IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v33y2013i2d10.1007_s10669-013-9436-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-users’ trade-off between natural scenery, water quality, ecological functions and biodiversity conservation: a way to preserve wetlands

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Kaffashi
  • Mad Nasir Shamsudin
  • Alias Radam
  • Khalid Abdul Rahim
  • Mohd Rusli Yacob

Abstract

The inclusion of both non-use values and values placed by non-users provide more reliable results about the real values of wetlands. A choice experiment method was conducted to estimate the willingness to pay for environmental conservation in non-users’ communities adjacent to the Shadegan International Wetland (SIW) in Iran. A random parameter logit (RPL) model was developed to derive the marginal value and compensating surplus of the respondents for five attributes of the non-market values of SIW. The trade-off between five different wetland attributes showed that water quality improvement and biodiversity conservation were the most highly valued attributes. The results demonstrated that about 66 % of non-users were willing to donate money for the contribution in SIW conservation, suggesting that non-users have the potential to contribute to SIW conservation programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Kaffashi & Mad Nasir Shamsudin & Alias Radam & Khalid Abdul Rahim & Mohd Rusli Yacob, 2013. "Non-users’ trade-off between natural scenery, water quality, ecological functions and biodiversity conservation: a way to preserve wetlands," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 251-260, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:33:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-013-9436-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-013-9436-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-013-9436-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-013-9436-7?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. 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.
    2. Kalpana Ambastha & Syed Ainul Hussain & Ruchi Badola, 2007. "Social and economic considerations in conserving wetlands of indo-gangetic plains: A case study of Kabartal wetland, India," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 261-273, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Ian Bateman & Ian Langford, 1997. "Non-users' Willingness to Pay for a National Park: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 571-582.
    5. Kniivila, Matleena, 2006. "Users and non-users of conservation areas: Are there differences in WTP, motives and the validity of responses in CVM surveys?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 530-539, October.
    6. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    7. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    8. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    10. Ruchi Badola & Syed Ainul Hussain & Bidyut Kumar Mishra & Bidyarani Konthoujam & Sneha Thapliyal & Parag Madhukar Dhakate, 2010. "An assessment of ecosystem services of Corbett Tiger Reserve, India," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 320-329, December.
    11. Ekin Birol & Victoria Cox, 2007. "Using choice experiments to design wetland management programmes: The case of Severn Estuary Wetland, UK," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(3), pages 363-380.
    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.
    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. Thomas P. Seager & Zachary A. Collier & Igor Linkov & James H. Lambert, 2013. "Environmental sustainability, complex systems, and the disruptive imagination," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 181-183, June.

    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    7. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    8. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    9. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    10. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    11. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    12. G. Concu, 2004. "A choice modelling approach to investigate biases in individual and aggregated benefit estimates due to omission of distance," Working Paper CRENoS 200412, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    13. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Jha,Prakash & Adhikari,Bhim & Bista,Rajesh & Bluffstone,Randall & uintel,Harisharan & Martinsson,Peter & Paudel,Naya Sharma & Somanathan,E. & Toman,Michael A., 2015. "Community managed forest groups and preferences for REDD contract attributes: a choice experiment survey of communities in Nepal," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7326, The World Bank.
    14. 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.
    15. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    16. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    17. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.

    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:spr:envsyd:v:33:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-013-9436-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.