Edited by: Jay E. Diffendorfer, United States Geological Survey (USGS), United States
Reviewed by: Paul Cross, Bangor University, United Kingdom; Jose Roberto Soto, University of Arizona, United States
This article was submitted to Conservation, a section of the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
†In memoriam
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
The monarch butterfly
The design of conservation strategies for transboundary migratory species has proven to be a challenging topic for decision makers, partly due to the presence of multiple institutions, groups of interest, administrative barriers, and political and cultural differences (Grant and Quinn,
Habitat destruction in both overwintering and breeding areas is currently the most plausible hypothesis for the population decline (Brower et al.,
In addition to those multiple stressors, the heterogeneous sociopolitical backdrop of the monarch's decline is a considerable challenge as well. Different resource-extraction activities, socioeconomic differences (Lopez-Hoffmann et al.,
Despite this intricate sociopolitical backdrop, the monarch's decline and its widespread appeal have spurred people's interest in its protection across the migratory flyway. For example, The Monarch Waystation program, an initiative seeking to stimulate the public to provide habitat for monarchs and other pollinators, is continually increasing its presence every year, with 21,946 registered waystations up to date (Lovett,
However, the role of the general public in protecting the monarch, as well as any other imperiled species, can go beyond data gathering and habitat provision—at which farmers could be substantially more effective (Thogmartin et al.,
The present paper seeks to improve the understanding of public preferences for transboundary conservation strategies for the monarch butterfly conservation. Its main goal is to determine whether inherent heterogeneity exists in public preferences for strategic-level characteristics of a recovery-management strategy that includes institutional leadership, international cooperation, and support for citizen science and research activities. It also aims to evidence the effect that providing a projection of the conservation program's success has on the overall willingness of people to support such a program. We used Discrete Choice Experiments (DCE) with a Latent Class Analysis (LC) to achieve such objectives.
The sampling area included the 35 eastern-most states of the US and Canada (Ontario), representing all areas where there is more than a 50% probability that monarch populations are present (Galindo-Leal et al., unpublished). Geographically speaking, the US-Mexican Border, parallel 49, meridian 102, and the east coast constitute the southern, northern, western and eastern limits of the sampling area, respectively (
Sampling area. The sampling area includes the 35 eastern-most states of the US and Canada (Ontario), representing all areas where there is more than a 50% probability that monarch populations are present for breeding purposes. Geographically speaking, the US-Mexican Border, parallel 49, meridian 102, and the east coast constitute the southern, northern, western, and eastern limits of the sampling area, respectively.
The surveying tool was delivered through the Survey Sampling International marketing company (Teel and Manfredo,
An invitation link was also sent through the Monarch Watch DPLEX mailing list
The use of an online survey through a marketing company, instead of a mailed or in-person survey, was due to the geographical and numeric extension of the sample. Online internet surveys have many other advantages, such as reduced cost and higher design flexibility. However, they also introduce new potential sources of bias that have to be accounted when analyzing the results such as a potential increase of self-selection processes (Olsen,
The presence of “professional respondents” is one of the main risks associated with using marketing companies for delivering an online surveying tool. Such respondents tend to click through the survey without paying proper attention and potentially adding unwanted noise to the results (Dennis,
We sent out the survey to 5,750 people in Canada and the US from which we received 2,557 responses with an overall completion rate
Demographics from the main sample of urban residents (
Demographics from the monarch enthusiasts' sample (
Choice-experiments data were collected using a web-based survey conducted during November 2016 across Canada (Ontario) and the eastern US. The survey consisted of the following sections: (1) assessment of the individual's knowledge about the monarch, (2) video introduction for the survey and essential terminology, (3) choice experiment, (4) follow-up questions, (5) demographics, and (6) New Environmental Paradigm Scale (NEP) Statements. The survey also included questions on the allocation of resources and level of involvement of different organizations, which were not analyzed here but will be revisited in subsequent manuscripts.
