Ecological Indicators 85 (2018) 1121–1132

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Original Article

Economic value of marine biodiversity improvement in coralligenous T

habitats
Stefania Tonin
University Iuav of Venice, Santa Croce 1957, 30135 Venice, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

JEL classification: Coralligenous habitats are an important ‘hot spot’ of species diversity in the Mediterranean and grant a variety of
Q51 (Valuation of Environmental Effects) valuable ecosystem services. Currently, these areas are under threat due to human activities such as un-
Q57 (Ecological Economics: Ecosystem sustainable and destructive fishing practices, environmental phenomena, and other significant pressures related
Services, Biodiversity Conservation, to global environmental change. The coralligenous habitats are also endangered by practices that result in the
Bioeconomics, Industrial Ecology)
presence of abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) at sea, a worldwide phenomenon only
C83 (Survey Methods, Sampling Methods)
recently stigmatized whose impacts on marine habitats and coralligenous areas are serious.
C35 (Discrete Regression and Qualitative
Choice Models, Discrete Regressors, The aim of this paper is to investigate the economic value of restoration strategies promoted to safeguard and
Proportion) improve biodiversity in these coralligenous habitats through a contingent valuation survey administered to a
sample of 4000 Italians. Households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for biodiversity restoration and conservation
Keywords:
Coralligenous habitat ranges between €10.30 and €64.02 depending on the assumptions underlying the different models. The main
Marine biodiversity positive and significant determinants of WTP are a previous knowledge or familiarity with coralligenous habitats
Contingent valuation method and biodiversity issues, income, education, environmental attitudes, and the knowledge that indiscriminate
Knowledge and attitude fishing may be dangerous for biodiversity in a coralligenous habitat.
Protest responses

1. Introduction and motivation
Coralligenous habitats constitute one of the most important ‘hot
spots’ of species diversity in the Mediterranean (Ballesteros, 2006).
These habitats grant a variety of valuable services, commonly called
ecosystem services. They provide sheltered areas for young fish, which
leads to an increase in fish stocks available to humans; they also have
an important role in energy flux and the carbon cycle, and they are one
of the preferred diving spots for tourists due to the great diversity of
organisms (Ballesteros, 2006).
Nowadays, these areas are under threat due to destructive human
activities such as over-fishing, pollution, sediment deposition, recrea-
tional fishing and trawling, and diving (Ponti, 2001). Other important
pressures are related to global environmental changes, leading to mass
mortality events and invasions by alien species (Occhipinti-Ambrogi,
2007; Piazzi and Balata, 2009).
The coralligenous habitats of the Northern Adriatic, which have
been defined as “submarine rocky substrates of biogenic concretions,
irregularly scattered in the sandy or muddy sea bed” (Casellato et al.,
2007, p 122), are locally called tegnùe. This name was given by the
local fishermen, who have known of their existence since the eighteenth
century (Olivi, 1792), although they were only truly documented by
underwater explorations 50 years ago (Stefanon, 1967). In 2002, an
area of tegnùe in the north-west Adriatic, near the city of Chioggia-
Venice, was declared Biological Protected Area (Zona di Tutela Biolo-
gica – ZTB) and in 2011 it was declared Site of Community Importance
(SCI).
In these areas, the most significant threat is related to unsustainable
fishing practices since they are frequently associated with an increasing
quantity of abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear
(ALDFG) at sea; the impacts of such practices on marine habitats and
coralligenous areas are well documented (Macfadyen et al., 2009). The
negative impacts caused by the loss of fishing equipment (e.g. nets,
traps, metal tools) on local biodiversity are mainly associated with
damage to nursery zones and the unintentional capture of protected
species. Even though ALDFG causes considerable damage to the marine
environment, estimates of its impact on biodiversity losses in the North
Adriatic area are scarce and very little has been done to reduce this
problem (www.life-ghost.eu). Moreover, to our knowledge, the eco-
nomic value of biodiversity loss caused by ALDFG is not available in the
literature, and only some individual examples of the quantitative costs
of ALDFG are documented (Macfadyen et al., 2009).
The aim of this paper is to investigate the economic value of re-
storation strategies promoted to safeguard and improve biodiversity in

