IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/ecstat/estat_0336-1454_2009_num_421_1_7735.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Approche multidimensionnelle de la valeur économique des loisirs de nature, suivi d'un commentaire de Dominique Ami et Olivier Chanel

Author

Listed:
  • Bénédicte Rulleau
  • Jeoffrey Dehez
  • Patrick Point
  • Dominique Ami
  • Olivier Chanel

Abstract

[fre] Si la qualité est un élément central de l’expérience récréative et donc de la demande de loisirs, les méthodes traditionnelles d’évaluation économique ont encore du mal à intégrer l’aspect multidimensionnel. La méthode des choix multi-attributs (Choice Experiment), perçue comme une alternative, comporte également certaines limites. Nous examinons donc une nouvelle approche dite méthode multi-programmes (MP). Basée sur les travaux de Lancaster (1966) et de Hoehn (1991) et sur un protocole développé par Santos (1998) et Point et al. (2007), la MP est consacrée au calcul des consentements à payer (CAP) des agents pour les différents attributs (appelés «programmes») d’une politique environnementale mais aussi à l’étude des éventuelles relations entre ces derniers. En d’autres termes, elle considère le fait qu’un biais d’inclusion est susceptible de se manifester. La MP ne mobilise donc pas, pour calculer la valeur de la politique environnementale, la procédure de «valorisation indépendante et sommation» (Independent Valuation and Summation) (Hoehn, 1991), mais tient également compte des changements liés à la mise en oeuvre de la politique dans son ensemble (Hoehn et Loomis, 1993). Nous proposons l’application de la MP au littoral girondin, où les activités récréatives s’exercent simultanément dans l’océan, sur le sable et en forêt. Un programme est lié à chaque espace. Pour modéliser les réponses dichotomiques, nous utilisons l’approche de Cameron et James (1987a) qui considère qu’un enquêté va refuser de payer pour une politique si son CAP pour cette dernière est supérieur au coût auquel elle a été proposée. Les résultats montrent que, isolé, seul le programme relatif à la forêt n’est pas valorisé. Par ailleurs, contrairement aux postulats de Hoehn (1991) et de Santos (1998), les programmes sont majoritairement indépendants en évaluation. Les proposer conjointement n’engendre pas de gain supplémentaire de bien-être. [ger] Qualität ist ein entscheidendes Merkmal der Freizeiterfahrungen und somit der Nachfrage nach Freizeittätigkeiten. Bei der herkömmlichen Methoden der wirtschaftlichen Bewertung ist es jedoch noch schwer, den multidimensionalen Ansatz einzubeziehen. Aber auch die Methode der Mehrfachattribute (Choice Experiment), . die als Alternative betrachtet wird, hat bestimmte Grenzen. Wir analysieren daher einen neuen Ansatz, die so genannte Mehrfachprogramm-Methode (MP). Diese Methode, die auf den Arbeiten von Lancaster (1966) und Hoehn (1991) sowie auf einem von Santos (1998) und Point et al. (2007) entwickelten Protokoll basiert, dient der Berechnung der Zahlungsbereitschaft der Wirtschaftsbeteiligten für die verschiedenen Attribute („ Programme“ genannt) einer Umweltpolitik, aber auch der Analyse der etwaigen Beziehungen zwischen letzteren. Das heißt, die MP trägt dem Umstand Rechnung, dass eine Verzerrung aufgrund der Einbeziehung auftreten kann. Zur Berechnung des Werts der Umweltpolitik wird bei der MP somit nicht auf das Verfahren der "unabhängigen Bewertung und Summierung“ (Independent Valuation and Summation) (Hoehn, 1991) zurückgegriffen, sondern es werden auch die Veränderungen aufgrund der Umsetzung der Politik insgesamt berücksichtigt (Hoehn und Loomis, 1993). Wir schlagen vor, die MP auf das Departement Gironde an der französischen Atlantikküste anzuwenden, wo Freizeittätigkeiten im Ozean, auf dem Sand und in den Wäldern möglich sind. Für jeden Raum wird ein Programm erstellt. Zur Modellierung der dichotomischen Antworten verwenden wir die Methode von Cameron und James (1987a), bei der davon ausgegangen wird, dass ein Befragter sich weigert, für eine Politik zu zahlen, wenn seine diesbezügliche Zahlungsbereitschaft über den Kosten liegt, zu denen sie vorgeschlagen wurde. Die einzelnen Ergebnisse zeigen, dass nur das Programm für den Wald nicht bewertet wird. Entgegen den Postulaten von Hoehn (1991) und Santos (1998) sind im Übrigen die Programme bei der Bewertung mehrheitlich voneinander unabhängig. Sie gemeinsam vorschlagen hat somit keinen zusätzlichen Gewinn im Hinblick auf das Wohlbefinden zur Folge. [spa] Aunque la calidad es un elemento básico de la experiencia del ocio y, por consiguiente, de la solicitud de actividades recreativas, los métodos tradicionales de evaluación económica tienen todavía dificultades para integrar su aspecto multidimensional. El método de la selección con multiatributos (Choice Experiment), percibida como una alternativa, tiene también algunas limitaciones. Por consiguiente, analizaremos una nueva aproximación llamada método multiprogramas (MP). Basado en los trabajos de Lancaster (1966) y de Hoehn (1991) y en un protocolo desarrollado por Santos (1998) y Point et al. (2007), el método MP se centra en el cálculo de los consentimientos de pago (CAP) de los agentes para los distintos atributos (llamados «programas. ») de la política medioambiental, pero también en el estudio de las eventuales relaciones entre estos últimos. En otros términos, considera el hecho de que puede manifestarse una desviación inclusiva. El MP no moviliza, por lo tanto, para el cálculo del valor de la política medioambiental, el procedimiento de la «valorización independiente y sumatoria» (Independent Valuation and Summation) (Hoehn, 1991), sino que tiene en cuenta también los cambios relacionados con la puesta en marcha de la política en su conjunto (Hoehn y Loomis, 1993). Proponemos la aplicación del MP al litoral de Gironde, donde las actividades recreativas se ejercen simultáneamente en el mar, la arena y el bosque. Se relaciona un programa con cada espacio. Para modelizar las respuestas dicotómicas, utilizamos la aproximación de Cameron y James (1987a), que considera que un encuestado rechazará pagar por una política si su CAP para esta última es superior al coste al que esta se ofrece. Los resultados muestran que, aislado, solo el programa correspondiente al bosque no se valoriza. Además, contrariamente a los postulados de Hoehn (1991) y de Santos (1998), los programas son mayoritariamente independientes en la evaluación. El hecho de ofrecerlos conjuntamente no genera ningún beneficio adicional de bienestar. [eng] Whilst quality is a key factor of the recreational experience and hence of recreational demand, traditional methods of economic assessment still have trouble incorporating the multi-dimensional aspect. The "choice experiment” method, seen as an alternative, has its limits as well. We therefore examine a new approach known as the multi-programme (MP) method. MP is based on the work of Lancaster (1966) and Hoehn (1991) and on a protocol developed by Santos (1998) and Point et al. (2007). It focuses on determining agents’ willingness to pay (WTP) for different choices (called "programmes”) in an environmental policy but also studies potential relations between the choices. In other words, it allows for the possible occurrence of an inclusion bias. Consequently, to calculate environmental policy, MP does not use the "independent valuation and summation” procedure (Hoehn, 1991) but also takes into account changes due to the enactment of the entire policy (Hoehn and Loomis, 1993). We report on an application of MP to the coast of the Gironde département (south-west France), where recreational activities take place in ocean, sand, and forest spaces concurrently. There is a programme for each space. To model dichotomous responses, we use the Cameron and James (1987a) approach, which assumes that a respondent will refuse to pay for a policy if his or her WTP for the latter exceeds the cost at which the policy has been offered. The results show that, taken in isolation, only the forest programme is not valued. We also find that, in contradiction with the postulates of Hoehn (1991) and Santos (1998), a majority of programmes are valued independently. Offering them jointly generates no additional welfare gain.

Suggested Citation

  • Bénédicte Rulleau & Jeoffrey Dehez & Patrick Point & Dominique Ami & Olivier Chanel, 2009. "Approche multidimensionnelle de la valeur économique des loisirs de nature, suivi d'un commentaire de Dominique Ami et Olivier Chanel," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 421(1), pages 29-51.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_2009_num_421_1_7735
    DOI: 10.3406/estat.2009.7735
    Note: DOI:10.3406/estat.2009.7735
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.2009.7735
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/estat_0336-1454_2009_num_421_1_7735
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/estat.2009.7735?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. 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, October.
    2. Jeanne Dachary-Bernard, 2004. "Une évaluation économique du paysage : une application de la méthode des choix multi-attributs aux Monts d'Arrée," Post-Print hal-00450861, HAL.
    3. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    4. Richard O. Zerbe Jr & Allen S. Bellas, 2006. "A Primer for Benefit–Cost Analysis," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3480.
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. Guy Garrod & Kenneth G. Willis, 1999. "Economic Valuation of the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1368.
    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. Uwamariya, Beatrice, 2014. "Assessment of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Quality Certification and Origin-Labeling in Fruit Salads in Kigali,Rwanda," Research Theses 198512, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    2. Wang, Xuehong & Bennett, Jeff & Xie, Chen & Zhang, Zhitao & Liang, Dan, 2007. "Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: A choice modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 114-125, June.
    3. 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).
    4. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    5. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. Marva Stithou & Yiannis Kountouris & Phoebe Koundouri, 2011. "A Choice Experiments Application in Transport Infrastructure: A case study on travel time savings, accidents and pollution reduction," DEOS Working Papers 1116, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    8. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Sarah, Acquah, 2014. "A National Survey of Consumer Preferences for Branded Gulf Oysters and Risk Perceptions of Gulf Seafood," Research Reports 190586, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    11. Pascucci, Stefano & Magistris, Tiziana de, 2013. "Information Bias Condemning Radical Food Innovators? The Case of Insect-Based Products in the Netherlands," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(3), pages 1-16, September.
    12. Kikulwe, Enoch M. & Birol, Ekin & Wesseler, Justus & Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin, 2013. "Benefits, costs, and consumer perceptions of the potential introduction of a fungus-resistant banana in Uganda and policy implications," IFPRI book chapters, in: Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Gruère, Guillaume P. & Sithole-Niang, Idah (ed.), Genetically modified crops in Africa: Economic and policy lessons from countries south of the Sahara, chapter 4, pages 99-141, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    14. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    15. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity," Research Reports 94816, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    16. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    17. Teferi, Ermias Tesfaye & Kassie, Girma T. & Pe, Mario Enrico & Fadda, Carlo, 2020. "Are farmers willing to pay for climate related traits of wheat? Evidence from rural parts of Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    18. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Leonie Burgess & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Jordan Louviere, 2012. "Design of Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.

    More about this item

    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:prs:ecstat:estat_0336-1454_2009_num_421_1_7735. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/estat .

    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.