final selected sample was random. Surveys
were conducted face to face in private homes or at home
entrances. The final sample size contains 341 observations,
170 for the substitutes sub-sample and 171 for the non-
2
Unfortunately no restoration program has been put in place
after all.
substitutes sub-sample. Final number of observations
included in the analysis slightly differs due to missing values.
The obtained response rate was 65.48%, which can be
considered fairly high for surveys not employing any eco-
nomic incentive for participants.
The survey structure was devised with specific sections.
The initial section was comprised of basic questions about
consumption habits and environmental behaviour (recycling,
water and energy use, etc), followed by a section containing
information about species conservation and the status of the
guillemot in Galicia. This written information was comple-
mented by graphics that detailed the current situation and
location of the local colonies of guillemot in Galicia. Half of the
sample also received additional information regarding the
location of other guillemot colonies in Northern Europe, as
well as a description of the migratory processes. (In particular,
card 1 and card 2 were presented only to those informed about
the existence of Northern colonies, while the rest of the cards
were shown to all participants). In both survey versions
individuals were reminded about the fact that a minimum
viable population of 20 pairs was necessary for the guillemot
to survive in Galicia. All participants were unaware about the
existence of guillemot colonies in Northern Europe. This fact
has helped increasing the credibility of the two survey
versions, given that both survey versions were credible.
Once the information about the species was provided and
individuals were familiar with the conservation problem at
hand, half the sample received the following reminder:
“The guillemot population is distributed along the
Northern European coast (showing Card 1, Appendix C)
and in Southern Europe along the Galician and the
Northern coasts of Portugal. During the winter season,
there are migrations from the Northern European breed-
ing colonies towards Southern Europe (showing Card 2,
Appendix C). These migratory guillemots spend the
winter in Galicia. In spring they return to the Northern
European colonies for breeding. These Northern Eur-
opean colonies are quite abundant and are not threa-
tened by extinction.”
After that, respondents were presented with the WTP
question reproduced in Appendix A.
4. Empirical results
A logit model was used to analyze the responses to the WTP
question, where:
′
ebxi
ProbðWTPi ¼ 1Þ ¼ 8 ð2Þ
1 þ eb′xi
and
bVxi ¼ b0 þ b1 ln BIDi þ b2 COASTi þ b3 NATURALISTi
þ b4 AGEi þ b5 INCOMEi ð3Þ
In this specification, the dependent variable WTPi is the
dichotomous variable representing the individual response to
the WTP question. The explanatory variables include the BID
 EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 08 ) 36 2 –3 69 365

amount (in its log form), and a series of socio-economic Table 2 – WTP results for recovering the Spanish guillemot
variables, representing respondent's characteristics that are Variables No info about Info about substitutes
suspected to affect individual preferences for the conservation substitutes
program. These socio-economic variables include the COAST
Coefficient Z Coefficient Z
variable, which denotes whether the individual lives by the
coast. The variable NATURALIST indicates whether the indivi- LNBID −1.1428 (0.2924) − 3.91⁎⁎⁎ −1.4414 (0.2882) − 5.00⁎⁎⁎
dual frequently engages in athletic activities or walks outdoors; COAST 0.7650 (0.4434) 1.73⁎ −0.2168 (0.4298) − 0.50
NATURALIST 0.9069 (0.4587) 1.98⁎ 0.7251 (0.4433) 1.64⁎
while AGE indicates the respondent's age, and INCOME the
AGE −0.0267 (0.0125) − 2.13⁎ −0.0245 (0.0122) − 2.00⁎
monthly household income level. Summary statistics and
INCOME −0.0006 (0.0003) − 1.74⁎ 0.0006 (0.0003) 1.93⁎
complete variable definitions are presented in Table 1. CONSTANT 4.2416 (1.3287) 3.19⁎⁎⁎ 4.4581 (1.2494) 3.57⁎⁎⁎
Given our empirical objective, we need to first assess N 170 169
whether there are differences in the socio-economic composi- WTP 18.17 19.34
tion of the two sub-samples or treatments (participants of each 95% [16.12–20.21] [17.80–20.87]
survey version). If differences are found, then these might confidence
intervals
justify a divergence in WTP estimates. However, according to
Log −71.73 −75.32
the t-test results displayed in Table 1, no statistical significant
likelihood
difference between both sub-samples was found. LRChi2(7) 32.07 43.17
Results obtained from the logit estimation are reported in Prob N Chi2 0.000 0.000
Table 2. The first two columns present the results for the sub-
sample that did not receive information about the existence of Marginal effects
intra-species substitutes, while the last two columns report Variables No info about substitutes Info about substitutes
the results for the informed sub-sample. Results show that all
variables carry the expected signs. The LNBID variable carries a dy/dx Z dy/dx Z

