IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v47y2021ics2212041620301789.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic appraisal of ecosystem services and restoration scenarios in a tropical coastal Ramsar wetland in India

Author

Listed:
  • Sinclair, Michael
  • Vishnu Sagar, M.K.
  • Knudsen, Camilla
  • Sabu, Joseph
  • Ghermandi, Andrea

Abstract

Valuation of ecosystem services can play an important role in guiding decision-making concerning the restoration of natural ecosystems which is particularly important in tropical coastal wetlands due to their widespread deterioration. This study investigates the environmental status and provision of key ecosystem services of the Ashtamudi lake Ramsar site in Kerala, India, and explores the feasibility of wetland restoration scenarios through a multi-year program involving stakeholder workshops, primary market data collection, and stated preference non-market valuation. Relying on the input of local stakeholders, we apply a choice experiment to estimate the willingness to pay for wetland restoration scenarios with a focus on water quality, mangrove conservation and sustainable fisheries. Results indicate that local stakeholders attribute the greatest value to mangrove conservation, followed by water quality and sustainably managed fisheries. Furthermore, we show that the local residents’ willingness to pay for modest and moderate wetland improvement scenarios may outweigh the potential cost of the restoration projects, especially for modest restoration objectives and even under conservative assumptions regarding the benefits and costs of restoration. We discuss how such results can inform local policy in the development of sustainable management practices and act as a benchmark for the extensive network of wetlands in Kerala.

Suggested Citation

  • Sinclair, Michael & Vishnu Sagar, M.K. & Knudsen, Camilla & Sabu, Joseph & Ghermandi, Andrea, 2021. "Economic appraisal of ecosystem services and restoration scenarios in a tropical coastal Ramsar wetland in India," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:47:y:2021:i:c:s2212041620301789
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101236
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041620301789
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101236?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    2. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    3. Do, Thang Nam & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "Estimating wetland biodiversity values: a choice modelling application in Vietnam's Mekong River Delta," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 163-186, April.
    4. Westerberg, Vanja Holmquist & Lifran, Robert & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2010. "To restore or not? A valuation of social and ecological functions of the Marais des Baux wetland in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2383-2393, October.
    5. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    6. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    7. John Pattison & Peter C. Boxall & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "The Economic Benefits of Wetland Retention and Restoration in Manitoba," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 59, pages 223-244, June.
    8. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2014. "America's Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana's Coastal Wetlands," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 17-37.
    9. Dias, Vitor & Belcher, Ken, 2015. "Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 35-44.
    10. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    11. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    12. Yuanyuan Gu & Arne Risa Hole & Stephanie Knox, 2013. "Fitting the generalized multinomial logit model in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(2), pages 382-397, June.
    13. S Sathirathai & EB Barbier, 2001. "Valuing Mangrove Conservation In Southern Thailand," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 19(2), pages 109-122, April.
    14. Nick Hanley & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2019. "The Role of Stated Preference Valuation Methods in Understanding Choices and Informing Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 248-266.
    15. Hassan, Suziana & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Urban-rural divides in preferences for wetland conservation in Malaysia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 226-237.
    16. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    17. Michael Sinclair & Andrea Ghermandi & Sheela A. Moses & Sabu Joseph, 2020. "Ecosystem service assessment and mapping for sustainable management of wetlands in Kerala, India," Chapters, in: K. N. Ninan (ed.), Environmental Assessments, chapter 11, pages 200-214, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    19. Michael Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "Comparing Alternative Models Of Heterogeneity In Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1018-1045, September.
    20. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    21. Chaikumbung, Mayula & Doucouliagos, Hristos & Scarborough, Helen, 2016. "The economic value of wetlands in developing countries: A meta-regression analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 164-174.
    22. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Darshana Athukorala & Ronald C. Estoque & Yuji Murayama & Bunkei Matsushita, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Monitoring in the Muthurajawela Marsh and Negombo Lagoon, Sri Lanka, for Sustainable Landscape Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Xin Jing & Yuefei Zhuo & Zhongguo Xu & Yang Chen & Guan Li & Xueqi Wang, 2023. "Coastal Wetland Restoration Strategies Based on Ecosystem Service Changes: A Case Study of the South Bank of Hangzhou Bay," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Shrestha, Kripa & Shakya, Bandana & Adhikari, Biraj & Nepal, Mani & Shaoliang, Yi, 2023. "Ecosystem services valuation for conservation and development decisions: A review of valuation studies and tools in the Far Eastern Himalaya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    4. Bekoe, Joseph & Balana, Bedru B. & Nimoh, Fred, 2021. "Social cost-benefit analysis of investment in rehabilitation of multipurpose small reservoirs in northern Ghana using an ecosystem services-based approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    5. Nezha Mejjad & Marzia Rovere, 2021. "Understanding the Impacts of Blue Economy Growth on Deep-Sea Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-26, November.
    6. Henghui Xi & Wanglai Cui & Li Cai & Mengyuan Chen & Chenglei Xu, 2021. "Evaluation and Prediction of Ecosystem Service Value in the Zhoushan Islands Based on LUCC," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, February.
    7. Su, Jie & Gasparatos, Alexandros, 2024. "Assessing the heterogeneity of public acceptability for mangrove restoration through a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).

