Nature conservation:
Information, costs, and evaluation
Ross Cullen
Commerce Division
PO Box 84
Lincoln University
7647, Lincoln.
cullenr@lincoln.ac.nz
Conserv-Vision: The next 50 years.
4-7 July 2007
University of Waikato
Hamilton.
Abstract
Public understanding of conservation is flawed in New Zealand and the level of threat
to species and ecosystems is poorly understood. Pursuit of conservation goals is costly.
We invest resources and effort to maintain specific species and return ecosystems to a
former state by investing resources and effort. Selection of conservation projects needs
to be based upon good understanding of their expected outcomes and projected costs.
Efforts to conserve ecosystems should be evaluated to determine the effectiveness and
efficiency of those actions. Practical, low cost evaluation techniques exist and can
inform society about ecosystem conservation programmes. A New Zealand conservvision is for conservation decisions made by small groups of experts, based on
estimated cost and projected outcomes that will conserve the dynamic nature of
ecosystems.
1. Introduction
Conservation often evokes dedicated effort from many people, both employees and
volunteers. We strive to achieve success, often in the face of massive challenges. Our
conservation activities are more likely to be successful if some key criteria are met.
These include: there is reasonable understanding of the current conservation situation,
conservation objectives are well defined and achievable, and there is sufficient
knowledge available of ways to move towards desired outcomes. The resources
available for conservation are often scarce, and our choices will usually have both
financial costs and opportunity costs. Greater conservation progress may be achievable
if the costs of conservation programmes and projects are estimated and considered
when choosing objectives and strategies. Given the existence of opportunity costs in
conservation it is important to complete outcome evaluations to determine the success
and cost effectiveness of conservation efforts. In this paper I review how New Zealand
rates on those points and propose changes that could improve conservation
performance. I conclude with a vision of conservation management that addresses
these issues.
2. Public understanding of nature and biodiversity conservation
It is arguable that New Zealanders have flawed understanding of the current state of
native species and ecosystems, and of the effectiveness of New Zealand conservation
activities. Four nationwide surveys of New Zealand adults (Hughey et al., 2001, 2002,
2004, 2006) have asked respondents about their perceptions of the New Zealand
environment, the quality of environmental management and causes of damage to the
environment. In three of those studies we have asked if New Zealand is ‘clean and
green’ (Hughey et al., 2002, 2004, 2006). Figure 1 illustrates that New Zealanders
judge that we live in a clean and green land.
60
2002
2004
2006
Percent of respondents
50
40
30
20
10
0
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Stongly
disagree
Don't
know
Figure 1. New Zealand’s environment is ‘clean and green.’ Source: Hughey et al., 2006.
Four nationwide surveys of 2000 New Zealand adults (Hughey et al., 2001, 2002,
2004, 2006) have asked respondents to provide ratings of the quality of eleven aspects
of the New Zealand environment (air, groundwater, rivers and lakes, marine fisheries,
soils, …), native land and freshwater plants and animals, forests and bush. We also
asked respondents how the New Zealand environment rates compared to other
countries. Respondents consistently state that New Zealand species, bush and forest
are in good or very good state. Respondents also state that the New Zealand
environment is in a better condition than is the environment in other developed
countries.
Figure 2 clearly indicates that New Zealanders rate highly the state of native land
freshwater plants and animals, and native bush and forests. Those ratings can be
compared to biophysical data and to rankings for New Zealand compared to other
countries. In 2006 New Zealand had 2788 species that are considered threatened in
some way, an increase of 416 over the 2002 count and approximately three percent of
the estimated total number of New Zealand species.
Don't
know
Negative Positive
%
Rivers and lakes
5
Marine fisheries
12
Wetlands
16
Groundwater
13
Natural environment in towns and cities
2
Soils
8
Native land and freshwater plants and
animals
Coastal waters and beaches
3
Air
1
Native bush and forests
2
NZ natural environment compared
to other developed countries
7
-40
2
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percentage of respondents
Very bad
Bad
Adequate
Good
Very good
Figure 2. Perceived state of the environment. Source: Hughey et al., 2006.
