The value of genetic resources in agriculture: a meta-analysis assessing existing knowledge and future research needs

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary statistics for the data used in this study

	Studies (n = 22)
	Number	%
Genetic resource
Plant/crop	9	40.9
Animal	13	59.1
Species
Cattle	7	31.8
Pig	3	13.6
Goat	1	4.5
Sheep	1	4.5
Horse	1	4.5
Rice	5	22.7
Maize	2	9.1
Coffee	1	4.5
Agrobiodiversity	1	4.5
Focus of valuation^a
Attribute/trait	14	53.8
Breed/variety	5	19.2
Conservation programme	7	26.9
Geographic scope
Local	5	22.7
Regional	12	54.5
National	4	18.2
International	1	4.5
Continent
Africa	10	45.5
Asia	5	22.7
Europe	2	9.1
South America	4	18.2
Several continents	1	4.5
Valuation method^b
Choice experiment	11	45.8
Contingent valuation	3	12.5
Hedonic pricing	4	16.7
Combined stated and revealed preference	1	4.2
Other	5	20.8
Notes: ^aThree studies valued both attributes and breeds/varieties and one study both attributes and conservation programmes. ^bOne study used three different valuation methods.

Table 2. Variable descriptions and summary statistics (n = 93)

Variable	Description	Mean	SD
WTP	Dependent variable, mean WTP or WTA in 2008 international dollars	379.60	709.067
SAMPLE	Sample size, continuous	278.68	130.806
GRAIN	1 if the valued genetic resource is a grain, 0 otherwise	0.02	0.146
AGROBIOD	1 if the valued genetic resource is agrobiodiversity, 0 otherwise	0.28	0.451
ANIM^a	1 if the valued genetic resource is animal, 0 otherwise	0.70	0.461
BREEDVAR	1 if the object of valuation is a breed or a variety, 0 otherwise	0.10	0.297
PROGRAM	1 if the object of valuation is a conservation programme, 0 otherwise	0.17	0.379
ATTRI^a	1 if the object of valuation is an attribute, 0 otherwise	0.73	0.446
CATTLE	1 if the valued AnGR is cattle, 0 otherwise	0.42	0.496
BREEDEXOT	1 if the valued AnGR is an exotic breed, 0 otherwise	0.03	0.178
BREEDCROSS	1 if the valued AnGR is a cross-breed, 0 otherwise	0.03	0.178
BREEDLOC	1 if the valued AnGR is a local breed, 0 otherwise	0.04	0.204
LOCAL	1 if the geographic scope is local, 0 if regional	0.10	0.297
MULTNAT	1 if the study is conducted in multiple countries, 0 otherwise	0.09	0.282
YEAR	Study year, continuous ranging from 1 (1998) to 9 (2006)	5.90	2.006
GDP	1 if the country's gross domestic product is above $10,000 per capita per year, 0 otherwise	0.38	0.487
HEDONIC	1 if the valuation method is HP, 0 otherwise	0.10	0.297
CV	1 if the valuation method is CV, 0 otherwise	0.04	0.204
SPRP	1 if the valuation method is combined stated and revealed preference, 0 otherwise	0.09	0.282
CE^a	1 if the valuation method is choice experiment, 0 otherwise	0.77	0.420
WTA	1 if the value measures WTA, 0 otherwise	0.32	0.470
NEGWTP	1 if the value measures a negative WTP, 0 otherwise	0.12	0.325
POSWTP^a	1 if the value measures a positive WTP, 0 otherwise	0.56	0.499
Notes: WTP, willingness-to-pay; WTA, willingness-to-accept; AnGR, animal genetic resources; HP, hedonic pricing; CV, contingent valuation; SD, standard deviation. ^aIndicates the omitted variable.

Figure 1. The distribution of the willingness-to-pay (WTP) and willingness-to-accept (WTA) estimates.

Table 3. Willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) from the two data sets (all and animal genetic resources (AnGR) observations)

WTP/WTA per household in 2008 international dollars	Value measure	Mean	Median	Standard error of mean	Minimum	Maximum
All observations (n = 93)	WTP	89.6	31.4	17.8	0.14	682.8
	WTA	988.7	613.0	181.3	16.3	3480.3
AnGR observations (n = 65)	WTP	92.5	18.3	31.8	0.45	682.8
	WTA	638.6	626.3	350.7	16.3	1285.3

Table 4. Meta-regression models for all observations

	Model 1, unrestricted		Model 2, restricted
Variable	Coefficient	Standard error	Coefficient	Standard error
(Constant)	667.483***	211.532	635.325***	166.159
GRAIN	−174.060*	102.966	−163.280	98.478
AGROBIOD	297.367	361.490	122.710	300.924
BREEDVAR	112.316**	54.292	115.768**	54.290
PROGRAM	1186.205***	404.051	1140.139***	383.212
LOCAL	−35.801	82.553
YEAR	−79.656***	27.080	−75.957***	21.896
GDP	−408.171***	131.222	−387.312***	103.951
HEDONIC	−73.098	293.597
CV	−1165.692***	421.253	−1156.242***	395.021
SPRP	−527.847	363.654
WTA	505.967**	81.027	519.180**	249.768
NEGWTP	−165.579**	211.532	−170.049**	80.282
R ^2	0.606		0.576
Adjusted R ^2	0.547		0.531
F-statistic	7.04		9.44
Notes: Linear regression, weighted least squares, all observations, n = 93. Dependent variable: WTP or WTA for genetic resources in international dollars. *, ^** and ^*** Variables are significant at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