E-mail address: tonin@iuav.it.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.11.017
Received 29 July 2017; Received in revised form 7 November 2017; Accepted 8 November 2017
1470-160X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Tonin
some coralligenous habitats of the Northern Adriatic Sea. This is done
by implementing the contingent valuation method (CVM), a stated
preference technique used for estimating the economic value of non-
market goods.
This task is part of a wider EU funded project called LIFE Ghost
Techniques to reduce the impacts of ghost fishing gears and to improve
biodiversity in North Adriatic coastal areas, whose general objective is to
study concrete measures for preserving and improving the ecological
status of some coralligenous habitats in the north Adriatic Sea (tegnùe).
The economic importance of biodiversity has been measured by
economic valuation techniques (Pearce and Moran, 1994; Nunes et al.,
2003; Turpie, 2003; TEEB, 2008), which are based upon the identifi-
cation and determination of the values and the benefits that biodi-
versity provides for the welfare of humans and the healthy function of
ecosystems. These values are crucial for supporting the design of ap-
propriate policies, including those for conservation, protection, and the
sustainable use of marine resources. Without a comprehensive knowl-
edge of the economic value of marine resources, it is difficult for policy
makers to determine efficient levels of spending and investment in
marine protection and management (Brouwer et al., 2016).
Policy makers are also increasingly recognizing the necessity to
envisage sound policies for the management of marine resources, and
are now appreciating the contribution of a wide variety of economic
methodologies, including valuation, to guide, influence, and support
environmental policy at large (Beaumont et al., 2008).
This paper is important because it contributes to the relevant lit-
erature by measuring the value of restoration that improves the bio-
diversity of coralligenous habitats in the North Adriatic Sea. This is an
interdisciplinary study that provides a sound base for implementing
biodiversity valuation techniques, thus clarifying the role of economic
valuation in the management and conservation of marine biodiversity.
To our knowledge, there are no similar studies in Italy that estimate the
economic value of coralligenous habitats.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 illustrates the main
characteristics of the case study area; Section 3 gives information on
methodology, survey design, and valuation scenarios; Section 4 de-
scribes the structure of the questionnaire; Section 5 introduces the
econometric model applied; Section 6 reports the main descriptive
statistics of the sample; Section 7 analyses the main results of the
models implemented; and Section 8 provides the main conclusions.
2. Study area
The case study (Fig. 1) is related to a coralligenous habitat, locally
named tegnùe, which is located in the North Adriatic Sea in Italy. The
word tegnùe derives from the Venetian dialect and means “hold” be-
cause, since ancient times, fishermen have experienced the frequent
loss of their nets and fishing gear as it becomes trapped by the rock
formations (Casellato et al., 2006).
This particular ecosystem, known among local fishermen since the
eighteenth century, was initially documented only 50 years ago
(Stefanon, 1967). These formations are localized irregularly over the
Northern Adriatic at depths between 10 and 40 m, with high variable
morphologies and structures, and ranging in size from a few to several
thousand square meters.
A full description of the study area and its natural characteristics is
available in Tonin and Lucaroni (2017). The rocky habitats present
some characteristics similar to tropical coral reefs and, analogously,
they exhibit a high rate of biodiversity and offer a wide array of eco-
system services. A recent survey of the literature based on 50 tegnùe
sites reported the existence of 740 species, 12 of which are on protec-
tion lists, and 97 of which are considered as commercially valuable
(Nesto et al., 2014).
The map in Fig. 1 shows the geolocation of the tegnùe verified with
the help of a survey administered to fishermen and divers during the
activities of the LIFE Ghost project. The precise number of tegnùe is still
1122
Ecological Indicators 85 (2018) 1121–1132
uncertain, but local researchers assert that in the Veneto Region there
are more than 3000 (Casellato et al., 2007).
2.1. Overview of the habitat of tegnùe
The tegnùe habitat provides several ecosystem services that coin-
cide with those of coral reefs, although with specific differences and on
a different scale. Coral reefs play a relevant role on a global scale be-
cause they influence the oceans, whereas the tegnùe areas have a local
but nonetheless important role on the Adriatic Sea. They are a refugee
for numerous fishes and for other marine organisms, have productive
and cultural services, and perform an important role in regulation
processes. However, these ecosystems have a limited function in sedi-
ment retention and erosion control since they are located at a greater
depth than coral reefs and are not continuous but instead appear as
small islands. Table 1 identifies the main ecosystem services and
functions provided by the tegnùe areas. The results reported in Table 1
are based on a classification of marine ecosystem services provided by
Böhnke-Henrichs et al. (2013) and revised for the tegnùe ecosystem
thanks to interviews with biologists and environmental scientists as part
of the research activities implemented during the LIFE Ghost project.
Coralligenous areas similar to tegnùe have been localized in
Southeast Florida, the French–Italian Riviera, Corsica, Croatia, the
northern Baltic areas, the Oslo Fjords, and Greenland (Casellato et al.,
2007). In Italy (see Fig. 2), other similar habitats are located in Sar-
dinia, the Sicilian islands, along the southern Italian coasts, the Tyr-
rhenian, and the Adriatic coast (Giaccone, 2007).
Tegnùe are currently suffering damage from several sources that
have a negative impact on biodiversity. Of these, the loss of fishing
equipment is a serious and ongoing problem. ALDFG causes substantial
ecological and socio-economic problems; one of the most well-known
effects is the ghost-fishing phenomenon, which has received increasing
international attention in the past decade. Ghost fishing means that, for
numerous reasons, the nets lost accidentally or voluntarily discarded at
sea continue to entrap marine animals, causing long lasting large-scale
dangers to marine ecosystems (Macfadyen et al., 2009).
3. Study design
As mentioned above, the case study in this paper concerns the im-
provement of marine biodiversity in a coralligenous habitat in the
North Adriatic Sea through restoration and conservation activities.
In this section, we first describe contingent valuation (CV) scenarios
and then provide details on the design and structure of the CV questions
used in this study. CVM is a survey-based methodology that asks people
to directly state their willingness to pay (WTP) to obtain a specified
good or service that is not exchanged in regular markets (Mitchell and
Carson, 1989) thus creating hypothetical markets. When designing a CV
survey, a scenario should provide information to respondents about the
characteristics of a specific policy or project and the context, which has
to be comprehensible, plausible, and meaningful in order to increase
the credibility of the survey and the reliability of the results.
3.1. A. Contingent valuation scenarios: three different environmental goods
All three scenarios refer to a comprehensive hypothetical project
funded by the European Union with a duration of three years, which is
targeted at:
– The fulfilment of a European directive through a harbormaster
regulation aimed to prevent adverse and dangerous effects on bio-
diversity. In particular, the regulation will establish procedures and
duties for the correct decommissioning, recovery, and disposal of
ADLFG.
– The creation of a foundation with the specific task of carrying out
the restoration project of the coralligenous habitat regarding
S. Tonin Ecological Indicators 85 (2018) 1121–1132

Fig. 1. Location of the tegnùe areas in Venice, Italy.

Geographic coordinate system follows datum WGS84/pseudo Mercator.
Source: Marco Picone’ elaboration on data collected during the activities of Life Ghost project

Table 1
Tegnùe main ecosystem services and functions.
Source: Own elaboration based on Böhnke-Henrichs et al. (2013).

