4.6 Article

Fish Hobbyists' Willingness to Donate for Wild Fighting Fish (Betta livida) Conservation in Klang Valley

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su131910754

关键词

attitude; contingent valuation method; knowledge; perception; wild betta; willingness to donate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Betta livida is an endangered endemic species affected by habitat degradation and exploitation. Despite the lack of literature on wild betta conservation, this study used the contingent valuation method to establish the monetary value for species conservation based on hobbyists' willingness to donate.
Betta livida is an endangered endemic species of wild fighting fish affected by habitat degradation and exploitation. Despite this concern, the literature on the conservation of wild betta is negligible. Conservation is a non-use value, whereas the species itself is a use-value because they are sought after in the ornamental fish trade business. Therefore, the contingent valuation method (CVM) was applied in this study to establish the monetary value for species conservation by determining hobbyists' willingness to donate (WTD) for conservation. Fish hobbyists are the most prominent backbone of the industry and are the most acquainted with the targeted species. Hence, hobbyists' knowledge, perceptions and attitude towards species conservation have also been explored and weighed against the WTD. Purposive sampling was employed with a total of 150 respondents in Klang Valley. The findings show that the WTD was influenced by double-bound CVM, age (AGE) and hobbyists who owned the species (OWNB). In contrast, knowledge, perceptions and attitudes were not significant. Using probit regression analysis, hobbyists' WTD for species conservation was MYR 9.04 annually. The survey also revealed concern for species that are wild-caught by hobbyists. Hence, the results of this study offer preliminary insights into the WTD for wild betta and local freshwater fish conservation in Malaysia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据