IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi14/187427.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Value of Policies to Conserve Native Bees in Northern Thailand-A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Narjes, Manuel
  • Lippert, Christian

Abstract

This article is an attempt to estimate the economic value of policies aimed at conserving native bees (and their pollination services) in Northern Thailand, by means of a discrete choice experiment. The preferences of 198 longan (Dimocarpus longan) farmers for three conservation strategies in particular, namely “bee-friendly pest management”, “improving native bee habitats within agro-forest ecosystems” and “fostering the husbandry of native bee species”, were analyzed. Thereby, the part-worth utilities of these strategies and of their potential effects on the population of native bees were estimated with conditional logit and random parameter logit models. Furthermore, the contribution of a “cost” attribute to the explanation of the utility associated with the choice alternatives allowed the calculation of willingness to pay estimates for the individual conservation strategies and for changes in the population of native bees. As a result, a positive contribution of the proposed conservation measures to the utility derived from the choice alternatives containing them could be established. Similarly, positive changes in the population of native bees also increased the chances of related conservation policy profiles being chosen. It can be concluded that the population of longan farmers is generally willing to pay for the conservation of native bees in their region, although explaining their preference heterogeneity for the proposed conservation measures will require further analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Narjes, Manuel & Lippert, Christian, 2014. "The Value of Policies to Conserve Native Bees in Northern Thailand-A Discrete Choice Experiment," 54th Annual Conference, Goettingen, Germany, September 17-19, 2014 187427, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi14:187427
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.187427
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/187427/files/THE%20VALUE%20OF%20POLICIES%20TO%20CONSERVE%20NATIVE%20BEES%20IN%20NORTHERN%20THAILAND%20-%20A%20DISCRETE%20CHOICE%20EXPERIMENT.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.187427?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Randal R. Rucker & Walter N. Thurman & Michael Burgett, 2012. "Honey Bee Pollination Markets and the Internalization of Reciprocal Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(4), pages 956-977.
    4. Maurus Rischatsch, 2009. "Simulating WTP Values from Random-Coefficient Models," SOI - Working Papers 0912, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    6. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    7. Saul Hoffman & Greg Duncan, 1988. "Multinomial and conditional logit discrete-choice models in demography," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 25(3), pages 415-427, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Martin Abraham & Katrin Auspurg & Sebastian Bähr & Corinna Frodermann & Stefanie Gundert & Thomas Hinz, 2013. "Unemployment and willingness to accept job offers: results of a factorial survey experiment [Arbeitslosigkeit und Stellenannahmebereitschaft: Erste Ergebnisse eines Faktoriellen Survey Moduls]," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 46(4), pages 283-305, December.
    4. Ibanez, Marcela & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2010. "A survey-based choice experiment on coca cultivation," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 249-263, November.
    5. Matthew J. Wibbenmeyer & Michael S. Hand & David E. Calkin & Tyron J. Venn & Matthew P. Thompson, 2013. "Risk Preferences in Strategic Wildfire Decision Making: A Choice Experiment with U.S. Wildfire Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1021-1037, June.
    6. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    7. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    8. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    9. Hiselius, Lena Winslott, 2005. "Preferences regarding road transports of hazardous materials using choice experiments - any sign of biases?," Working Papers 2005:30, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    11. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    12. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    13. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    14. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    15. Melanie Lefevre, 2011. "Willingness-to-pay for Local Milk-based Dairy Product in Senegal," CREPP Working Papers 1108, Centre de Recherche en Economie Publique et de la Population (CREPP) (Research Center on Public and Population Economics) HEC-Management School, University of Liège.
    16. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    17. Ida, Takanori & Goto, Rei & Takahashi, Yuko & Nishimura, Shuzo, 2011. "Can economic-psychological parameters predict successful smoking cessation?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 285-295, May.
    18. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    19. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    20. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Crop Production/Industries; Environmental Economics and Policy; Risk and Uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gewi14:187427. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gewisea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.