Table 5. Meta-regression models for AnGR

	Model 3, unrestricted		Model 4, restricted
Variable	Coefficient	Standard error	Coefficient	Standard error
(Constant)	876.604***	285.776	915.226***	254.455
CATTLE	−71.520	99.370	−92.600	79.863
BREEDEXOT	67.166	89.515	91.147	87.003
BREEDCROSS	113.306	124.532	137.287	123.771
BREEDLOC	112.304	123.649	128.544	115.275
LOCAL	−130.024	120.123
MULTNAT	−63.497	81.097
YEAR	−96.252***	31.674	−103.174***	28.575
GDP	−562.104***	211.031	−594.303***	175.073
HEDONIC	−347.814**	154.550	−345.463**	147.112
CV	109.339	175.909
WTA	458.024*	229.733	457.307*	231.532
NEGWTP	−162.394*	93.663	−159.774*	80.564
R ^2	0.742		0.734
Adjusted R ^2	0.683		0.690
F-statistic	3.69		4.65
Notes: Linear regression, weighted least squares, AnGR observations, n = 65. Dependent variable: WTP or WTA for genetic resources in international dollars. *, ^** and ^*** Variables are significant at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.

Table 6. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) for different genetic resources

Scenario	WTP in 2008 international dollars
Protecting an animal breed in Europe	506
Maintaining general agrobiodiversity	629
Conservation programme for grain	343

Appendix 1. Primary studies included in analysis

Study	Authors and publication year	Study/data year	Country	Genetic resource	Species	Valuation method	Mean WTP/WTA^a	No. of value estimates	Included in meta-analysis
1	Evenson (1998)	1971–1990	Indonesia	PGR	Rice	HP	NA	NA	No
2	Rao and Evenson (1998)	1977–1989?	India	PGR	Rice	Yield changes	NA	NA	No
3	Gollin and Evenson (1998a)	1965–1990	several	PGR	Rice	Increase in improved varieties	NA	NA	No
4	Gollin and Evenson (1998b)	1965–1986	India	PGR	Rice	HP	NA	NA	No
5	Cicia et al. (2003)	2000	Italy	AnGR	Horse	CV	47.1	1	Yes
6	Jabbar and Diedhiou (2003)	1993–1994	Nigeria	AnGR	Cattle	HP	NA	NA	No
7	Scarpa et al. (2003a)	2000	Mexico	AnGR	Pig	CE	21.2	7	Yes
8	Scarpa et al. (2003b)	2000	Kenya	AnGR	Cattle	CE	154.0	4	Yes
9	Scarpa et al. (2003b)	2000	Kenya	AnGR	Cattle	HP	114.4	3	Yes
10	Smale et al. (2003)	1999–2000	Mexico	PGR	Maize	Yield advantages	NA	NA	No
11	Drucker and Anderson (2004)	2000	Mexico	AnGR	Pig	CV	16.7	1	Yes
12	Birol et al. (2006a, b)	2002	Hungary	PGR	Several	CE, RP, combined SP and RP	1042.5	26	Yes
13	Birol and Villalba (2006)	2004	Mexico	PGR	Maize	CE	NA	NA	No
14	Hein and Gatzweiler (2006)	2004	Etiopia	PGR	Coffee	Avoided costs, yield increases	NA	NA	No
15	Makokha et al. (2007)	2002?	Kenya	AnGR	Cattle	CE	883.7	4	Yes
16	Ouma et al. (2007)	2004–2005	Kenya, Ethiopia	AnGR	Cattle	CE	28.8	8	Yes
17	Roessler et al. (2008)	2004	Vietnam	AnGR	Pig	CE	7.9	5	Yes
18	Omondi et al. (2008a)	2006	Kenya	AnGR	Goat	CE	61.3	8	Yes
19	Omondi et al. (2008b)	2006	Kenya	AnGR	Sheep	CE	35.5	4	Yes
20	Zander and Drucker (2008)	2003–2004	Ethiopia	AnGR	Cattle	CE	111.3	11	Yes
21	Zander and Drucker (2008)	2003–2005	Kenya	AnGR	Cattle	CE	151.4	9	Yes
22	Poudel and Johnsen (2009)	2003	Nepal	PGR	Rice	CV	0.2	2	Yes
Notes: WTP, willingness-to-pay; WTA, willingness-to-accept; PGR, plant genetic resources; AnGR, animal genetic resources; NA, not available; CV, contingent valuation; CE, choice experiments; HP, hedonic pricing/hedonic valuation; RP, revealed preference; SP, stated preference. ^aWTP/WTA is reported in 2008 international dollars.

