Willingness to pay to protect cold water corals

Abstract

There is increasing pressure to use currently untapped resources in the deep sea, raising questions regarding ecosystem service trade‐offs in these often unknown areas. We assessed the trade‐offs between protection of cold‐water coral reefs and economic activities, such as fisheries and petroleum extraction, through a survey of a representative sample of the populations of Norway and Ireland. Choice‐experiment surveys were conducted in workshop settings and through the internet. Both survey approaches provided some similar results, such as preferences for protection. Our cross‐country comparison showed the general public in Norway and Ireland was willing, despite possible conflict with extractive and consumptive economic activities in the deep sea, to protect cold‐water corals as habitat for fish. On average, people were willing to pay NKr 341 and NKr 424 for a small and large increase in protected areas respectively, and NKr 880 if the area is important habitat for fish, all else held equal. However, there was large variation across individuals and countries. Norwegian respondents valued pure existence of cold‐water corals more than the Irish respondents, and the latter were less willing to trade off industrial activities than the former. Nonetheless, the findings support conservation of cold‐water corals and more generally of ocean environments that provide habitat for fish, which the current deep sea governance systems are not adequately designed or sufficiently well‐structured to secure.

Valuing high‐seas ecosystem conservation

“…The overall strong preferences held by respondents concerning deep‐seas litter reduction point to greater attention being given to this issue internationally (i.e., supporting efforts to include marine litter in the ongoing BBNJ negotiations) (Tiller & Nyman, 2018). Very few researchers have used stated‐preference methods to investigate the link between nonuse values and policy support for marine habitat conservation in terms of MPAs (e.g., Aanesen et al., 2015; Armstrong et al., 2019b; Börger et al., 2014), and none of the earlier studies relate to high‐seas closures. We identified public preferences not only for existence values of deep‐seas species but also for marine conservation measures (i.e., MPAs), the latter of which is often viewed as important for protecting marine biodiversity.…”

“…High seas are often described as a free for all involving a tragedy of the global commons because no single nation has sole responsibility for their management (White & Costello, 2014). Despite the growth in international bodies (e.g., United Nations International Seabed Authority, Regional Fisheries Management Organizations, and the International Maritime Organization) and international conventions (e.g., Convention on Biological Diversity and Convention on Migratory Species) that govern human activities associated with high seas, their ecosystems are facing risks resulting from anthropogenic activities (Armstrong et al., 2019a). Temperature change, ocean acidification, fishing, pollution, and oil and gas activities have negative impacts on deep‐seas ESs, where biodiversity, habitat, and fish and shellfish are most at risk.…”

Reduce pollution, establish protected areas, manage fisheries properly? How to protect coral reefs based on carbon trading

“…Third, mitigation of the impacts of climate change. As a natural coastal protection system, coral reefs can mitigate the impact of storms and waves on coastal areas, thereby reducing the impact of sea level rise and extreme climate events on coastal areas caused by climate change (Armstrong et al, 2019). In summary, coral reefs play an important role in the global carbon cycle and carbon emissions.…”

“…These technologies involve theories and methods related to physics, biology, geography, etc. Some scholars have studied the use of appropriate management methods or management modes to protect coral reefs, Topor et al (2019) believed that promoting fish diversity can enhance the function of coral reefs; Hall et al (2022) believed that banning harpoon fishing can improve the protection effect of coral reefs; Nolan et al (2021) created a reserve quality score to determine the priority of coral reef space protection; Armstrong et al (2019) analyzed the behavioral level of how much people are willing to pay for the protection of coral reefs; Hopf et al (2019) believed that nature reserves play an important role in fish populations and fish production in coral reef systems; Yanovski and Abelson (2019) believed that structural complexity enhancement is a restoration tool for coral reefs. These management methods cover related theories such as biodiversity, protected areas, and ethology.…”

Assessing public preferences for deep sea ecosystem conservation: a choice experiment in Norway and Scotland

“…evaluated the world's largest concentration of cold-water coral and identified high average WTP (range of €274 to €287) among Norwegian participants for the size of the protected area, attractiveness for oil/gas and fisheries activities, and importance as a habitat for fish. The most recent beingArmstrong et al (2019) who found that the Norwegians and Irish were willing to pay average values of NOK341 and NOK424 for a small and large increase in protected areas respectively. Norwegians expressed a stronger preference for the pure existence value of cold water corals than the Irish, and the Irish were also less willing to trade-off industrial activities than the Norwegians.Assuming the discrete distribution of attribute parameters as a way of latently clustering the population,Kermagoret et al (2016) andBörger and Hattam (2017) have studied marine offshore areas.…”