IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i18p7637-d414312.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice Experiments for Estimating the Non-Market Value of Ecosystem Services in the Bang Kachao Green Area, Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Areeyapat Petcharat

    (Department of Forest Resources and Landscape Architecture, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, Gyeongsanbuk-do 712749, Korea)

  • Yohan Lee

    (Department of Forest Resources and Landscape Architecture, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, Gyeongsanbuk-do 712749, Korea)

  • Jae Bong Chang

    (Department of Food Marketing and Safety, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea)

Abstract

Bang Kachao, the largest green area in the Bangkok metropolitan area, delivers significant ecosystem services to sustain society free of charge. It is therefore difficult to achieve socially optimal services because of inefficient allocation of resources, over-consumption, and negative externalities resulting from market failures. This study’s purpose is to assess consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for enhancing ecosystem services from the Bang Kachao Green Area and to investigate factors influencing the WTP of Bangkok residents. A choice experiment was applied by interviewing 200 respondents living in the Bangkok metropolitan area. The data were collected between July and September 2016 and analyzed using a conditional logit model. The results reveal that the respondents are willing to pay 42 USD per year to improve the ecosystem services in Bang Kachao. The respondents demand clean air the most, followed by food, recreation, and bird diversity. The government of Bangkok may take proactive steps to promote agroforestry and ecotourism in Bang Kachao. A Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme may ensure the provision of ecosystem services in Bang Kachao.

Suggested Citation

  • Areeyapat Petcharat & Yohan Lee & Jae Bong Chang, 2020. "Choice Experiments for Estimating the Non-Market Value of Ecosystem Services in the Bang Kachao Green Area, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7637-:d:414312
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7637/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7637/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dumenu, William Kwadwo, 2013. "What are we missing? Economic value of an urban forest in Ghana," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 137-142.
    2. Yue Liu & Jun Chen & Weiguang Wu & Jiao Ye, 2019. "Typical Combined Travel Mode Choice Utility Model in Multimodal Transportation Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, January.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    5. 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.
    6. Clement A. Tisdell, 2005. "Economics of Environmental Conservation, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3272.
    7. Balogh, Péter & Békési, Dániel & Gorton, Matthew & Popp, József & Lengyel, Péter, 2016. "Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-184.
    8. Vesely, Eva-Terezia, 2007. "Green for green: The perceived value of a quantitative change in the urban tree estate of New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 605-615, August.
    9. López-Mosquera, Natalia & Sánchez, Mercedes, 2011. "The influence of personal values in the economic-use valuation of peri-urban green spaces: An application of the means-end chain theory," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 875-889.
    10. Fruth, Erik & Kvistad, Michele & Marshall, Joe & Pfeifer, Lena & Rau, Luisa & Sagebiel, Julian & Soto, Daniel & Tarpey, John & Weir, Jessica & Winiarski, Bradyn, 2019. "Economic valuation of street-level urban greening: A case study from an evolving mixed-use area in Berlin," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    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. Petcharat, Areeyapat & Lee, Yohan, 2020. "Valuing Ecosystem Services in the Bang Ka Chao Green Area, Thailand," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305234, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Najam us Saqib, 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Primary Education in Rural Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 43(1), pages 27-51.
    3. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    4. 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.
    5. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    6. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    7. García, Jorge H. & Cherry, Todd L. & Kallbekken, Steffen & Torvanger, Asbjørn, 2016. "Willingness to accept local wind energy development: Does the compensation mechanism matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 165-173.
    8. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    9. Bergstrom, John C. & Taylor, Laura O., 2006. "Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 351-360, December.
    10. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Guerrero-Baena, M. Dolores & Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Glenk, Klaus, 2019. "Willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply reliability: An approach based on probability density functions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 11-22.
    12. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    14. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2011. "The tourist recreational demand for coastal forests: Do forests really matter?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 92(3).
    15. Ding, Ye & Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. & Zeng, Yinchu & Yang, Wei & Arielle Snell, Heather, 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Mora Rodriguez, Jhon James, 2013. "Introduccion a la teoría del consumidor [Introduction to Consumer Theory]," MPRA Paper 48129, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Jul 2013.
    17. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    18. Claudio Acciani & Annalisa De Boni & Francesco Bozzo & Rocco Roma, 2020. "Pulses for Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems: The Effect of Origin on Market Price," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    19. Vakaramoko Diaby & Henri Kakou & Jean Lachaine, 2011. "Eliciting Preferences for Reimbursed Drugs Selection Criteria in Côte d’Ivoire," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(2), pages 125-131, June.
    20. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7637-:d:414312. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.