New Zealand has 155 species on the IUCN Red Data List and is about 40th on that
league table (IUCN). An international rating of New Zealand nature and biodiversity is
provided by Esty et al. 2004 in a study of environmental sustainability. This study
reports on 21 main indicators such as air quality, water quality, eco-efficiency (each
calculated using several variables), and includes an indicator for biodiversity. While
New Zealand rates and 14th overall, and scores highly compared to other nations on
water quantity and quality, New Zealand is 146th amongst the 146 nations evaluated on
biodiversity. The biodiversity measure is comprised of: percentage of a country’s
territory in threatened ecoregions (New Zealand 67.34); threatened bird species as a
percentage of known breeding bird species in each country (New Zealand 42.00);
threatened mammal species as percentage of known mammal species in each country
New Zealand 80.00); threatened amphibian species as percentage of known breeding
amphibian species in each country (New Zealand 100.00); score between 0 and 1 with
large values corresponding to high levels of species abundance and small values
reflecting low levels of species abundance (New Zealand 0.52).
Native bush and forest covers 23% of the terrestrial land area of New Zealand, a
massive reduction from an estimated 85% of the land area a millennia ago. OECD
(2007) note that a net loss occurred of nearly 175 km2 of indigenous habitat between
1996 and 2002. The state of native bush and forests and other habitats is very often
degraded or under threat from introduced species including rats, possums, numerous
invasive plant species. Considerable effort and expenditures on controlling these
threats are clearly succeeding in some areas, but the state of our bush and forests is
mixed and the public’s rating of their state seems sanguine.
The conclusion – New Zealand public have an overly complacent view of native bush
and forests and do not recognise how threatened are New Zealand plant and animal
species.
3. Information
“Information imperfections are pervasive in the economy: indeed it is hard to
imagine what a world of perfect information would be like.” Joseph Stiglitz (2002)
It is noticeable that the views of the New Zealand public on the state of the
environment are closely correlated with biophysical data for many parts of the New
Zealand environment. The most striking exception to this is the divergence between
public perceptions and the state of native plant and animal species. For example, their
understanding of the state of New Zealand lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater and
the factors that cause low water quality in lowland rivers and lakes seem well grounded
(Cullen et al., 2006). Given those generally well informed views, it’s worth asking why
the New Zealand public has such a rosy view of the state of biodiversity?
Most of us have limited direct information available to us on the state of our
environment and are dependent on secondary sources to enable us to form a view on
such topics. We asked respondents to our 2006 survey about their sources of
information and the reliability of those sources of information.
• ‘What are your main sources of environmental information?’ – respondents
were asked to rank their top three sources.
• ‘How reliable are the following sources of environmental information?
Figures 3 and 4 summarise their responses. Newspapers and television were the most
important sources of environmental information for most people (Figure 3).
Reliability was assessed on a five-point Likert scale, anchored by very reliable (1) and
very unreliable (5).
Other
Lectures and talks
Scientific journals
Internet
Magazines
Radio
Television
Newspapers
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent of respondents
Figure 3. Main sources of environmental information. Source Hughey et al. 2006.
Negative
Don't
know
Positive
%
Scientists
12
Regional Councils
11
Media
7
Lobby groups
10
Inter-governmental
organisations
21
Government
departments
8
Businesses
19
-60 -40 -20
0
20
40
60
80 100
Percentage of respondents
Very unreliable
Unreliable
Neither reliable nor unreliable
Reliable
Very reliable
Figure 4. Reliability of environmental information sources: Source Hughey et al., 2006.
The ranked order of the average response from most to least reliable for seven
information sources is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Ranking of reliability of information sources.
Scientists
Government departments
Lobby groups
Inter-governmental organisations
Regional councils
The media
Businesses
1.83
2.23
2.46
2.51
2.52
2.93
3.38
= Most reliable
= Least reliable.
Scientific sources of information are seen as being very reliable, lobby groups are
judged to be more reliable than regional councils and inter-governmental
organisations, but business has an overall negative rating.
Does reliance on mass media for major source of information explain why the public
are poorly informed on the state of New Zealand native plant and animal species?
Mass media are unlikely to be the real culprits. More likely it is the absence of
information on the overall state of New Zealand’s biodiversity, and trends in the state
together with a continual supply of good news stories that delude the public. The OECD
20007 recently commented on this in their report on New Zealand environment.
In the absence of data on ecosystem condition and trends, conservation objectives
continue to be defined in terms of agency outputs rather than performance
outcomes. OECD, 2007, p.5.
Publicly available data on New Zealand ecosystem conditions and trends would be
valuable to decision makers in the public sector and NGOs who focus on conservation
of species and ecosystems. But, equally importantly, it would provide a more rigourous
basis for the public to understand what the state of species and ecosystems is, to
understand the scale of the conservation challenges faced and to assess progress
towards conservation goals.