Tegnùe Ecosystem services Description

Food production
Habitats for resident and transient population
Production of raw materials (algae, sand, etc.)
Recreational activities (recreational fishing, tourism,
scuba diving, etc.)
Cultural, educational and religious opportunities and uses
All available marine fauna and flora extracted from coastal/marine environments for the specific purpose of human
consumption (i.e. food production)
The contribution of a particular habitat to migratory species’ populations through the provision of essential habitat
for reproduction and juvenile maturation.
The extraction of any material from coastal/marine environments for all purposes except human consumption.
The provision of opportunities for recreation and leisure that depend on a particular state of marine/coastal
ecosystems.
The contribution that a coastal/marine ecosystem makes to cultural heritage and identity. This includes the
importance of marine/coastal environments in cultural traditions and folklore

ADLFG.
– The provision of a toll-free number for contacting the foundation in
order to promptly report lost ADLFG or the presence of fishing nets
or other fishing gear.
Respondents were told that the European fund is not enough to
cover all the necessary removal and restoration interventions and that a
more effective result would be possible only if people contribute vo-
luntarily to this type of initiative. In this way, it is possible to ensure the
continuity of the project and the prevention of future damage to marine
biodiversity.
Visual aids were provided to respondents to demonstrate the ef-
fectiveness of restoration projects similar to those described in the
survey which were subsequently explained in more detail. Fig. 3 illus-
trates two examples of visual aid of a restoration project presented in
the questionnaire.
Respondents were then presented with a referendum-type WTP
question asking if they would be willing to pay a specific amount for
one of three proposed restoration projects as a liberal grant to the
foundation. Liberal grants are financial resources given by individuals
for a specific purpose after receiving a letter of request/proposal for
funding support by the foundation. Grant funds may not be expended
for any other purpose; a written report on the use of the funds and the
status of the project must be made to the granters no later than one year
after the payment of the grant.
The three scenarios, randomly assigned to respondents, are:
A.) Removal of fishing nets (see Fig. A1 in the Appendix).
B.) Removal of static fishing gear (lobster pots, rakes, anchors, fish
traps, etc.) (see Fig. A2 in the Appendix).
C.) Removal of fishing related litter (cordage, mussel socks, and lures)
(see Fig. A3 in the Appendix).
In scenario A) respondents were informed in the questionnaire that
“during a dive in the North Adriatic Sea, divers detected a lost fishing
net over a coralligenous formation that was damaging the marine en-
vironment, fish, and vegetation fauna. The divers reported the presence
of the fishing net to the foundation’s toll-free number. The foundation
will guarantee the removal of the fishing net, which will be performed
under safe conditions by specialized divers. A scientific study demon-
strates that once the fishing net is removed biodiversity would improve
after one year, and if further damage is prevented by regulations, the
improvement will continue until biodiversity is completely restored”.
Scenario B) and scenario C) share the same general description of
Scenario A) except for the detection and removal of the fishing mate-
rials and the result in terms of biodiversity improvement. In fact, in

1123
S. Tonin Ecological Indicators 85 (2018) 1121–1132

scenario B) divers instead of finding and removing a fishing net will

remove fishing gear such as trammel net or bottom set gillnet, crusta-
cean pots or cuttlefish pots allowing the complete restoration of bio-
diversity (100%) after one year from the intervention.
Scenario C) is the same as Scenario A) except that in the former
divers will remove fishing related litter such as mussel socks, cordage or
artificial baits.
The elicitation format employed in this study is a dichotomous
choice (DC) question according to the blue ribbon CV panel of Arrow
et al. (1993), which strongly endorses a referendum question rather
than an open-ended question.
Respondents were asked a “Yes” or “No” question such as: “Would
you be willing to pay €X in a one-time payment, as a liberal grant, to the
Foundation for the restoration project described above knowing that the
money will be used exclusively for the Northern Adriatic coralligenous?"
The economic question was presented in a closed-ended format and
the €X amount was randomly assigned between €2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30,
40, 50, 70, and 100.

3.2. B. Sampling plan

A randomly recruited panel of 200,000 willing respondents, main-

Fig. 2. Distribution of coralligenous habitats in Italy.
Source: own elaboration adapted from Giaccone (2007)
tained by the professional survey firm Ipsos was used for the survey. A
web link was sent to them for answering the survey: 6107 respondents
were contacted and we received 4000 complete questionnaires.
Computer assisted web interviewing (CAWI) was conducted by
Ipsos in December 2015, and a sample was randomly drawn and stra-
tified to represent national population data on gender, age, education;
at least 10% of the sample was required to be an angler or diver.
The questionnaire was a page-by-page design to make it easy to

Fig. 3. Example of before-and-after photos to illustrate the important

role of biodiversity restoration as described in the CV scenarios in the
questionnaire. The first 2 pictures describe the biodiversity improve-
ment after 1 year from the removal of a fishing net. The second two
pictures describe a biodiversity improvement after 1 year from the
removal of fishing cordage.

1124
S. Tonin Ecological Indicators 85 (2018) 1121–1132

follow and which forced respondents to answer questions before 5. Econometric model
moving on the next screen, so there was no non-response items. The
average duration of the survey was around 30 min. 5.1. The model

The Random Utility Model (RUM) developed by Hanemann (1984)