Evenson , RE , Gollin , D and Santaniello , V . 1998 . “ Introduction and overview: agricultural values of plant genetic resources ” . In Agricultural values of plant genetic resources , 1 – 25 . Wallingford , , UK : CABI Publishing .

 Google Scholar

Rao , KPC and Evenson , RE . 1998 . “ Varietal trait values for rice in India ” . In Agricultural values of plant genetic resources , Edited by: Evenson , RE , Gollin , D and Santaniello , V . 151 – 155 . Wallingford , , UK : CABI Publishing .

 Google Scholar

Gollin , D and Evenson , RE . 1998a . “ Breeding values of rice genetic resources ” . In Agricultural values of plant genetic resources , Edited by: Evenson , RE , Gollin , D and Santaniello , V . 179 – 194 . Wallingford , , UK : CABI Publishing .

 Google Scholar

Gollin , D and Evenson , RE . 1998b . “ An application of hedonic pricing methods to value rice genetic resources in India ” . In Agricultural values of plant genetic resources , Edited by: Evenson , RE , Gollin , D and Santaniello , V . 139 – 150 . Wallingford , , UK : CABI Publishing .

 Google Scholar

Cicia , G , Dércole , E and Marino , D . 2003 . Costs and benefits of preserving farm animal genetic resources from extinction: CVM and bio-economic model for valuing a conservation program for the Italian Pentro horse . Ecol Econ , 45 ( 3 ) : 445 – 459 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jabbar , MA and Diedhiou , ML . 2003 . Does breed matter to cattle farmers and buyers? Evidence from West Africa . Ecol Econ , 45 ( 3 ) : 461 – 472 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scarpa , R , Drucker , AG , Anderson , S , Ferraes-Ehuan , N , Gomez , V , Risopatron , CR and Rubio-Leonel , O . 2003a . Valuing genetic resources in peasant economies: the case of ‘hairless’ creole pigs in Yucatan . Ecol Econ. , 45 ( 3 ) : 427 – 443 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scarpa , R , Ruto , ESK , Kristjanson , P , Radeny , M , Drucker , AG and Rege , JEO . 2003b . Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates . Ecol Econ. , 45 ( 3 ) : 409 – 426 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Smale , M , Bellon , MR , Aguirre , JA , Manuel Rosas , I , Mendoza , J , Solano , AM , Martínez , R , Ramírez , A and Berthaud , J . 2003 . The economic costs and benefits of a participatory project to conserve maize landraces on farms in Oaxaca, Mexico . Agr Econ. , 29 : 265 – 275 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Drucker , AG and Anderson , S . 2004 . Economic analysis of animal genetic resources and the use of rural appraisal methods: lessons from Southeast Mexico . Int J Agric Sustain. , 2 ( 2 ) : 77 – 97 .

 Google Scholar

Birol , E , Kontoleon , A and Smale , M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods to assess the private value of agrobiodiversity in Hungarian home gardens . EPT Discussion Paper 156 . 2006a .

 Google Scholar

Birol , E and Villalba , ER . 2006 . “ Estimating Mexican farmers’ valuation of Milpa diversity and genetically modified maize: a choice experiment approach ” . In Environmental Economy and Policy Research Working Papers 21 , Cambridge , , UK : University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economics .

 Google Scholar

Hein , L and Gatzweiler , F . 2006 . The economic values of coffee (Coffea arabica) genetic resources . Ecol Econ , 60 : 176 – 185 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Makokha , SN , Karugia , JT , Staal , SJ and Oluoch-Kosura , W . 2007 . Valuation of cow attributes by conjoint analysis: a case study of Western Kenya . Afr J Agr Resour Econ. , 1 ( 2 ) : 95 – 113 .

 Google Scholar

Ouma , E , Abdulai , A and Drucker , A . 2007 . Measuring heterogeneous preferences for cattle traits among cattle-keeping households in East Africa . Am J Agr Econ. , 89 ( 4 ) : 1005 – 1019 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Roessler , R , Drucker , AG , Scarpa , R , Markemann , A , Lemke , U , Thuy , LT and Valle Zárate , A . 2008 . Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers’ preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North-West Vietnam . Ecol Econ. , 66 ( 1 ) : 184 – 192 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Omondi , I , Baltenweck , I , Drucker , AG , Obare , G and Zander , KK . 2008a . Valuing goat genetic resources: a pro-poor growth strategy in the Kenyan semi-arid tropics . Trop Anim Health Prod. , 40 ( 8 ) : 583 – 589 .

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Omondi , I , Baltenweck , I , Drucker , AG , Obare , G and Zander , KK . 2008b . Economic valuation of sheep genetic resources: implications for sustainable utilization in the Kenyan semi-arid tropics . Trop Anim Health Prod. , 40 ( 8 ) : 615 – 626 .

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zander , KK and Drucker , AG . 2008 . Conserving what's important: using choice model scenarios to value local cattle breeds in East Africa . Ecol Econ. , 68 ( 1–2 ) : 34 – 45 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Poudel , D and Johnsen , FH . 2009 . Valuation of crop genetic resources in Kaski, Nepal: farmers’ willingness to pay for rice landraces conservation . J Environ Manage. , 90 ( 1 ) : 483 – 491 .

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar