IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i18p7637-d414312.html

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. Clement A. Tisdell, 2005. "Economics of Environmental Conservation, Second Edition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3272.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    9. 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.
    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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. George Halkos & Panagiotis Stavros Aslanidis & Conrad Landis & Lydia Papadaki & Phoebe Koundouri, 2024. "A review on primary and cascading hazards by exploring individuals' willingness-to-pay for urban sustainability policies," DEOS Working Papers 2415, Athens University of Economics and Business.

    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, "undated". "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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Su, Jie & Gasparatos, Alexandros, 2024. "Assessing the heterogeneity of public acceptability for mangrove restoration through a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Ekin Birol & Sukanya Das, 2010. "Valuing the Environment in Developing Countries: Modeling the Impact of Distrust in Public Authorities’ Ability to Deliver on the Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Environmental Quality," Working Papers 2010-055, Madras School of Economics,Chennai,India.
    13. Mandy Ryan & Angela Bate, 2001. "Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 59-63.
    14. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Rodriguez-Entrena, Macario & Arriaza, Manuel & Gomez-Limon, Jose A., 2015. "Matching supply-side and demand-side analyses for the assessment of agri-environmental schemes: The case of irrigated olive groves of southern Spain," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211919, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Bénédicte Rulleau & Jeoffrey Dehez & Patrick Point, 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, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 92(3), pages 291-310.
    17. Hunt, Priscillia E & Smart, Rosanna, 2020. "Investigation of Employers' Preferences for the Design of Staffing Agency Incentives to Hire Ex-Felons," IZA Discussion Papers 13520, IZA Network @ LISER.
    18. Flavio Boccia & Rosa Malgeri Manzo & Daniela Covino, 2019. "Consumer behavior and corporate social responsibility: An evaluation by a choice experiment," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 97-105, January.
    19. Panos, Georgios & Theodossiou, Ioannis, 2009. "Union Mediation and Adaptation to Reciprocal Loyalty Arrangements," MPRA Paper 15471, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Ziv, Guy & Chapman, Pippa J. & Holden, Joseph & Cardwell, Michael & Fyfe, Duncan, 2023. "A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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: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.