Use or non-use? A deep dive into the amenity and ecological benefits of the Great Barrier Reef

Valuing nature often involves reconciling the antagonism between ecological and amenity benefits of environmental assets. Amenity benefits, such as those derived from recreation and tourism, sometimes conflict with the ecological benefits people assign to nature conservation, which are typically assessed as non-use values. While the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework is commonly applied to aggregate values from different groups of users and non-users, it remains unclear whether this approach adequately captures the interplay between use and non-use dimensions, how these patterns vary across population samples, and what drives differences in these values. This study explores these questions through an experiment evaluating Queensland populations’ preferences for both ecological and amenity improvements in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), the largest reef system globally. A discrete choice experiment assesses preferences for expanding coral and seagrass ecosystems against developing recreational and tourism facilities. The sample contains 923 respondents, selected from both Brisbane (distant urban area) and from local areas along the GBR. We find that respondents are primarily supportive of environmental policies expanding coral and seagrass cover. Respondents also support further recreation and tourism opportunities. However, providing further recreational opportunities tend to be perceived more negatively by local GBR users (i.e. visited the GBR previously). For distant users, moral duty and insurance (non-use option) drivers significantly increase preferences for the proposed policy scenarios. Conversely, direct use and option use drivers do not appear to be significant influences when tested as TEV components. This underscores non-use motives as primary influences in valuing complex environmental assets.