The survey design and delivery were developed following Salant and Dillman (
A demographics section was included after the DCE and, finally, the respondent was presented with the NEP Scale for the assessment of their environmental attitudes (Dunlap,
The DCE is a stated preference valuation method that forces the respondent to make trade-offs between distinct levels and attributes ideally resembling the context in which individuals make real-life decisions. The DCE assumes that respondents' decisions follow the Random Utility Model, which states that an individual will strive to maximize utility while making choices (Manski,
A DCE consists of a list of key characteristics, or attributes, describing an alternative. Each of these attributes has different values, or levels, defining the configuration of that alternative. Several alternatives, 2 or 3 at a time, are presented at the same time to respondents in a choice set. Then, respondents are asked to analyze and choose their preferred one from each choice set (Louviere et al.,
The DCE estimates the utility
By including a contribution attribute within the experimental design, it is also possible to estimate a marginal willingness to pay (WTP) for each attribute (Kerr and Sharp,
We constructed choice alternatives describing potential management scenarios for the conservation of the monarch using a list of attributes that described a hypothetical ecological status of the monarch, and the strategic-level characteristics of a proposed conservation initiative. These attributes were refined using input from interviews with academics with expertise in human dimensions, conservation biology, or both. The final alternatives were made up of nine
Attributes and levels used in the choice experiment exercise.
Program attributes | Categorical | Leader | Institution leading the program | Local NGO, International NGO, Federal Government, Educational Institution | Type of organization in charge of the conservation program |
Payment vehicle | Fund-raising mode | Tax, donation | Payment method through which the institution leading the program would gather the funds contributed by the respondent. This attribute is linked to “Leader” (considered as one in the experimental design). When “Leader” showed “Federal Government,” this attribute displays “Tax.” For the rest, the “Payment Vehicle” was “Donation” | ||
Resource allocation | The country where the raised funds will be used | My country, The other country, Mexico, The three countries | Form in which the funds contributed by the respondent would be distributed amongst Canada, the US, and Mexico. “The other country” level appeared different for Canadian and US respondents (e.g., a US respondent with “The other country,” would read “Canada”). The same situation for “My country” level | ||
Context attributes | Numeric | Research | Funds dedicated to research and citizen science activities | 0%, 10%, 25%, 50% | Percentage of the program's funds that would be dedicated to supporting research and citizen science activities relative to funds dedicated to “on-the-ground” activities. |
Expected success | The probability of success of the program | 30%, 50%, 70%, 90% | Chance that the program described would be effective after 10 years of implementation | ||
Contribution | Economic contribution (USD) | 5, 15, 30, 50, 70, 100, 140, 200 | Yearly contribution (Donation or tax depending on “Payment Vehicle”) for supporting the described program | ||
Colonies' trend | Trend of the colonies for the past 5 years | −40%, −20%, 0 % (stable), 20% | Percent change of the overwintering colonies' area for the last 5 years with respect to the current area | ||
Colonies' area | Area of overwintering colonies (Hectares) | 0.5, 1.5, 3.0, 4.0 | Hypothetical area currently occupied by the overwintering monarch colonies in Mexico as a proxy of population size | ||
Area-trend | Change of the colonies over the past 5 years (Hectares) | −1.60, −1.2, −0.8, −0.6, −0.3, −0.2, −0.1, 0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 0.8 | Interaction term between Colonies' Area and Colonies' Trend |
Each choice set (
Example of the choice experiment. Each management-program scenario showcases a different configuration of options, based on an orthogonal fractional factorial design. The top part of the screen, describing the hypothetical current situation of the monarch's population, appears on the screen 7 s before the management strategy to ensure that respondents read the information concerning the population trend. Respondents must select their preferred management strategy or to do nothing (alternative, “Option C”).