4. Structure of the questionnaire
Our survey questionnaire is divided into several sections. It was
tested extensively in 13 focus groups, one-on-one interviews, and a pilot
survey (200 respondents) prior to the final survey.
In Section 1, after warm-up questions, aimed at making respondents
comfortable with participating in the survey such as region of re-
sidence, how far they live from the sea or how frequently they go to the
sea, when and why, the questionnaire elicited information about re-
spondents’ preference toward the sea environment, their opinion on the
quality of the marine area they frequent, how the frequency of their
visits would change in response to improved quality, and what they
think are the most important activities based on the marine environ-
ment.
Section 2 contained a definition of biodiversity and the role it plays
in human wellbeing. Then we investigated respondents’ knowledge of
marine biodiversity and forced them to choose from among several
alternatives the most effective action that the Italian state could take to
strengthen the protection of biodiversity. We then asked why it is im-
portant to protect marine biodiversity and which policy/measures they
considered the best to achieve biodiversity protection.
In Sections 3 and 4, we concentrated on marine protected areas
(MPA) and their appropriate management (Tonin, 2017).
Sections 5 and 6 provided respondents with a description of cor-
alligenous areas, information about their locations, and showed pic-
tures of biodiversity in these habitats. Our subjects were also asked to
indicate on a Likert scale their perception of the ecosystem services
provided by coralligenous areas (food production, habitat for resident
or passage species, raw material production, recreational activities,
etc.).
Section 7 illustrates the main types of damage suffered by cor-
alligenous habitats and the major threats to biodiversity in these areas.
This section also inquiries about respondents’ perception of the most
harmful human activities and natural phenomena to coralligenous ha-
bitats.
Section 8 of the questionnaire contains the CV questions. These
questions are preceded by an introduction that informs respondents
that ALDFG may be harmful to biodiversity in coralligenous areas, but
it is possible to carry out several activities to protect, improve, and
restore biodiversity. We then presented the valuation scenarios as de-
scribed above.
Section 9 of the questionnaire elicits the usual socio-demographics
and respondents’ behaviors and attitudes in relation to environmental
and political activities.
is the basic framework for analyzing closed-ended single-bounded re-
sponses. The goal of our CV study is to measure the benefits related to
respondents’ utility variation before and after the restoration project.
The utility level can be described by an indirect random utility
function (Hanemann, 1984):
Vi = V(yi, qi, zi) + εi, (1)
where Vi is the utility level of individual i, yi is the respondent’s income
level, qi is the level of quality before and after the restoration project, zi
is a vector of the individual’s characteristics, and εi is the error com-
ponent.
A respondent will agree to pay a price (WTP) to obtain a better level
of quality q1 after the restoration project if:
V(yi − WTP, q1, zi) + ε1 ≥ V(yi, q0, zi) + ε0 (2)
and refuse it otherwise.
The individual’s response is a random variable with a probability
distribution given by:
P1 ≡ Pr(WTP) = Pr(V(yi − WTP, q1, zi) + ε1 ≥ V(yi, q0, zi) + ε0) (3)
If the distribution of error term ε1is logistic, the logit model can be
used for the estimation. The probability of choosing the bid amount
offered (WTP) can be written as follows:
1 1
Fη (ΔV ) = Pr =
1 + exp(−ΔV ) 1 + exp { −(α − βWTP + γq + ϕz )} (4)
where ΔV = V1 − V0 is the change in welfare and Fη (ΔV ) is the cu-
mulative distribution function of standard logistic variate η = ε0 − ε1
Parameters α, β, γ, ϕ can be estimated parametrically using logistic
regression techniques. The mean maximum WTP for the restoration of
marine biodiversity in the case study can be calculated by the formula:
1
WTP = [ln (1 + exp{ −(α − γq + ϕz }]
β (5)
The maximum likelihood estimates of the coefficients can be used to
compute the WTP for any biodiversity restoration project considered.
6. The data
Table 2 reports the main descriptive statistics of the sample. The
sample is well-balanced in terms of gender, and its age distribution is
consistent with the sampling plan. The average age is 40. Average an-
nual household income is approximately €27,000, which is slightly
lower than the Italian average of €29,473 (Istat, 2017).

Table 2
Descriptive statistics of the respondents (N = 4000).

Variable Description Mean Stand. Devn. Min Max

Male Dummy equal to 1 if the respondent is a male 0.52 0.50 0 1

Age Respondent age 40.39 13.53 17 73
Age1824 Respondent is aged 20–24 0.13 0.33 0 1
Age2534 Respondent is aged 25–34 0.21 0.41 0 1
Age3544 Respondent is aged 35–44 0.26 0.44 0 1
Age4554 Respondent is aged 45–54 0.22 0.42 0 1
Age5575 Respondent is aged 55–75 0.18 0.38 0 1
Household size Average number of household members 3.14 1.17 0 1
Collegedegree Dummy equal to 1 if respondent has college degree 0.23 0.43 0 1
Highschool Dummy equal to 1 if respondent has a high school diploma 0.51 0.50 0 1
Household income (€/year) Net household income 27,432 16,843 10,000 100,000
Donation Dummy equal to 1 if respondent contributes to environmental causes with donations 0.21 0.40 0 1
lookinfo Dummy equal to 1 if respondent looks for environmental information 0.64 0.48 0 1