negative and statistically significant effect, while the COAST LNBID −0.1558 (0.0386) − 4.04⁎⁎⁎ −0.2244 (0.0407) − 5.51⁎⁎⁎
variable is positive and statistically significant for the sub- COAST 0.1056 (0.0615) 1.72⁎ −0.0336 (0.0662) − 0.51
sample that did not receive information about substitutes. NATURALIST 0.1389 (0.0772) 1.80⁎ 0.1237 (0.0811) 1.53
That implies that in terms of preferences for conservation, AGE −0.0036 (0.0017) − 2.15⁎ −0.0038 (0.0019) − 2.07⁎
INCOME −0.0001 (0.0001) − 1.76⁎ 0.0001 (0.0000) 1.94⁎
there are differences between coastal and non-coastal com-
munities, being those living by the coast more likely to pay for + Standard errors are in parenthesis. Confidence intervals were
the conservation program, given that they are not aware of the calculated using jackknife techniques. (⁎⁎⁎) indicates statistical
existence of substitutes. The variable reflecting that the significance at α = 0.001; (⁎⁎) indicates statistical significance at
α = 0.01; and (⁎) indicates that the variable is statistically significant
individual is a NATURALIST increases the probability of paying
at α = 0.1.
for the guillemot restoration program in both regressions by
almost 14% and 12%. This may occur because individuals
substitutes are less likely to pay for the restoration program
classified as naturalists may appreciate both, the use and non-
when income goes up. However, the opposite effect occurs
use values carried by this species, as well as any other potential
when individuals are aware of substitutes. Thus, it seems that
benefit derived from the program. With respect to the effect of
the demand for the restoration program at hand is income
the AGE variable, older individuals are less likely to pay for the
elastic when information about the substitutes is presented.
program, independently of being aware of the existence of
Wald-tests provide evidence of the joint statistical significance
substitutes. With respect to INCOME, individuals not aware of
of the included explanatory variables in each regression.
Employing the coefficients reported in Table 2, we calculate
Table 1 – Mean values of explanatory variables for each of
the median3 WTP estimate (Hanemann, 1984) for each of the j
the treatments
samples, such that:
Variable Description Galician European T-  
population population test 1a
WTPj ¼ exp ; ð4Þ
(version 1) (version 2) 1
b