The program attributes included international allocation of funds, probability of success of the program, institution leading the program, monetary contribution to the described program, fund-raising mode, and percentage of funds dedicated to research and citizen science activities. These attributes varied their levels independently from each alternative so that the respondent could perceive a contrast between the options. The “
The experimental design for the main urban residents' survey was a 46 × 81 orthogonal fractional factorial design with two of those factors entered as context variables. For the modified urban resident's survey, a new design with the same characteristics was generated but with one factor removed (45 × 81). Both designs were generated with the SAS “
All the numeric levels were standardized and centered before analyzing the DCE model. The data were analyzed using conditional logit and latent class regression with Latent Gold 3.0 software (Vermunt and Magidson,
Latent Class Analysis (LC) was used to identify and segment heterogeneity in utility estimates among urban residents. The LC assumes that the sample constitutes a finite number of groups of individuals, also known as classes, with relatively similar preferences within their group and considerably different from each other (Birol et al.,
The non-significantly different attributes across classes in preliminary models were constrained to be the same across all classes to prioritize the delineation of classes by the most highly variable attributes (
Embedding a DCE within a comprehensive survey allows descriptive data, as covariates or predictors, to define individuals by linking these with their preferences. Covariates are
Alternatively, predictors are characteristics of the choice replication or the person and have the same value across alternatives. Predictors are part of the regression model, just like attributes, and are therefore considered
For the three respondent samples (main urban residents, monarch enthusiasts, and the modified sample of urban residents), we also conducted a Multinomial Logit Model (MNL) analysis to obtain a one-class model for each. These types of models are suitable for observing the main trends of the sample without accounting for heterogeneity. The MNL was used to compare the three samples and qualitatively detect any differences between the general preferences of people engaged—or not—in ecological activities (urban residents vs. monarch enthusiast's sample), or between people provided with an expected probability of success—or not—of the proposed program (main urban residents' vs. modified urban residents' sample).
To control for the uneven spacing of some of the numeric-variable attributes and to achieve more interpretable results, we linearized all our numeric attributes (Kohlhardt et al.,
Preliminary models with different number of classes, covariates, predictors, and constraints (
Model selection for the main urban resident sample (
1-Class base model | 1 | −6,925 | 13,964 | 13,881 | 13,848 | 15 | 1,821 | – | 0.2 | 0.1 | |
2-Class base model | 2 | −5,921 | 12,114 | 11,915 | 11,841 | 36 | 1,800 | 0.02 | 0.4 | 0.3 | |
3-Class base model | 3 | −5,826 | 12,082 | 11,767 | 11,650 | 57 | 1,779 | 0.08 | 0.4 | 0.4 | |
4-Class base model | 4 | −5,768 | 12,123 | 11,693 | 11,534 | 78 | 1,758 | 0.22 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
5-Class base model | 5 | −5,725 | 12,195 | 11,649 | 11,448 | 99 | 1,737 | 0.28 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
6-Class base model | 6 | −5,682 | 12,267 | 11,605 | 11,362 | 120 | 1,716 | 0.29 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
7-Class base model | 7 | −5,634 | 12,328 | 11,550 | 11,265 | 141 | 1,695 | 0.30 | 0.6 | 0.5 | |
8-Class base model | 8 | −5,601 | 12,419 | 11,525 | 11,199 | 162 | 1,674 | 0.30 | 0.6 | 0.6 | |
3-Class 2nd model | 3 | −5,827 | 12,061 | 11,763 | 11,652 | 54 | 1,782 | 0.09 | 0.4 | 0.4 | |
3-Class 3rd model | 3 | −5,827 | 12,053 | 11,761 | 11,652 | 53 | 1,783 | 0.09 | 0.4 | 0.4 | |
3-Class 4th model | 3 | −5,828 | 12,048 | 11,761 | 11,654 | 52 | 1,784 | 0.08 | 0.4 | 0.4 | |
3-Class 5th model | 3 | −5,828 | 12,040 | 11,759 | 11,654 | 51 | 1,785 | 0.08 | 0.4 | 0.4 | |
4-Class 2nd model | 4 | −5,772 | 12,070 | 11,684 | 11,541 | 70 | 1,766 | 0.22 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
4-Class 3rd model | 4 | −5,774 | 12,059 | 11,684 | 11,545 | 68 | 1,768 | 0.22 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
Final model (3-class) | 3 | −5,829 | 12,034 | 11,758 | 11,655 | 50 | 1,786 | 0.08 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
Definition of constraints for the 3-latent class model of the main urban resident's sample (
Program attributes | ASC | A | B | C |
Leader | A | A | C | |
Resource allocation | A | B | C | |
Research | A | B | A | |
Success | A | B | C | |
Contribution | A | B | C | |
Context attributes | Trend | A | A | A |
Area | A | A | C | |
Area-trend | A | B | C |
Individuals from the class “Eager” showed a large estimate for the ASC, which represents a strong motivation to support conservation initiatives regardless of the configuration of the choice set (
Latent class (3 classes) estimates and Marginal Willingness to Pay (mWTP) for the main urban residents' sample.
Program attributes | ASC | Alternative A or B | 1.22 | 10.17 | 30 | −1.23 | −1.92 | 21 | −1.45 | −1.22 | 16 | |||
None | −1.22 | 1.23 | 1.45 | |||||||||||
Leader | Local NGO | −0.03 | −0.25 | 4 | −0.03 | −0.05 | 3 | 0.76 | 0.64 | 8 | ||||
International NGO | 0.1 | 0.83 | 0.1 | 0.16 | 0.34 | 0.28 | ||||||||
Educational institution | 0.14 | 1.17 | 0.14 | 0.22 | −0.36 | −0.30 | ||||||||
Federal government | −0.21 | −1.75 | −0.21 | −0.33 | −0.73 | −0.62 | ||||||||
Resource allocation | Mexico | −0.36 | −3.00 | 11 | −0.71 | −1.11 | 12 | 0 | 0.00 | 7 | ||||
The other country | −0.41 | −3.42 | −0.44 | −0.69 | −0.82 | −0.69 | ||||||||
The three countries | 0.51 | 4.25 | 0.47 | 0.73 | 0.45 | 0.38 | ||||||||
My country | 0.26 | 2.17 | 0.69 | 1.07 | 0.36 | 0.30 | ||||||||
Numeric variables | Research | −0.1 | −0.83 | 5 | −0.01 | −0.02 | 0 | −0.1 | −0.08 | 2 | ||||
Expected success | 0.34 | 2.83 | 17 | 0.17 | 0.27 | 6 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0 | |||||
Contribution | −0.12 | 12 | −0.64 | 44 | −1.19 | 54 | ||||||||
Context attributes | Colonies' trend | −0.18 | −1.50 | 9 | −0.18 | −0.28 | 6 | −0.18 | −0.15 | 4 | ||||
Colonies' area | −0.07 | −0.58 | 3 | −0.07 | −0.11 | 2 | 0.27 | 0.23 | 6 | |||||
Area-trend | 0.09 | 0.75 | 9 | −0.1 | −0.16 | 7 | −0.05 | −0.04 | 2 | |||||
Predictors | Concerned about the Monarch's Situation? | |||||||||||||
No | A | −0.17 | −0.76 | – | 0.71 | |||||||||
B | −0.16 | −0.72 | – | 0.79 | ||||||||||
None | 0.32 | 1.48 | −1.5 | |||||||||||
Yes | A | 0.17 | 0.76 | −0.71 | ||||||||||
B | 0.16 | 0.72 | – | −0.79 | ||||||||||
None | −0.32 | −1.48 | – | 1.5 | ||||||||||
Covariates | Engaged in Citizen Science/Ecological Activities? | |||||||||||||
No | −0.25 | 0.16 | 0.09 | |||||||||||
Yes | 0.25 | −0.16 | −0.09 | |||||||||||
Age Group | ||||||||||||||
Between 25 and 4 | 0.07 | −0.09 | 0.02 | |||||||||||
Less than 25 | 0.51 | −0.06 | −0.45 | |||||||||||
More than 45 | −0.58 | 0.15 | 0.43 | |||||||||||
Aware of Milkweed Role? | ||||||||||||||
Yes | 0.16 | −0.06 | −0.11 | |||||||||||
No | −0.16 | 0.06 | 0.11 | |||||||||||
Aware of Monarch's Situation? | ||||||||||||||
Yes | 0.24 | −0.12 | −0.13 | |||||||||||
No | −0.24 | 0.12 | 0.13 |
Respondents in the “Eager” group displayed the highest NEP score, indicating that these individuals possess largely pro-environmental attitudes. They tended to be younger and had a higher level of education, where 82.6% obtained at least a bachelor's degree, furthermore, 17.1% had a graduate certificate. Their income level was also higher than the other two classes, where 62.4% of the group earned at least $50,000 per annum and also had the largest household size. The “Eager” class had the most considerable share of people contributing to ecologically oriented NGOs and actively participating in ecological conservation meetings, protests, and lectures. However, 58.5% of the people participating in those activities did not contribute economically to any ecologically oriented NGO (
Numeric explanatory factors that describe the three latent classes of the main urban resident's sample (
Age | 43.18 | 0.40 | 50.81 | 0.88 | 51.99 | 1.17 |