1125
S. Tonin Ecological Indicators 85 (2018) 1121–1132

Almost 51% of our sample have a high school diploma and 23% Table 3
have a college degree, which is a larger share than the Italian popula- Knowledge about marine and coralligenous biodiversity (N = 4000).
tion (41% and 15%, respectively) (Istat, 2017).
Variable Description Percent of the
Twenty-one percent of the respondents stated that they donate sample (%)
money to environmental causes, and 64% said they usually look for
environmental quality information on the internet or in the newspaper, Knowmarbio Respondents who have previously heard of 60.00
marine biodiversity and know what it means
on television, etc.
Heardmarbio Respondents who have previously heard of 31.00
Regarding knowledge of marine biodiversity, 60% of our re- marine biodiversity but do not know what it
spondents state that they have previously heard of marine biodiversity means
and know what it means; however, 31% have heard of marine biodi- Knowcorbio Respondents who have previously heard about 28.00
versity, but do not know what it means (See Table 3). Only 28% of the the biodiversity of coralligenous habitats
kfishingdam Respondents who know that indiscriminate 65.00
respondents stated that they have previously heard about the biodi-
fishing may be dangerous for biodiversity in
versity of coralligenous habitats, but 65% affirmed that they know that coralligenous habitats
indiscriminate fishing may be dangerous for biodiversity in cor-
alligenous habitats.
far from the coralligenous habitats in Veneto are less likely to con-
tribute to restoration activities in those areas, which is coherent with
7. Results
previous research (Bateman et al., 2006; Brouwer et al., 2016). The bid
price significantly determines WTP negatively: the higher the bid price,
Almost 56% of respondents were willing to pay for restoration ac-
the lower is the respondent’s WTP. The model shows that respondents
tivities capable of improving biodiversity in tegnùe habitat. Among
with a higher income are more willing to pay for biodiversity restora-
those who were not willing to pay, a follow-up question was asked to
tion, confirming the a priori expected positive sign. The knowledge of
understand their reasons. Table 4 shows the distribution of WTP re-
marine biodiversity and of coralligenous areas indicates a higher WTP:
sponses by bid amount, and Table 5 reports the answers to identify
the signs of the respective coefficients are positive and significant. In-
potential protest bidders. Protest responses can undermine the eco-
dividuals who have a more comprehensive knowledge for these issues
nomic valuation of any good or policy, and it is crucial to identify the
are more likely to accept a higher bid than others (Spash, 2000a). The
causes and thus propose a solution to deal with this problem. Protest
coefficient related to age is positive and significant implying that older
bidders1 are expressly defined in Table 5 following Jakobsson and
respondents tend to say “yes” to the WTP question. People with a higher
Dragun (2001) and Meyerhoff and Liebe (2006).
educational level appear to be more willing to contribute a higher
The percentage of those saying ‘no’ to our WTP question (44.3%), as
amount of money for restoration activities. This result is reasonable and
reported in Table 4, is significant if compared with the rate of protest
shows that people who have a better education are more likely to be
bidders in general studies of CVM, but if we relate the present result
knowledgeable and have more access to information on environmental
with similar studies in the field of nature and biodiversity conservation,
issues, making them more sensitive to the importance of the environ-
the percentage of protesters is coherent; see Meyerhoff and Liebe,
ment. Finally, people who stated they already make a contribution to
(2010) for a meta-analysis on protest responses determinants. More-
environmental funds and people who affirmed that they routinely look
over, Meyerhoff and Liebe (2010) calculated that higher protest re-
for more information on environmental issues present a higher WTP,
sponses are obtained if the payment vehicle is a donation to a fund, if
when all else is the same.
the elicitation format is a DC, and if the survey is web-based, as in this
Table 7 shows the results of two models that expressly address the
specific study.
problem of protest bidders. Model (E) excluded all the respondents who
From Table 5 is possible to understand the main reasons for nega-
manifest a protest response as described in Table 5 (E), and model (F)
tive responses to the WTP question. Among the respondents, 78% are
took into account respondents who said “no” to the valuation question
identified as protest bidders and 22% as true zero bidders. Respondents
but then in the follow-up question said that they were prepared to pay a
that were considered as protesters (marked with X in the second column
certain amount, revealed as an open-ended format. The most important
in Table 5) will be excluded in one of the models run later (E) in Table 6
result to highlight regarding these two models is that a higher WTP was
in order to estimate a correct value for the improvement of biodiversity.
obtained, especially when the protest respondents were dropped from
The results of the first models keeps the protest bidders in the
the dataset. This outcome agrees with the economic literature availa-
analysis (A–D) and are reported in Table 6.
ble—that the exclusion of protest responses determine a “higher esti-
Specifications (A), (B), and (C) respectively show the base specifi-
mates of willingness to pay” (Jakobsson and Dragun, 2001, p 214).
cations related to the three scenarios explained in Section 3A. The
Using the Krinsky and Robb parametric bootstrapping (Krinsky and
models are well behaved and the results are consistent with the eco-
Robb, 1986) routine in Stata 14.00, the WTP distributions were esti-
nomic paradigm, responses decrease as the price bid increases. People’s
mated, as reported in Table 6 and 7. Thus, to conclude, the estimated
WTP is higher for panel (C), i.e. people are more prepared to pay for the
WTP for the improvement of biodiversity in a rocky habitat ecosystem
scenario related to the removal of general fishing waste.
ranges from €10.39 to €64.02. This result is particularly important
The specification in Panel (D) estimates the three valuation sce-
when researchers have to calculate the aggregate benefits of a good in a
narios together and includes income, age, education, distance from
cost–benefit framework; the assumptions made in identifying the real
coralligenous habitat, knowledge, experience with marine and cor-
respondents’ value in the context of CV studies shape the order of
alligenous habitats, and pro-environmental attitude and behavior as
magnitude of the benefits expected by the good under investigation and
covariates. All the parameters in the model are statistically significant
have a strong impact in a policy context.
except distance from coralligenous area (distanzat), which has the
correct sign but it is not statistically significant, and male. People living
8. Discussion and conclusions

1
We consider only respondents who said “no” to the valuation question. The problem This study provides empirical evidence regarding the value of re-
of protest bidders is more complex because protest responses may be held also by re-
storation and conservation of biodiversity of coralligenous habitats in
spondents who said “yes” to the valuation question and accept to pay an amount higher or
lower than their true value (Halstead et al., 1992; Meyerhoff and Liebe, 2006;
the Northern Adriatic Sea. This value includes both the direct and in-
Dziegielewska and Mendelsohn, 2007). In this paper, we consider only the protest bidders direct value of biodiversity conservation and it is, to our knowledge, the
as diplayed in Table 5. first example, of an economic valuation of coralligenous habitats in

1126
S. Tonin Ecological Indicators 85 (2018) 1121–1132

Table 4
Distribution of responses by bid amount.

Bid amount €2 €5 10 € € 15 € 20 € 30 € 40 € 50 € 70 € 100 Total

No 15.35 19.79 29.7 43.36 46.19 54.65 71.1 63.31 76.16 77.42 44.3
Yes 84.65 80.21 70.3 56.64 53.81 45.35 28.9 36.69 23.84 22.58 55.7
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 5
Respondent’s answers that allow to differentiate between true zeros and protests response in the survey (N = 1772).