4. Cost and expenditure information
Setting achievable goals is a fundamental requirement for success in any endeavour.
Achieving the goals chosen requires committing resources to deliver actions. Nature
conservation is big business in New Zealand and in many other countries. Global
expenditures on nature reserves are estimated to total US$6 billion annually. Those
expenditures have been described as insufficient to adequately conserve nature.
Additional expenditure of $16.6 billion per annum is estimated to be necessary to
provide and maintain a broadly representative system of nature reserves (James et al.,
1999). In New Zealand, only 2-3% of the total land administered by the Department of
Conservation is in its intensively managed areas (Green and Clarkson 2005).
Given the magnitude of the nature conservation challenges faced in New Zealand,
choice of goals needs to be based upon good understanding of the projected costs of
achieving the goals. Information on the projected costs of conservation programmes
would seem to be essential to gain sufficient funding as it provides funding agencies
with a reasoned understanding of the level of commitment required. Applications for
funding that lack specific and detailed cost information can be more easily dismissed or
underfunded, whereas applications that include such information must demand more
serious attention. Cost estimates are also required for forecasting the effects of different
policy goals, and for cost-effectiveness analyses. That type of information is crucial for
efforts to achieve greater effectiveness and efficiency in use of conservation resources.
Surprisingly, expenditure data on nature conservation and cost estimates for public
sector conservation projects are elusive in New Zealand. New Zealand is unusual in not
requiring costs to be estimated for species recovery plans (reference). Threatened
species recovery plans rarely include costing of the planned activities. The New Zealand
Biodiversity Strategy explains the grave situation species face and the actions required
to halt or reverse the decline in biodiversity, but does not provide projections of the
cost of those actions. Reports from practitioners such as the New Zealand Conservation
Management Group (2004) provide information on actions taken, changes in
population size, but do not mention costs. It’s reasonable to ask why is cost not
routinely estimated for biodiversity projects?
Some reasons for the absence of cost information include: it requires the use of further
resources to assemble the information if it is not routinely available, it is subject to risk
and uncertainty, and it can create expectations of funding that may not be available. A
more basic reason may simply be that the importance of cost is not recognized by
conservation managers or policy makers. Whatever the reasons, the absence of cost
and expenditure data limits our ability to make informed decisions, is likely to lead to
poor conservation decisions and less conservation progress than might be made with
the resources available.
4.1 Opportunity costs and financial costs
Why should we be concerned about conservation cost effectiveness, surely we just
get more money? University of Edinburgh seminar attendee, November 2000.
Conservation often requires making hard choices because the resources available are
limited and the conservation challenges are immense. It seems sensible to consider the
expected costs of the options before we make choices. In a world where there is limited
’money’ available a decision to fund one species programme is likely to limit the
resources available to conserve another species.
The selection of one particularly high cost species’ programme may limit the resources
available to a number of low cost species programmes. This point is strikingly evident
in the research of Emma Moran who obtained estimates of the cost of 11 single species
programmes for 2003-2011 and of the expected expenditure on each of the species.
‘Cost’ in this research is defined as the amount of money required in order to
accomplish a particular purpose (Brown, 1993: 521); ‘funding’ is the amount of money
set aside for a particular purpose; and, ‘expenditure’ is the amount of money actually
used for that purpose (Brown, 1993: 1042 and 886).
The Present Value (PV) of estimated total costs of the 11 single species programmes for
2003 - 2012 indicate the huge range in costs of management of species (Figure 5). The
variations in the costs of programmes are striking: the PV of total costs for the ten year
period covers a large range, from under $12,000 for the Stephens Island ground beetle
program to over $9 million for the North Island kokako program. The large range in
the PV of total costs means that the higher cost programs account for the majority of
the costs of threatened species management over the timeframe: the six highest cost
programs account for 92 percent of the costs over all 11 programs. The variation in
costs is also reflected in the difference between the median PV of total cost of just over
$1.6 million and the average PV of total cost of around $3 million for the ten year
period.
$10,000,000
$9,314,082
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
PV (6%) of total cost (NZ$ 2002)
$7,146,709
$7,000,000
$5,874,754
$6,000,000
$5,311,145
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,330,223
$3,000,000
$1,640,655
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
$11,802
Stephens
Island
ground
beetle
$106,099
$167,315
$385,480
$409,075
Stephens
climbing P. patulum Campbell
Island frog everlasting
Island teal
daisy
flax snail
kakapo
mohua
South
black stilt
Island longtailed bat
North
Island
kokako
Single species programs
Figure 5. Present Value of estimated costs of NZ species programmes 2003-2012.