NEP score | 100.85 | 0.61 | 94.75 | 1.35 | 93.66 | 1.78 |
Household size | 2.82 | 0.04 | 2.57 | 0.08 | 2.60 | 0.10 |
Nominal demographic variables describing the three latent classes from the main urban residents' sample (
Participate in nature conservation/citizen science activities | 18.96 | 6.71 | 4.14 | 50.82 |
Participate in conservation or citizen science activities related to the monarch | 2.89 | 0.61 | 0.34 | 9.24 |
Attended an environmentally-related meeting, lecture, or protest | 19.01 | 5.52 | 6.75 | 45.62 |
Member of, or a donor to, an environmental organization | 16.40 | 8.62 | 2.44 | 34.86 |
Graduate degree | 17.09 | 12.07 | 9.15 | 20.29 |
High school degree | 16.58 | 18.97 | 23.78 | 20.29 |
Male respondents | 43.92 | 50.69 | 48.17 | 6.54 |
US respondents | 48.77 | 52.07 | 49.39 | 1.04 |
The “Pro-Nation” and “Opinionated” classes were similar in attitudinal preferences and demographics, except in the percentage of individuals contributing to environmentally related activities and in age. Also, a higher proportion of the “Pro-Nation” class contributed to ecologically oriented organizations in comparison with people from the “Opinionated” class.
Only the level of concern about the monarch situation was included as a predictor of choice in the definition of the model as it significantly improved model fit. The overall utility estimates for “Eager” and “Pro-Nation,” which add up to 91% of the overall sample, were positively affected when respondents had a higher level of concern about the monarch's situation. The reaction of “Opinionated” was counterintuitive, where its overall utility was negatively affected by an increase in their level of concern.
Further interpretation of the classes can be made by considering the attributes themselves and their levels (for a full list of estimates refer to
Utility estimates for the one class model (MNL) and 3-latent class model for the main urban resident's sample. The y-axis is a dimensionless representation of the utility derived from a specific level of an attribute. The Alternative Specific Constant (ASC) represents the willingness to support the program regardless of its configuration. ***1% significance level, **5% significance level, *10% significance level with two-tailed tests.
For the current area of the overwintering colonies, the “Eager” and “Pro-Nation” classes reacted similarly. They both were significantly affected negatively by the increase of the area of the overwintering colonies, i.e., their interest in supporting management programs decreased when the current colony population was higher. For the “Opinionated” class, we found the opposite effect. All the “Area” estimates were significant only at the 10% level.
As described in
The estimates for the institution leading the program were equal across “Eager” and “Pro-Nation.” For these two classes, International NGOs and Educational institutions were significantly positive. Alternatively, “Opinionated” respondents showed a preference for local NGOs as leaders of the program. In all cases, the least preferred leading institution was the federal government.