Description % of respondents Protest and true zero response

(1) (2)

The proposed bid is too high. I will contribute maximum with € ____. 11.230% Zero
I cannot afford this expense. 26.298% Zero
I support this initiative but using the taxes that I already pay. 45.372% Protest
I do not care because it involves areas far from my home. 1.020% Protest
I think that the protection of biodiversity is not important. 1.354% Zero
I doubt that this initiative can be effective for the protection of coralligenous formation of the North Adriatic Sea. 2.201% Zero
There are more urgent problems. 3.386% Zero
I did not cause the problem, and so I do not understand why I should pay for this initiative. 1.637% Protest
I don't have the necessary information to decide. 4.740% Protest
Other 2.765% Protest
Total 100.000%

In the second column (2) the label “Zero” means that respondents are identified as true zero bidders, the label “Protest” means the respondents are identified as protesters.

Table 6
Results from the estimated logit models and main statistical models’ performance.

Model (A) Model (B) Model (C) Model (D)

Removal of fishing nets Removal of static fishing gear Removal of fishing related litter The three removal scenarios together and main
covariates

coefficient z-score coefficient z-score coefficient z-score coefficient z-score

Bid −0.025398a −9.35 −0.0198021a −7.76 −0.0221705a −8.63 −0.0264897a −15.92

Cons 0.4268796 4.19 0.205744 2.06 0.4023065 4.00 1.482306a 6.08
Male −0.0680328 −0.81
Income 0.1304811a 5.07
Age 0.0051987a 1.81
Knowseabio 0.5275732a 3.10
Knowbio 0.5351522a 5.33
Heardbio 0.3000012c 1.75
Collegephd 0.1725508c 1.69
Kfishingdam 0.4219165a 4.53
Distanzat −0.0002878 −1.58
Donation 1.0225a 9.28
Lookinfo 0.487922a 5.26

Mean WTP €16.81 €10.39 €18.05 €16.75

(10.20–22.18) (0.78–17.60) (10.68–24.21) (13.12–20.08)

N. of observations 1000 1001 1000 2989

Log likelihood −623 −637 −638 −1,691.90

a
Significant at 1% level.
b
Significant at 5% level.
c
Significant at 10% level.

Italy. For this reason, the paper contributes to a very limited literature
in Italy and Europe.
Considering all the restoration scenarios proposed in the CV survey
together, 56% of the respondents agreed with making contributions
through a liberal grant to biodiversity restoration and conservation
activities in the tegnùe habitat. This result is consistent with the out-
comes of other similar studies that investigate the WTP for unfamiliar
goods such as the coralligenous habitat (Spash, 2000a; Subade and
Francisco, 2014). The tegnùe are habitats that are not easily accessible
to common people; only divers may appreciate the beauty and the
biodiversity in these areas. The scarce accessibility and direct knowl-
edge of them can explain the obtained percentage of positive WTP. The
main reasons given by respondents for a negative or zero WTP were
that they already paid taxes that could be used to support initiatives
such as those described in the questionnaire, and that they could not
afford the expense.
The WTP for biodiversity restoration and conservation ranges be-
tween €10.30 and €64.02 per household depending on the assumptions
underlying the models implemented. In general, the amount of €27.03
per household (model F) is the most appropriate to adopt in the case of
cost–benefit applications since the zero WTP responses were analyzed
and correctly estimated. Unfortunately, a comparison between this
study and other CV studies is not easy because the goods under va-
luation are very specific. Even if we considered the economic value of a
coral reef, a similar habitat as explained before, only estimates of re-
creational value would be available (see for example, Londoño and
Johnston, 2012). To force a comparison, Spash (2000a) assessed the
benefits of improving coral reef biodiversity in Curaçao and Jamaica

1127
S. Tonin Ecological Indicators 85 (2018) 1121–1132

Table 7 aggregate benefits related to the improvement of biodiversity as a result