Source, Moran et al.
Those projected costs can be compared with estimated expenditures on the 11 species
over the same time period (Figure 6).
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
PV (6%) of total annual cost and
total annual funding (NZ$ 2002)
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
67%
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
100%
44%
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
32%
$1,000,000
100%
$0
Stephens
Island
ground
beetle
>100%
23%
10%
26%
Stephens
climbing P. patulum Campbell
Island frog everlasting
Island teal
daisy
19%
flax snail
<2%
kakapo
mohua
South
black stilt
Island longtailed bat
Single species programs
PV of total annual cost 2003-2012
PV of expected total annual expenditure 2003-2012
North
Island
kokako
Figure 6 Present value of costs and expected expenditure 2003-2102. Source, Moran et
al.
The data on estimated expenditures for each species were provided by their respective
species’ manager. There are startling differences between species in their projected
expenditure to cost ratio for 2003-2012.
In New Zealand, approximately 800 indigenous species are listed as acutely and
chronically threatened. Despite annual expenditures of NZ $106.5 million on
management of natural heritage, 92 percent of these species do not receive enough help
and 77 percent have no programme specifically targeting their recovery (Department of
Conservation, 2004). It is clear that there are very real opportunity costs flowing from
decisions to allocate resources to conservation of any species. For ‘high cost’ species
their opportunity cost may mean few or no resources are available for many ‘low cost’
species and a quickened pace towards critical status.
4.2 Total cost to recover a species
Present Value (PV) of costs over one decade do not tell the complete story about the
magnitude of species recovery costs as the recovery rate of each species play a major
role in determining PV of total recovery cost. Emma Moran has estimated for 11 species
the PV of total recovery cost as shown in Figure 7.
Projected total cost (NZ$ 2002) and time from 2003
$30,000,000
31 years
$25,000,000
100+ years
$20,000,000
25 years
12 years
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
13 years
$0
13 years
12 years
11 years
Stephens
Island Ground
Beetle
Climbing
Everlasting
Daisy
P. patulum
12 years
64 years
Campbell
Island Teal
Stephens
Island Frog
Flax Snail
Mohua
North Island
Kokako
Black Stilt
Kakapo
South Island
Long-tailed
Bat
Single species programs
Figure 7. Projected total costs of single species from 2003-. Source, Moran et al.
There are remarkable differences between species in their total recovery costs and the
time it will take to move from the threatened species list. Information of this type is not
readily available, hence quantifiable goal setting and monitoring against those goals is
absent.
5. Evaluation of performance
When it comes to evaluating the success of its interventions, the field of
ecosystem protection and biodiversity conservation lags behind most
other policy fields. Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006, 482.
It is disappointing that so little evaluation occcurs of nature conservation activities.
The failure to apply evaluation tools in nature conservation decision-making can result
in errors in project selection, wasted use of scarce resources, and lower levels of
conservation than may be achievable from the limited resources available.
Evaluation requires effort, and expenditure. Conservationists may wonder if the
resources used for evaluation would be better used directly for conservation, but
evaluation can lead to greater conservation outcomes. One example of the payoff from
inclusion of economic factors in decision-making is provided by Ando et al., (1998) who
demonstrate that when pursuing a target of providing habitat for 453 endangered
species, consideration of both economic and ecologic factors, can achieve the target at
one sixth of the cost if solely ecologic factors are considered.
Evaluation may sometimes seem dauntingly difficult, perhaps because it so rarely
occurs in conservation or because relevant information is not readily available. A recent
paper considered this problem and concluded …‘It was not possible to find an
unbiased, objective metric for measuring effort put forth in recovery actions and to
track relative success. At this time, in fact, many recovery management actions
cannot be determined to be successful or unsuccessful’ (Abbitt & Scott 2001: 1281).
Economists argue that evaluation is both possible and essential.
If any progress is to be made in stemming the global decline of
biodiversity, the field of conservation policy must adopt state-of-the-art
program evaluation methods to determine what works and when.
Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006: 482.
State-of-the-art for Ferraro and Pattanyak (2007) requires comparison of actual
outcomes fro intervention to a counterfactual provided from population viability
analyses. That is a possible way to proceed but it requires significant analyst skill and
time to complete PVA studies. Alternatives methods can be sought, and they need not
be especially sophisticated or costly to improve on the current situation. The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005, Policy Responses) includes the following
comment… ‘Few well-designed empirical analyses assess even the most common
biodiversity conservation measures.’
