IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Households Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Watershed Services Attributes in North Selangor Peat Swamp Forest Malaysia


  • Buhari Abdulkarim

    (Faculty of Environmental Studies, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Mohd Rusli Yacob

    (Faculty of Environmental Studies, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Ahmad Makmom Abdullah

    (Faculty of Environmental Studies, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Alias Radam

    (Faculty of Economic and Management, University Putra Malaysia 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia)


Realising the objective of payment for ecological services (PES) schemes depends on adequate demand for these services and sustainable funding. We examine the viability of using locally financed payments as additional conservation funds to protect forest watershed services. The study employed choice experiment method to estimate the willingness to pay for watershed conservation in communities along Sungai Karang and Raja Musa forest reserve in Selangor Malaysia. A Multinomial logit (MNL) model was developed to derive the marginal value and mean willingness to pay (WTP) of the respondents on the non-market values of the forest reserve. The trade-off between four different forest watershed attributes showed that improvement in water quantity is the most preferred attributes. The total conservation value is estimated at RM12, 706.347.78. This indicates households are willing to pay for watershed conservation to ensure sustainable water supply. Thus proposing PES as an alternative source of fund for conservation of Sungai Karang and Raja Musa forest reserve.

Suggested Citation

  • Buhari Abdulkarim & Mohd Rusli Yacob & Ahmad Makmom Abdullah & Alias Radam, 2017. "Households Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Watershed Services Attributes in North Selangor Peat Swamp Forest Malaysia," Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 5(1), pages 98-109, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:asi:ajemod:2017:p:98-109

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    2. Sergio Colombo & Javier Calatrava-Requena & Nick Hanley, 2007. "Testing Choice Experiment for Benefit Transfer with Preference Heterogeneity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 135-151.
    3. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    4. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff & Louviere, Jordan, 2000. "Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 289-302, November.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    6. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    7. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    8. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2008. "Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 616-625, April.
    9. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1140-1148, February.
    10. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    12. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    13. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    14. Marit E. Kragt, 2013. "Stated and Inferred Attribute Attendance Models: A Comparison with Environmental Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 719-736, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:asi:ajemod:2017:p:98-109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chan Hoi Yan). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.