    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. Hassan, Suziana & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2019. "Urban-rural divides in preferences for wetland conservation in Malaysia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 226-237.
    2. Pallante, Giacomo & Drucker, Adam G. & Sthapit, Sajal, 2016. "Assessing the potential for niche market development to contribute to farmers' livelihoods and agrobiodiversity conservation: Insights from the finger millet case study in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 92-105.
    3. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    4. Riise, Julie & Hole, Arne Risa & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Skåtun, Diane, 2016. "GPs' implicit prioritization through clinical choices – evidence from three national health services," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 169-183.
    5. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    6. Nguyen, Manh-Hung & Nguyen, Thi Lan Anh & Nguyen, Tuan & Reynaud, Arnaud & Simioni, Michel & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Economic analysis of choices among differing measures to manage coastal erosion in Hoi An (a UNESCO World Heritage Site)," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 529-543.
    7. G Andrew Stainback & John H Lai & Elizabeth F Pienaar & Damian C Adam & Ruscena Wiederholt & Chloe’ Vorseth, 2020. "Public preferences for ecological indicators used in Everglades restoration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, June.
    8. William F. Vásquez & Pallab Mozumder, 2017. "Willingness to Pay for Hurricane-Resistant Home Improvement Programs: a Choice Experiment in Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic United States," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 263-276, October.
    9. Giacomo Pallante & Adam Drucker, 2014. "Niche Markets for Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Preference and Scale Heterogeneity Effects on Nepalese Consumers’ WTP for Finger Millet Products," SEEDS Working Papers 1414, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    10. Kohei Imamura & Kohei Takenaka Takano & Nobuhito Mori & Tohru Nakashizuka & Shunsuke Managi, 2016. "Attitudes toward disaster-prevention risk in Japanese coastal areas: analysis of civil preference," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 82(1), pages 209-226, May.
    11. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John C. & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2020. "Expert judgements and community values: preference heterogeneity for protecting river ecology in Western Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(2), April.
    12. Rebecca Owusu Coffie & Michael P. Burton & Fiona L. Gibson & Atakelty Hailu, 2016. "Choice of Rice Production Practices in Ghana: A Comparison of Willingness to Pay and Preference Space Estimates," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 799-819, September.
    13. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    14. Akshay Vij & Rico Krueger, 2018. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Papers 1802.02299, arXiv.org.
    15. Vij, Akshay & Krueger, Rico, 2017. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 76-101.
    16. Godager, Geir & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Li, Jing Jing & Wang, Jian & Yang, Fan, 2021. "Does gender affect medical decisions? Results from a behavioral experiment with physicians and medical students," HERO Online Working Paper Series 2021:1, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme.
    17. Sauthoff, Saramena & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2017. "To switch or not to switch? – Understanding German consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity tariff attributes," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260771, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    18. David Throsby & Anita Zednik & Jorge E. Araña, 2021. "Public preferences for heritage conservation strategies: a choice modelling approach," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 45(3), pages 333-358, September.
    19. Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Soto, José R. & Lai, John H. & Adams, Damian C., 2019. "Would County Residents Vote for an Increase in Their Taxes to Conserve Native Habitat and Ecosystem Services? Funding Conservation in Palm Beach County, Florida," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 24-34.
    20. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Beyene,Abebe Damte & Bluffstone,Randall & Gebreegziabher, Zenebe & Martinsson,Peter & Mekonnen,Alemu & Toman,Michael A. & Vieider,Ferdinand M., 2015. "Preferences for REDD+ contract attributes in low-income countries : a choice experiment in Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7296, The World Bank.

    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:eee:ecoser:v:47:y:2021:i:c:s2212041620301789. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.