Evaluation of conservation projects is possible and I have worked with colleagues at
developing and applying evaluation methods to conservation including Cost
Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) and Cost Utility Analysis (CUA). The latter technique we
have applied to single species and multi-species projects in New Zealand, Australia,
Cameroon (Cullen et al. 2001, 2003, 2005) The CUA approach requires obtaining
information from project managers on expenditure for each project over a specified
time period, on the species threat classification status over the time period and on its
counterfactual – what its threat classification status would have been in the absence of
the project. The latter type of information may seem difficult to obtain but our
experience has been that obtaining expenditure information is much more problematic
in New Zealand. Our objective is to be able to measure the contribution of intervention
to improving species’ conservation status as measured by the numbers of COPY
produced during the study period, and to calculate present value of expenditure per
COPY. Table 2 illustrates results from evaluation of some New Zealand single species
projects.
Table 2. Evaluation of single species programmes
Species recovery programme
Present Value of PV Expenditure
Total Expenditure per COPY
Brothers Island tuatara Sphenodon guntheri
13 694
40 780
Cook Strait tuatara Sphenodon punctatus
13 694
76 457
Campbell Island teal Anas anas nesietis
39 940
103 178
Short tailed bat Mystacina tuberculata
318 938
184 570
Yellow-eyed penguin Megadyptes anipodes
603 013
305 344
Hector's dolphin Cephalorynchus hectori
773 844
1 048 245
Black stilt Himantopus novaezelandiae
2 441822
1 077 724
Takahe Porphyrio hochstetteri
3 278178
2 327 560
Source: Cullen et al. 2001.
A 239 fold difference in costs of projects is impressive, and the 57 fold range in cost per
COPY interesting. The results seem interesting and informative to us and we judge that
this type of information could be useful to conservation decision makers.
The CUA approach that we have developed seems to offer a useful way to evaluate
species conservation projects. It is practical to use as it makes modest demands for
information collection, it has low cost to apply, and it has been adapted for use in other
countries with differing threat classification systems. The CUA methodology is also
being developed for application to ecosystem management (Hearnshaw et al. 2007).
There are several other evaluation methodologies used and proposed for conservation
(Stephens et al, 200x; Ferraro and Pattanayak 2007; Hajkowicz 2007, Bandara and
Tisdell 2005, Engerman et al. 2003) and we have reviewed the range of evaluation
options (Hughey et al. 2002), but application of evaluation tools is as slow in New
Zealand as it is elswehere. Green and Clarkson (2005) provide a review of the first five
years of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, and comment that progress has been
made since 2000 in ‘turning the tide’. However, they note that goal settting, monitoring
and evaluation are areas where much more effort is required.
‘Linked to the overdue need to complete and implement a comprehennsive
system of environmental indicators and environmental performance standards
is the importance of developing monitoring and reporting systems. … The
importance of monitoring and reporting systems has been obscured by one
important shortcoming in the strategy - the very few time-linked and
quantifiable targets that are set against which to measure progress.’ (Green and
Clarkson 2005. 3)
These are timely comments and it is important that they are noted and acted upon if we
are to make real, measured progress in biodiversity management.
6. An information-rich conserv-vision
This conference provides an opportunity to look forwards to consider what might be
possible during the next 50 years. The current challenges are very large but trends
such as accelerating climate change, continuing arrival of invasive species and escape of
exotics, suggest the challenges will continue to increase. Meeting those challenges will
require sustained commitment of resources over the next fifty years. There is no
evidence of weakening of taxpayer willingness to fund conservation, but current
support seems at least partly to be based upon public misunderstanding of the true
state of New Zealand biodiversity. Maintaining public support for nature conservation
might best be achieved if the public continue to have confidence that realistic goals are
being pursued, resources are being used effectively, and real progress is being achieved.
My conserv-vision is that the following will become standard practice in the next five
years.
•
•
•
•
•
Conservation programme outcomes and their counterfactuals are projected.
Conservation programmes are costed before decisions are taken.
Quantifiable, time-linked conservation goals are chosen.
Timely monitoring and reporting of conservation programme outcomes and
costs.
Evaluation of conservation programmes including comparison to
counterfactuals.
Adoption of these practises will take us quite a way to overcoming the information
deficits that decision makers and the public have too readily accepted. If the insights
of Emma Moran, Amy Ando and others lead to smarter use of resources than occurs at
present we may have considerably better conservation outcomes by 2050 than present
trends suggest are likely.
