Conference Agenda

Human-elephant conflict (HEC) frequently results in human and elephant mortality, posing major social justice and conservation concerns across Asia and Africa. While a variety of interventions have been introduced to mitigate HEC, rigorous evaluations of how they affect mortality are practically absent. Using a twenty-year data set from Sonitpur district in Assam, India, we assess whether organized guarding and short-distance drives—which are used to manage HEC in several countries globally—lead to a reduction in human and elephant mortality from conflict as intended. Controlling for changes in land use and economic development, spillover effects, and non-random selection of villages for intervention, we are unable to conclude whether or not organized guarding provides any protection against human death due to HEC. Contrary to expectations, the intervention is associated with an approximately 2.0-2.9 times increase in elephant mortality, with evidence suggesting elephants may be more likely to suffer an accidental death in villages where organized guarding occurs. Our study highlights the indispensability of rigorous evaluations for finding win-win solutions to human-wildlife conflict.

This study investigates how existing supply chain relationships influence firms’ biodiversity conservation efforts. Specifically, we focus on the role of a firm’s identity as a major client for its suppliers. We hypothesize that when a firm acts as a major customer, it may experience pressure from suppliers to prioritize operational activities. This pressure can diminish the firm’s incentives to invest in biodiversity conservation, since such efforts often yield limited short-term benefits. Our analysis is based on firm-year level observations of U.S. firms from 2012 to 2019. Initial findings reveal that firms identified as major customers of their suppliers—defined as accounting for more than 10% of their suppliers’ sales—are less likely to engage in biodiversity conservation initiatives. This conclusion remains robust across various sensitivity tests, including alternative sample periods, independent variables, additional controls, propensity score matching, and the entropy balancing approach. Overall, this study suggests that the structure of supply chain relationships significantly impacts firms’ likelihood of investing in biodiversity conservation.

Plankton form the foundation of marine biodiversity, providing essential ecosystem

functions and services critical for human well-being. Yet, their invisible nature and

complexity limit public awareness and challenge the valuation of these services

through conventional stated preference methods. This lack of awareness, combined

with the absence of economic assessments of plankton ecosystem services, impedes

their inclusion in decision-making and the evaluation of changes in their provision,

potentially undermining sustainable marine use. To address this gap, we conducted a

series of deliberative monetary valuation workshops across Europe to elicit wellinformed

public preferences for different protection levels of marine protected areas

and plankton ecosystem services. Overall, the results of the deliberative choice

experiment indicate a significant public willingness to pay for the sustained provision of

plankton ecosystem services. We observed heterogeneity in preferences for carbon

sequestration (a specific plankton ecosystem service) and marine biodiversity

protection levels across study regions. Furthermore, the results indicate that, on

average, respondents have preferences for relatively stringent marine biodiversity

protection. However, preferences for the strictest protection status vis-à-vis

intermediate strictness were heterogeneous and influenced by the distance of their

residence from the coast.

Global biodiversity trends show complex patterns of decline across species abundance, richness, and diversity. These declines vary both geographically and among taxonomy groups, having profound implications for human well-being. Valuing these changes economically is challenging due to the complexity and abstract nature of biodiversity. Thus, stated preference valuation studies have often relied on simplified biodiversity proxies, focusing on specific species or habitats rather than capturing biodiversity's full complexity. As a result, the marginal economic value of changes in biodiversity is often misrepresented. To better understand how distinct biodiversity metrics influence people’ willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation measures, our study conducts a global meta-analysis of 61 biodiversity valuation studies with 201 observations. We estimate variations in WTP across species categories, different biodiversity metrics, and geographical regions in studies conducted from 2000 to 2024. Our findings reveal that WTP for species richness was highest and most stable, while WTP for species abundance showed greater variability and was overall lower. Among species groups, WTP was highest for Specialist species, compared to iconic, generalist and endemic species. Spatially, wealthier continents had higher WTP. A temporal analysis indicated increasing WTP variability over time in developed regions, suggesting growing environmental awareness in these regions. Framing biodiversity questions as “avoiding the declines in species” yielded higher WTP while contingent valuation studies generally yielded lower WTP than discrete choice experiments across all demographics. This analysis offers valuable insights for better integration of biodiversity in cost-benefit analyses and natural capital accounting.