AQUATIC GENETIC DIVERSITY: ASSESSING ECONOMIC VALUE A. Issari , S. Matsiori *, A. Exadactylos , G. Ekonomou and D. Vafidis Department of Ichthyology and Aquatic Environment School of Agricultural Sciences University of - steriani@uth.gr Abstract This study explores the factors influencing people’s Willingness To Pay (WTP) for protecting aquatic genetic diversity. WTP was derived from a face-to-face survey of 350 respondents randomly selected residents of Volos city. Significant relationships are found between environmental people’s WTP and its age and functional uses of genetic resources. Keywords: Economic valuation, Biodiversity, Aegean Sea 1 1 1 1 1 1 Introduction Economic valuation of biological resources supports conservation policies of these resources [1] and also recognises the importance of them valuation [2]. The objective of this paper was to investigate people’s WTP for aquatic genetic diversity conservation by exploring the determinant factors that affect respondents’ WTP. According to [3] the majority of previous studies have quantified genetic diversity measuring direct use benefits of biological resources in terms of inputs to the production of market goods [4,5,6]. Materials and methods A CV survey was carried out to 350 randomly selected residents of Volos city. Volos is a coastal port city in Thessaly situated in the middle of the Greek mainland and is built along the Pagasitikos Gulf. A questionnaire was constructed and tested according to guidelines established by the NOAA panel [7]. Respondents were asked whether they would support a conservation program of aquatic genetic resources. Implementation of the program would cost them a specified amount of money (in €) in a one-time payment. In the second phase respondents were asked if they were willing to pay a specific amount of money to confirm their participation. The discrete choice model has become the most used approach for determining whether people are willing to pay for a non-market good [8]. Follow-up a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was used as a tool for measuring different public perceptions and preferences with regard to importance of aquatic genetic resources. Results and Discussion The results revealed that most respondents (53.4%) were males. Mean age was 30.93 years, while mean monthly income was 942.57 €. Most respondents were formally educated (13.3 years) and all the respondents were engaged in at least one economic activity. PCA was used to measure different public perceptions with regard to importance of aquatic genetic resources (Table 1). Tab. 1. Importance of aquatic genetic diversity Collected data, in the form of a binary variable (1=Yes and 0=No), on the amount that the respondents were willing to pay as well as a number of explanatory variables were used in a logistic regression model formulation (Table 2). The results of PCA indicate that the populations’ ability to resistance, tolerance is the most important service provided by aquatic genetic diversity. Next, with the help of the extracted factors we explore how the level of importance may yield additional insight to explain individuals’ WTP for its protection. Our empirical analysis illustrates that Factors Identi- fication Variance Explained (%) Cronba- ch's a Total Cronba- ch's a KMO Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Species Tolerance 30.59 0.82 0.87 0.82 App. ぬ (1376,44) df = 190 p = .000 Functional Uses 12.88 0.75 Pharmacy Production Services 7.78 0.81 Conserva- tional Uses 5.99 0.71 - 5.39 0.52 2 non one of socio-economic characteristics (e.g., age, household size, and income), except age, had significant effect on people WTP. On the other hand our results linked aquatic genetic resources with its functional uses (indirect use values). Tab. 2. Description of explanatory variables and logistic regression results References 1 - Pearce, D., 2001. Valuing biological diversity: issues and overview. In: OECD, D. (Ed.), Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits: Selected Studies. OECD, Paris. 2 - OECD, 2001. Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits: Selected Studies. OECD, Paris. 3 - Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R., Hyde T., 2006 Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economic 58, 304– 317. 4 - Simpson, R.D., Sedjo, R.A., Reid, J.W., 1996. Valuing biodiversity for use in pharmaceutical research. Journal of Political Economy 104 (1), 163– 185. 5 - S, J.R., 1999. In situ conservation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: a UK perspective. Land Use Policy 16 (2), 81– 91. 6 - Rausser, G.C., Small, A.A., 2000. Valuing research leads bioprospecting and the conservation of genetic resources. Journal of Political Economy 108 (1), 173– 206. 7 - W, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register. 58(10), 4601-4614. 8 - Del-Saz-Salazar, S, F Hernández-Sancho, R Sala-Garrido 2009 The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive: A comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept Science of the Total Environment 407, 4574–4583. Variables’ description b Wald Constant 1.367 [0.013] 1.415 Peoples’s WTP (BID) -0,008 [0.000] 11.423 Respondents age in years 2.114 [0.001] 7.059 The importance of aquatic genetic diversity functional uses (PCA 2 Factor) 0.377 [0.002] 3.023 Changes in aquatic genetic diversity 0.941 [0,025] 5.058 Importance of aquatic genetic diversity for future life quality 0.459 [0.023] 5,170 intention to participate in aquatic genetic protection projects 0.782 [0.006] 3.528 McFadden R 0.326 Correct predictions 79.0% Chi²(8) 75.346 p=0.000 Mean WTP (€) 9.970 nd 2 809 Rapp. Comm. int. Mer Médit., 40, 2013