Results from the estimated logit models for addressing protest responses and main sta- of restoration and conservation activities are significantly higher in
tistical models’ performance.
comparison to the estimated costs of these activities. Following the real
Model (E) Model(F) activities undertaken during the LIFE-Ghost project, the investigation,
Full model with the three Full model with the three removal restoration, and removal costs incurred in cleaning up 20 Km2—a total
removal scenarios and scenarios, including those of 15 tegnùe—were estimated to be approximately €191,000. The
without protesters protesters who provided a lower Regional Agency for Environmental Protection and Prevention of the
WTP in the follow-up question
Veneto (ARPAV) and the Museo di Storia Naturale di Venezia (2010)
coefficient z-score coefficient z-score wrote that in the North Adriatic Sea there are about 51 km2 of tegnùe.
Thus, if we suppose that there are similar environmental conditions in
Bid −0.0330171 −15.53a −0.0279818 −16.75a all of the sites of the Adriatic Sea, the total cleaning up cost will be
Cons −0.5550038 −1.74b −1.264874 −5.31a
around €500,000, while the total benefits can be estimated as €97
Male 0.0433994 0.38 −0.0746224 −0.90
Income 0.2889597 6.83a 0.1472773 5.58a million, assuming a discount rate of 5%, a number of families equal to
Age 0.0071884 1.65c 0.0044034 1.37 2,057,227 and a duration of the benefits equal to three years (as hy-
Knowseabio 0.6753533 3.15a 0.6299212 3.84a pothesized in the valuation scenario).
Knowbio 0.5355615 3.62a 0.5095057 5.02a
The results may be helpful to public policy-makers to increase the
Heardbio 0.1789995 0.85 0.3933061 2.38b
Collegephd 0.2546936 1.88c 0.1357597 1.35 acceptability of the removal and conservation activities in the North
Kfishingdam 0.5222311 4.24a 0.3758721 4.13a Adriatic Sea and prioritize their choices under budget constraints. For
Distanzat 0.0005087 −2.06b −0.0002349 −1.30 considering the opportunity of adopting different management strate-
Donation 1.112164 6.45a 1.011243 8.84a gies, it is necessary to estimate the costs and benefits of these alter-
Lookinfo 0.4198602 3.33a 0.5585973 6.17a
natives.
Mean WTP €64.02 €27.03 From a management perspective, the study suggests that an ap-
(59.25–69.70) (24.09–29.99)
propriate communication and community involvement at all levels
N. of observations 2007 2989 (citizens, fishermen, aquaculture farmers, divers, environmental orga-
Log likelihood −937.23652 −1,716.8066
nizations and local government) are a crucial management tool in
a
Significant at 1% level.
modifying culture and building commitment and willingness for
b
Significant at 5% level. change. The first step toward achieving a positive result in terms of
c
Significant at 10% level. environmental improvement is to reduce dumping at sea and the
landfilling practices to reduce the ALDFG problem, and consequently
through the CVM and estimated a mean WTP of US$25.21 and US damages on biodiversity, the second step is to provide the correct in-
$25.89, respectively (US$2000); but, as Spash (2000a, p 52) wrote, frastructure and an appropriate regulation to guide people in adopting a
“there are both practical and methodological problems with” the at- correct behavior. For example, in relation to the first step, FAO has
tempt to transfer these values to another geographical and cultural begun to work on pursuing development and adoption of international
context. guidelines on the marking of fishing gear, which could contribute to
As explained in Börger and Hattam (2017, p 65) who quoted avoiding accidental or voluntary gear loss when damaged, but only few
Bateman (2011), it is important to “understand what determines WTP governments have properly implemented this requirement (such as
in the context of remote and unfamiliar goods where preferences may Canada, Australia, Republic of Korea, etc.) (FAO, 2016).
not be clearly held for the good to be valued in the survey”. This study In Italy, there is no specific regulation on ALDFG but there are rules
can also contribute to this purpose and provide further evidence for the related to the protection of the sea and the waste management that can
validity of CV results related to the marine environment and the main be applied to prevent further damages and to correctly dispose fishing
determinants of value. waste. For example, the Legislative Decree n. 182/2003 concerning the
The main positive and significant determinants of WTP found in this implementation of Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for
study are a previous knowledge or familiarity with the coralligenous ship-generated waste and cargo residues states that any type of waste
habitat and biodiversity issues, some demographic and economic accidentally recovered during fishing activities should always be
variables such as income and education, and environmental attitudes. brought back on-shore and never discarded at sea, including fishing
These findings corroborate the economic literature on the importance gear or parts of them. Moreover, the law foresees that the on-shore
of knowledge and direct experience in shaping respondents’ WTP (see delivery of any waste accidentally recovered at sea during fishing ac-
for example Spash, 2000b; Turpie, 2003; Torres and Hanley, 2016), and tivities is free. However, significant enforcement is still lacking, as well
support the assumption that people who care for the environment and as control regulation.
future generation are more likely to contribute to safeguarding such This work aims to promote a holistic management of coralligenous
environmental goods. Moreover, this study also provides some insights habitats in Northern Adriatic Sea through an informed management of
regarding the potential of encouraging a proper and focused educa- biodiversity. Recognizing and estimating the economic value of biodi-
tional campaign on coralligenous habitat protection. This environ- versity conservation and improvement can help to fostering prevention
mental good is not well known among Italian citizens (28%), not- actions thus reducing further damages to coralligenous habitat, and can
withstanding the wide diffusion of it along the Italian coasts, but people help to increasing public awareness in ecosystem benefits in order to
are ready to pay for its protection and improvement. This means that if integrate them in an effective management policy.
the Italian Environmental Ministry, the regional and local administra-
tions, and even academic scientists are able to disseminate and com-
municate the existing information about the importance of biodiversity Acknowledgement
of this habitat, people will better understand its value and will attach
more value to efforts to protect it. This research was supported by the European Commission under
This study is particularly important because it proves that the Grant LIFE12BIO/IT/00556.

1128
S. Tonin Ecological Indicators 85 (2018) 1121–1132

Appendix A

Fig. A1. Removal of fishing nets.

1129
S. Tonin Ecological Indicators 85 (2018) 1121–1132

Fig. A2. Removal of static fishing gear (lobster pots,

rakes, anchors, fish traps, etc.).