COAST Coastal 0.49 0.47 0.27 where α ̑ is the grand constant term, which is defined as the
municipality (1), cross-product of all the estimated coefficients (except the one
otherwise (0) associated with the bid amount) times their respective means;
NATURALIST Frequently 0.31 0.29 0.35
and β is the coefficient estimate associated with the bid amount.
engages in
outdoor nature
The j estimates in Eq. (4) have been calculated for both regres-
related activities sions, and are reported in Table 2. We should note that the
(visit natural median is a more accurate representation of the central tendency
spaces, watching of the WTP distribution, while it is less sensitive to outliers.
wildlife, etc.) The median WTP estimates for the recovery program are
(1), otherwise (0)
computed as 18.17 €/household for those who were not
AGE Age of the 44.56 42.62 0.98
respondent
INCOME Monthly gross 1094.27 1042.26 0.68 3
The mean WTP is undefined due to the value of the estimated
income
coefficients of the WTP function (see Hanemann, 1984).
366 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 8 ( 2 00 8 ) 3 6 2 –3 69
informed about the existence of other Northern European
colonies, and 19.34 €/household for the sub-sample who
received such information. The magnitudes of these quanti-
tative empirical estimates show that there are no clear
differences between the welfare estimates obtained with and
without the substitute reminder. The corresponding over-
lapping confidence intervals for the welfare measures provide
further evidence of the statistical similarity of the above
estimates. Thus, there is statistical evidence to fail to reject
the null hypothesis presented in Eq. (1).
These obtained results do not fulfil the expectations of the
NOAA panel, regarding the role of reminders of substitutes in
environmental valuation. They are also different from other
results previously obtained by Whitehead and Blomquist
(1995), who demonstrated that reminders affected WTP
estimates. That is, estimates obtained in this study show
that we cannot reject the null hypothesis, which postulated
differences in the WTP estimates under the different valuation
scenarios. However, this new set of results does not invalidate
the CVM exercise or the basic premises of micro-economics.
Although our exercise tested substitutes from an ecological
point of view, these two birds (local and Northern European
guillemot) may not be considered as substitutes by the local
population. This happens in spite of the fact that the species on
itself provides high non-use values and it is not so well known by
the locals. Indeed, 79.47% of the individuals in our sample have
never seen a guillemot outdoors. However, individuals may want
to preserve their local endowment of biodiversity, even though
there are other places in which such conservation is guaranteed.
An additional and related consideration is that the
conservation program valued in the present exercise aims to
recover the species only up to its MVP. Local preferences to
protect larger stocks above the MVP level may be valued
differently (Bulte and van Kooten, 1999; Bandara and Tisdell,
2005), and may be affected by the presence of other biological
substitutes elsewhere.
Other considerations4 that may explain our results are
related to the fact that the program described provides ancillary
benefits in both scenarios, and such benefits may be confound-
ing of the intrinsic value of the guillemot restoration program,
such as the restrictions in cargo transportation. Furthermore,
given that surveys were conducted face to face, social desir-
ability bias may be expected (Loureiro and Lotade, 2005),
particularly by participants having prior limited information.
5. Conclusions
The aim of this article was to test the effect of a reminder
about substitutes of the same bird species in a valuation
exercise conducted with an endangered species. In particular,
we valued a program to recover the population of guillemots
in Spain. The guillemot in Spain is threatened by extinction
due to the damaging effects of intensive fishing in the area
and the Prestige oil spill, along with additional indirect effects
caused by global climate change.
4
We wish to thank a reviewer for providing these additional
reasons that might help explain our results.
In order to test the effect of substitute reminders, our
sample was split into two treatments. One group received
information about the existence of guillemot colonies in
Northern Europe which are not in danger of extinction. The
second group learned only about the current critical condition
of the guillemot population in Spain. Our results show that
there are no statistically significant differences between the
median WTP per household obtained for the sample uni-
formed about the existence of colonies in Northern Europe,
and the median WTP computed for the sample informed
about the existence of substitutes.
This new set of results differs from those previously obtained
in other studies in which sensitivity of the WTP estimates with
respect to the reminder of substitutes was found. Thus, in spite
of the non-statistical difference of WTP estimates, the current
reminder may be important in terms of providing accurate
information about the uniqueness of the good when valuing
endangered species. In order to provide robustness to these
findings, we recommend that future studies test this assertion
with other species and natural resources. Further research
should also investigate whether WTP would be statistically
different when a very unique or charismatic environmental
good with hardly any substitutes is valued, such as the blue
whale. The inclusion of a reminder stating that such good or
resource does not have any direct substitute may potentially
provide the opposite results as those presented in this paper.
Our results may be justified by different arguments,
including the fact that the presented program provides
ancillary benefits in both valuation scenarios. Overall, our
results suggest that individuals value endangered species
based on concerns motivated by local scarcity of the species
and subsequent loss of local natural habitat.
Acknowledgements
Maria Loureiro acknowledges funding support from the
Spanish Ministry of Education and Science, research project
number SEJ2004-06357.
Appendix A. WTP Question
Consider that the Galician Guillemot Restoration Program will
be the only way to avoid guillemot extinction, so that by the
year 2015 the guillemot population will be increased from 5 pairs
(current level) up to 20 pairs, while 20 pairs is the minimum viable
level of population (MVP) for the guillemot to survive. The
Galician Guillemot Restoration Program will be put in place
only if a majority of households in Galicia support it.
As you know, in order to manage this restoration program
economic resources are needed. This restoration program will
be funded with a one time increase on income taxes⁎ in the next
income tax declaration (only for adults over 18 years of age). All
the money collected would be kept in a fund for the disposition
of the program, which will be audited every two years.
We want you to be aware that the money collected via this
extra tax would only legally be used for this program.
However, there are at least 13 other endangered species in
Galicia, including birds, fish, reptiles, and mammals.
 EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 08 ) 36 2 –3 69 367

Also remember that the money you spend on this
program will not be available for the purchase of other
goods or for supporting recovery programs for other endan-
gered species.
Given your current income level, are you willing to pay X
€ (10–150€) in a one-time payment for the Galician Guil-
lemot Restoration Program, so that the program will be
implemented?
□ YES □ NO
(⁎) Individuals who are not obligated to pay their income
taxes will receive in the mail a special tax form requesting
their contribution to this specific program.