When the allocation of resources was distributed to the respondent's own country, the utility estimates were the highest for the “Pro-Nation” class. The utility of the “Pro-Nation” and “Eager” classes became negative when either Mexico or the counterpart North American country were the receivers of those resources. Respondents from the “Opinionated” class were only significantly negatively affected when the counterpart country was the beneficiary of the resources. When the resources were distributed equitably across the three countries, the attribute's estimates were the highest for the “Eager” and “Opinionated” classes.
Regarding the percentage of funds dedicated to research and citizen science activities, the utility was similarly negative across the “Eager” and “Opinionated” classes and not significant for “Pro-Nation.” For the probability of reaching the conservation goal of a minimum size of 6 ha for the overwintering colonies in 10 years, the utility estimates for “Eager” and “Pro-Nation” were significant and positive but being the first double than the latter; “Opinionated” had no significant preferences.
Finally, the attribute asking for the amount of money that respondents would be willing to donate for supporting the selected management strategy was negative and highly significant for all three classes. However, the “Opinionated” class estimate was almost double than that of “Pro-Nation” and almost 10-fold than that of “Eager” respondents.
The monarch enthusiasts sample (
Estimates and marginal Willingness to Pay (mWTP) for the Multinomial (MNL) choice models obtained from the main urban resident's sample with the attribute “Success” included (
Program attributes | ASC | Alternative A or B | 0.3 | 1.99 | −0.67 | −4.53 | 0.9 | 12.47 | |||
None | −0.3 | 0.67 | −0.9 | ||||||||
Leader | Local NGO | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.46 | −0.02 | −0.22 | ||||
International NGO | 0.09 | 0.59 | 0.19 | 1.17 | −0.03 | −0.49 | |||||
Educational institution | 0.1 | 0.67 | −0.03 | −0.18 | 0.12 | 1.66 | |||||
Federal government | −0.2 | −1.32 | −0.24 | −1.44 | −0.07 | −0.96 | |||||
Resource allocation | Mexico | −0.3 | −2.00 | −0.41 | −2.47 | −0.42 | −5.83 | ||||
Other country | −0.38 | −2.59 | −0.35 | −2.14 | −0.49 | −6.82 | |||||
Three country | 0.42 | 2.87 | 0.53 | 3.25 | 0.56 | 7.86 | |||||
My country | 0.25 | 1.72 | 0.23 | 1.37 | 0.34 | 4.80 | |||||
Numeric variables | Research | −0.07 | −0.45 | 0.15 | 0.88 | −0.14 | −1.92 | ||||
Success | 0.25 | 1.66 | Removed | Removed | 0.31 | 4.30 | |||||
Contribution | −0.15 | −1.00 | −0.16 | −1.00 | −0.07 | −1.00 | |||||
Context attributes | Trend | −0.09 | −0.60 | 0.04 | 0.22 | −0.08 | −1.14 | ||||
Area | −0.03 | −0.17 | −0.03 | −0.20 | −0.06 | −0.86 | |||||
Area-trend | −0.02 | −0.15 | −0.01 | −0.04 | 0.01 | 0.20 |
The ANOVA test shows that the demographics of this sample were significantly different from the main sample and each one of the three classes. A more substantial proportion of monarch enthusiasts were engaged in ecologically-related activities (
The attribute most influenced by the inclusion/exclusion of a success probability was the percentage of resources dedicated to research. When included, the utility estimate of contributing funds to research was negative, i.e., respondents from the main urban sample were less willing to provide funds toward research when the program specified an expected success. Conversely, with the removal of this attribute, the estimate for research became positive; i.e., contribution-support increased in the absence of knowing success. However, amongst the respondents from the modified sample, the ASC value was negative, denoting a decrease of willingness to support conservation measures overall (
Change in utility estimates for the MNL (one-class model) of the main urban resident and the modified urban resident (with “Success” attribute removed) samples. The x-axis is a dimensionless representation of the utility derived from a specific level of an attribute. ***1% significance level with two-tailed tests.