1130
S. Tonin
References
Arpav, Museo di Storia Naturale di Venezia, 2010. Le tegnùe dell’Alto Adriatico.
Valorizzazione della risorsa marina attraverso lo studio di aree di pregio ambientale.
http://www.arpa.veneto.it/arpavinforma/pubblicazioni/le-tegnue-dellalto-
adriatico-valorizzazione-della-risorsa-marina-attraverso-lo-studio-di-aree-di-pregio-
ambientale/at_download/file. Accessed 18 July 2017.
Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report
of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58 (10), 4601–4614.
Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Baulcomb, C., Koss, R., Hussain, S.S., 2013. Typology and indicators
of ecosystem services for marine spatial planning and management. J. Environ.
Manage. 130, 135e145.
Börger, T., Hattam, C., 2017. Motivationsmatter: behavioural determinants of preferences
for remote and unfamiliar environmental goods. Ecol. Econ. 131, 64–74.
Ballesteros, E., 2006. Mediterranean coralligenous assemblages: a synthesis of present
knowledge. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol.: Ann. Rev. 44, 123–195.
Bateman, I.J., Day, B.H., Georgiou, S., Lake, I., 2006. The aggregation of environmental
benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol. Econ. 60 (2),
450–460.
Bateman, I.J., 2011. Valid value estimates and value estimate validation: better methods
and better testing for stated preference research. In: Bennett, J. (Ed.), The
International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, pp. 322–352.
Beaumont, N.J., Austen, M.C., Mangi, S.C., Townsend, M., 2008. Economic valuation for
the conservation of marine biodiversity. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 386–396.
Brouwer, R., Brouwer, S., Eleveld, M.A., Verbraak, M., Wagtendonk, A.J., van der Woerd,
H.J., 2016. Public willingness to pay for alternative management regimes of remote
marine protected areas in the North Sea. Mar. Policy 68, 195–204.
Casellato, S., Soresi, S., Masiero, L., Stefanon, A., 2006. The Tegnùe: unique outcrops in
the gulf of Venice. Biologia Marina Mediterranea 13, 234–235.
Casellato, S., Masiero, L., Sichirollo, E., Cristofoli, A., Soresi, S., 2007. Hidden secrets of
the Northern Adriatic: tegnùe, peculiar reefs. Centr. Eur. J. Biol. 2 (1), 122–136.
Dziegielewska, D.A., Mendelsohn, R., 2007. Does no mean No? A protest methodology.
Environ. Resour. Econ. 38 (1), 71–87.
1131
Ecological Indicators 85 (2018) 1121–1132
Fig. A3. Removal of fishing related litter (cordage,
mussel socks, and lures).
FAO, 2016. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded gillnets and trammel nets. Methods to
Estimate Ghost Fishing Mortality, and the Status of Regional Monitoring and
Management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome(FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 600, in http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5051e.
pdf. (Accessed 30 October 2017).
Ghost, 2017. http://www.life-ghost.eu/index.php/it/.(Accessed 16 July 2017).
Giaccone, G., 2007. Il coralligeno come paesaggio marino sommerso: distribuzione sulle
coste italiane. Biologia Marina Mediterranea 14 (2), 126–143.
Halstead, J.M., Luloff, A.E., Stevens, T.H., 1992. Protest bidders in contingent valuation.
Northeast. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 21 (2), 160–169.
Hanemann, W.M., 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with
discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66 (3), 332–341.
Istat (Italian Statistical Institute), 2017. Condizioni Socio-economiche Delle Famiglie.
https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/190365 (Accessed 31 May 2017).
Jakobsson, K.M., Dragun, A.K., 2001. The worth of a possum: valuing species with the
contingent valuation method. Environ. Resour. Econ. 19, 211–227.
Krinsky, I., Robb, A.L., 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities.
Rev. Econ. Stat. 68 (4), 715–719.
Londoño, L.M., Johnston, R.J., 2012. Enhancing the reliability of benefit transfer over
heterogeneous sites: a meta-analysis of international coral reef values. Ecol. Econ. 78,
80–89.
Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Cappell, R., 2009. Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise
Discarded Fishing Gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No.185; FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 523. Rome.
Meyerhoff, J., Liebe, U., 2006. Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their
motivation. Ecol. Econ. 57 (4), 583–594.
Meyerhoff, J., Liebe, U., 2010. Determinants of protest responses in environmental va-
luation: a meta-study. Ecol. Econ. 70 (2), 366–374.
Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent
Valuation Method. Resource for the Future, Washington, DC.
Nesto, N., Moschino, V., Picone, M., Boldrin, A., Da Ros, L., 2014. Un database sui po-
polamenti macro-zoobentonici ed ittici degli habitat rocciosi subtitali al largo delle
coste venete. Biologia Mararina Mediterranea 21 (1), 259–260.
Nunes, P.A.L.D., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Nijkamp, P., 2003. The Ecological Economics of
Biodiversity: Methods and Policy Applications. Edward Elgar Publishing, UK.
S. Tonin
Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A., 2007. Global change and marine communities: alien species and
climate change. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 55, 342–352.
Olivi, G., 1792. Zoologia Adriatica. Reale Accademia Sc. Lettere Arti, Bassano. pp. 334.
Pearce, D.W., Moran, D., 1994. The Economic Value of Biological Diversity. Earthscan,
London.
Piazzi, L., Balata, D., 2009. Invasion of alien macroalgae in different Mediterranean ha-
bitats. Biol. Invas. 11, 193–204.
Ponti, M., 2001. Aspetti biologici ed ecologici delle tegnùe: biocostruzione, biodiversità e
salvaguardia. Chioggia rivista semestrale di studi e ricerche del Comune 18, 179–194.
Spash, C.L., 2000a. Assessing the benefits of improving coral reef biodiversity: the con-
tingent valuation method. In: Cesar, H. (Ed.), Collected Essays on the Economics of
Coral Reefs: Valuation and Management Issues CORDIO. Kalmar University, Kalmar,
Sweden, pp. 40–54.
Spash, C.L., 2000b. Ethical motives and charitable contributions in contingent valuation:
empirical evidence from social psychology and economics. Environ. Values 9 (4),
453–479.
Stefanon, A., 1967. Formazioni rocciose del bacino dell'Alto Adriatico. Atti Istuto Veneto
1132
Ecological Indicators 85 (2018) 1121–1132
Scienze Lettere ed Arti 125, 79–89.
Subade, R.F., Francisco, H.A., 2014. Do non-users value coral reefs? : Economic valuation
of conserving Tubbataha Reefs, Philippines. Ecol. Econ. 102, 24–32.
TEEB, 2008. An Interim Report. European Communities.
Tonin, S., Lucaroni, G., 2017. Understanding social knowledge: attitudes and perceptions
toward marine biodiversity: the case of tegnùe in Italy. Ocean Coast. Manage. 140,
68–78.
Tonin, S., 2017. Citizens’ Perspectives of Marine Protected Areas as a Governance
Strategy to Effectively Preserve Marine Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Torres, C., Hanley, N., 2016. Economic Valuation of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem
Services in the 21 St Century: an Overview from a Management Perspective.
University of St. Andrews Discussion papers in Environmental Economics, N. 2016–1.
In (Accessed 17 July 2017).
Turpie, J.K., 2003. The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest,
experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local will-
ingness to pay. Ecol. Econ. 46, 199–216.