Appendix B. Graphic materials common for both survey versions

Location of Galicia in Spain and Europe

Card 2
368 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 8 ( 2 00 8 ) 3 6 2 –3 69

Card 3

Appendix C. Additional materials only for survey version with substitutes

Card 1

Card 2
 EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 08 ) 36 2 –3 69
REFERENCES
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., Schuman,
H., 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation.
Federal Register 58, 4601–4614.
Bandara, R., Tisdell, C., 2005. Changing abundance of elephants
and willingness to pay for their conservation. Journal of
Environmental Management 76, 47–59.
Boyle, K.J., Reiling, S.D., Phillips, M.L., 1990. Species substitution
and question sequencing in contingent valuation surveys
evaluating the hunting of several types of wildlife. Leisure
Sciences 12, 103–118.
Bulte, E.H., van Kooten, G.C., 1999. Marginal valuation of
charismatic species: implications for conservation.
Environmental and Resource Economics 14, 119–130.
Chambers, C.M., Whitehead, J.C., 2003. A contingent valuation
estimate of the benefits of wolves in Minnesota.
Environmental and Resource Economics 26, 249–267.
Cummings, R.G., Ganderton, P.T., MacGuckin, T., 1994.
Substitution effects in CVM Values. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 76, 205–214.
Giraud, K., Turcin, B., Loomis, J.B., Cooper, J., 2002. Economic
benefit of the protection program for the Steller sea lion.
Marine Policy 26, 451–458.
Hanemann, M., 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation
experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 66 (3), 332–341.
IGE, 2004. Padrón Municipal. Galician Institute of Statistics. http://
ige.xunta.es.
Jakobsson, K.M., Dragun, A.K., 2001. The worth of a possum:
valuing species with the contingent valuation method.
Environmental and Resource Economics 19, 211–227.
Hailu, A., Adamowicz, W.L., Boxall, P.C., 2000. Complements,
substitutes, budget constraints and valuation. Environmental
and Resource Economics 16, 51–68.
Hoehn, J.P., Loomis, J.B., 1993. Substitution effects in the valuation
of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 25 (1), 56–75.
369
Kotchen, M.J., Reiling, S.D., 1999. Do reminders of substitutes and
budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates?
Another comment. Land Economics 75 (3), 478–482.
Kotchen, M.J., Reiling, S.D., 2000. Environmental attitudes,
motivations, and contingent valuation of non-use values: a
case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics
32, 93–107.
Langford, I.H., Skourtos, M.S., Kontogianni, A., Day, R.J., Georgiou,
S., Bateman, I.J., 2001. Use and nonuse values for conserving
endangered species: the case of the Mediterranean monk seal.
Environment and Planning A 33, 2219–2233.
Loomis, J.B., González-Caban, A., Gregory, R., 1994. Do reminders
of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent
valuation estimates? Land Economics 70 (4), 499–506.
Loureiro, M.L., Lotade, J., 2005. Interviewer effect on the valuation
of goods with ethical and environmental attributes.
Environmental and Resource Economics 30 (1), 49–72.
Martí, R., Del Moral, J.C., (2003), Atlas de las aves reproductoras de
España, Ministerio de Medioambiente and Sociedad Española
de Ornitología.
Neill, H.R., 1995. The context of substitutes in CVM studies: some
empirical observations. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management 29, 393–397.
Rodríguez, J., Furelos coord, P., (2004), Bases para la conservación
de la población de arao (Uria aalge) en Galicia. SEAS. Servicios
medioambientales. Project funded by Fundación Arao.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995. Notice of availability, final
Apex Houston oil spill restoration plan. Federal Register 60 (81),
20739–20749.
Whitehead, J.C., Blomquist, G.C., 1995. Do reminders of
substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent
valuation estimates? Comment. Land Economics 71 (4),
541–543.
Whitehead, J.C., Blomquist, G.C., 1999. Do reminders of
substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent
valuation estimates? Reply to another Comment. Land
Economics 75 (3), 483–484.