The marginal willingness to pay (mWTP) for each of the attributes was calculated and is shown in
The monarch butterfly is an iconic species for people from the US, Canada, and Mexico alike (Guiney and Oberhauser,
We found that people across the main eastern breeding range of the monarch, represented by the eastern United States and the province of Ontario, share preferences concerning their inclination for non-governmental leadership in conservation programs, and joint international cooperation. Nonetheless, within-respondent sample heterogeneity was identified. Additionally, people currently engaged and non-engaged in ecological activities had marked differences over the identity of leaders of a conservation program, as well with their sensitivity toward ecological issues. Lastly, the knowledge about the success of a conservation program proved to also play an influential role in guiding people's preferences, albeit we acknowledge the challenge in ascribing a probability of success for conservation actions. All these findings, discussed below, have direct and relevant policy implications that can affect the adoption and support of conservation programs for the monarch and other migrating North American species.
There was a clear tendency across the three classes for choosing any other alternative as a leader before the federal government. Previous research directly compared people's perception about different types of institutions spearheading conservation programs (Wells,
The preference for NGO leadership within the monarch conservation context may be explained by the extensive and meaningful contributions of NGOs across the overwintering sites (Carlos Galindo-Leal,
Most monarch research focuses on the overwintering sites in Mexico and the breeding grounds across the mid-west of the US. Although those are considered the most sensitive areas of the migratory cycle (Flockhart et al.,
The success of transboundary conservation programs increases in difficulty depending on the amount of socio-cultural differences between the parties involved (Kark et al.,
The preferences for the attributes presented in the choice experiment between Canadian and US citizens yielded no significant differences, which anticipates a positive outcome for the design and success of transnational conservation strategies for the monarch. However, it is essential to note the absence of Mexico in this study, which should be the next stage of analysis. We acknowledge the presence of international institutions currently working in the monarch conservation context, such as the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), but further involvement is needed from governments, NGOs, and academia to promote efforts at the international scale. The relevance of the results presented here, aside from contributing to the available knowledge of Canadian/US behavioral traits, validates previous monarch research that assumes that preferences of Canadians and US citizens are similar (Flockhart et al.,
Conservation of transboundary migratory species requires not only the understanding of preference heterogeneity of the multiple actors involved but also needs to achieve cooperation amongst those actors to attain a common goal (Kark et al.,
The demographic, lifestyle, and attitudinal variables describing each of the classes provide insights into the willingness of people to participate in conservation programs. Individuals from the main residents' urban sample that self-reported as participants of conservation efforts had a higher sensitivity to environmental topics overall and were more likely to invest their resources in conservation efforts. Johnson et al. (
When asked about funds dedicated to research and citizen science activities, this attribute had a negative estimate for monarch enthusiasts (indeed, for all respondents). This trait along with low estimates for the economic contribution for the selected program and high values for supporting monarch conservation in general, suggests that monarch enthusiasts are not resource-driven individuals, and place a high value on active participation instead of a monetary donation. When comparing the demographics of both, the main urban residents and monarch enthusiasts' samples, the latter tended to be from a higher income level, which could also help explain why citizen scientists are less motivated in their monetary preferences. This result is an example of income effect, a change in demand of a good or service in relation to a modification of an individual's income (Horowitz and McConnell,
Participatory approaches for conservation have increased over the last few decades (Fritsch and Newig,
Community-based conservation is a viable method for bridging sociopolitical barriers for transboundary conservation (Berkes,
The differences that did arise are, arguably, explained by factors unrelated to overshadowing. Overall, we detected that the sample without knowledge about the probability of success of the program showed a smaller willingness to support conservation measures in comparison to the one that was informed about the level of success. By telling the respondent about the expected success of the conservation program, a considerable objective constraint was presumably abated, motivating the increased support for the conservation program. Although we are cautious about the impacts of this finding given the difficulty in providing a reliable expected success estimate for conservation actions, we recommend that institutions should strive to synthesize available knowledge in a systematic, rational, and transparent way (Addison et al.,