References
Abbitt, R.J.F., and Scott, J.M. (2001). Examining differences between recovered and
declining endangered species. Conservation Biology 15: 1274-1284.
Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S., and Solow, A. (1998). Species distributions, land
values and efficient conservation. Science, 279, 2126-2168.
Bndara, R. and Tisdell, C. (2005)). Changing abundance of elephants and willingness to
pay for their conservation. Journal of Environmental Management, 76, 47-59.
Brown, L. 1993. The new shorter Oxford English dictionary on historical principles.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Cullen, R Fairburn, GA, Hughey, KFD, (2001). Measuring the productivity of
threatened species programs. Ecological Economics. 39(1), 53-66.
Cullen, R., Moran, E.M., Hughey, K.F.D. (2005). Measuring the success and cost
effectiveness of New Zealand multiple species projects to conservation of threatened
species. Ecological Economics. 53, 311-323.
Cullen, R., Hughey, K.F.D, Fairburn, GA., Moran, E.M. (2005). Economic analyses to
aid nature conservation decision-making. Oryx. 39(3), 1-8.
Cullen, R, Hughey, KFD, and Kerr, GN. (2006). New Zealand freshwater management
and agricultural impacts. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
50, 327-346.
Department of Conservation and Ministry for the Environment, (2000). New Zealand's
Biodiversity
Strategy,
DoC/MfE,
Wellington.
Also
available
at
http://www.biodiv.govt.nz/
Department of Conservation, (2004). Annual report for the year ended 30 June 2004.
Department of Conservation, Wellington.
Engermann, R.M., Shwiff, S.A., Cano, F., & Constantin, B. (2003) An economic
assessment of the potential for predator management to benefit Puerto Rican parrots.
Ecological Economics, 46, 283-292.
Esty, D.C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T., de Sherbinin, A. (2005). 2005 Environmental
Sustainability Index: Benchmarking national environmental stewardship. Yale
Center for Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven
Esty, D.C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T., de Sherbinin, A., Kim, C.H., Anderson, B. (2006).
Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index. Yale Center for Environmental Law and
Policy, New Haven.
Ferraro, P.J and Pattanayak, S.K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical
evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology, 4(4), 482-488.
Green, W. and Clarkson, B. (2005). Turning the tide? A review of the first five years of
the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy.
Hajkowicz, S. (2007). Can we put a price tag on nature? Rethinking approaches to
environmental valuation. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 14,
22-26.
Hearnshaw, E.J.S., Cullen, R., Hughey, K.F.D., Morison, K. (2007). A process of
economic evaluation by abductive logic for ecosystem management. 51st AARES
Annual Conference, Queenstown, February 14-16.
Hughey, K.F.D., Cullen, R. & Moran E. (2003) Integrating economics into priority
setting and evaluation of conservation management. Conservation Biology, 17, 93-103.
Hughey, K.F.D., Kerr, G.N., Cullen, R., and Cook, A, (2001). Perceptions of the state of
New Zealand’s environment: Findings from the first biennial survey undertaken in
2000. Lincoln University.
Hughey, K.F.D., Kerr, G.N., and Cullen, R., (2002). Perceptions of the State of the
Environment: The 2002 survey of public attitudes, preferences and perceptions of the
New Zealand Environment. Education Solutions, Lincoln.
Hughey, K.F.D., Kerr, G.N., Cullen, R., (2004). Public Perceptions of New Zealand’s
Environment: 2004. EOS Ecology, Lincoln.
Hughey, K.F.D., Kerr, G.N., Cullen, R., (2006). Public Perceptions of New Zealand’s
Environment: 2006. EOS Ecology, Lincoln.
IUCN (2006). Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/tables/table5
accessed 2/7/07
James, A.N., Gaston, K.J., Balmford, A., (1999). Balancing the Earth’s accounts. Nature
401, 323-324.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: a
Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Moran, E., Cullen, R. and Hughey, K. Financing biodiversity conservation: the costs of
threatened species management and the budget constraint. Unpublished manuscript.
New Zealand Conservation Management Group (2004). Annual Conference
proceedings 2004. New Zealand Conservation Management Group.
OECD, (2007). Environmental performance review of New Zealand. OECD, Paris.
Stiglitz, J. (2002). Information and the change in the paradigm of economics.
American Economic Review, 92(3), 460-501. Also at http://www.nobel.se