Furthermore, our research demonstrated, in support of findings from Best (
The WTP of a hypothetical conservation program is calculated by summing the utility derived from the levels that comprise the program's configuration and dividing it by the utility of the contribution attribute. Here, the WTP of the whole sample, estimated with the MNL, ranged between $100.41 and $141.01. Previously, Diffendorfer et al. (
The results of this research provide significant findings for understanding not only the social system surrounding the monarch butterfly, but also the general trends in preferences for transboundary conservation. Policy-makers and program managers need to understand the motivations of urban residents for supporting conservation strategies, acknowledging them not only as resource users but as a dynamic part of the system that acts and reacts to the rest of the system's elements (Berkes,
Without diminishing the importance of local programs, an international coordination body can play a pivotal role in the monarch conservation. The CEC, the environmental branch of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), facilitates collaboration and public participation to foster conservation, protection and enhancement of the monarch and several other North American migratory species. We recommend to continue with the coordination efforts of the CEC's “Science for Monarch Butterfly and Pollinator Conservation” project and to include a new objective into that program aimed to strengthen outreach campaigns for urban residents across the three countries. However, recent political unrest across North America, particularly the dissolving the NAFTA (Stevenson,
The need for alternative non-governmental institutions to support the CEC on its coordination responsibilities brings us to the next key finding of this research. We observed that all else equal, most respondents prefer an international non-governmental organization to lead the monarch's conservation efforts. Currently, several organizations could serve this role. In the US, the Monarch Joint Venture has brought together a substantial number of institutions (government and non-government) proving to be an essential agent of change for US conservation policies (Oberhauser et al.,
Lastly, the strength of this study relies on its ability to be integrated with a population-ecology model of the monarch to create a coupled social-ecological system (CSES) model to increase the realism and applicability of the results. Within the context of natural resource management, previous empirical research has demonstrated the applicability and advantages of a CSES approach by incorporating societal responses as another dynamic element of the ecological system, e.g., Semeniuk et al. (
This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Tri Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans (TCPS 2) and the Simon Fraser University Ethics Research Board's Policy R20.01; with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Simon Fraser University's Research Ethics Board.
RS-S, CS, and WH conceived the presented idea. RS-S, KD, CS, and SF-L designed the surveying tool. RS-S and KD generated the experimental design. RS-S analyzed the data and developed the models, with contributions from SF-L. Manuscript written by RS-S, revised by CS with contributions of SC.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
We want to thank Eduardo Rendon, Karen Oberhauser, and Scott Black for their valuable comments and feedback. Special thanks to Paulus Mau for programming and helping to design and implement the online survey. In loving memory of Wolfgang Haider.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at:
1We defined as Urban Resident a person that does not derive their main source of income from agriculture and owns a non-rural postal code.
2The survey was sent as an open link; however, we did not observe any duplicate IP addresses in the responses.
3Here and elsewhere, completion rate is defined as the number of surveys filled out and submitted divided by the number of surveys started.
4Utility is defined as the weight of outcomes in making a decision (Ariely et al.,
5Marginal part-worth utility is a measure of welfare that the respondent derives from a one-unit increment (all else being equal) of one attribute from the choice set (Steinke and Van Etten,
6The context attributes that appeared in the survey were “Trend” and “Area-Trend.” The attribute “Area” did not appear in the survey, but it was used to calculate the “Area-Trend” attribute (which is an interaction between “Area” and “Trend”). Also, the “Payment Vehicle” and “Leader” are part of a single attribute in the experimental design but appear separately in the survey. See
7A LC provides the posterior probability that an individual belongs to a certain class (McCutcheon,
8The configuration of the “Best program” was defined as a program with the levels that obtained the higher utility estimate for each of the categorical attributes, with 90% success, and 20% of funds dedicated to research. Conversely the “Worst program” used the levels with lower utility, had 70% success, and also dedicated 20% of funds to research.
9Virtue ascribed to a subject by the general public (Czech et al.,
10The Monarch Joint Venture Website (
Alternative Specific Constant
Discrete Choice Experiment
Latent Class or Latent Class Analysis
Multinomial Logit Model
New Environmental Paradigm Scale
Relative Importance
Willingness to Pay
Marginal Willingness to Pay.