IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ukm/jlekon/v52y2018i2p253-266.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model

Author

Listed:
  • Mat Alipiah, Roseliza

    (School of Social Economics and Development Universiti Malaysia Terengganu 21030 Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu MALAYSIA)

  • Anang, Zuraini

    (School of Social Economics and Development Universiti Malaysia Terengganu 21030 Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu MALAYSIA)

  • Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub

    (School of Social Economics and Development Universiti Malaysia Terengganu 21030 Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu MALAYSIA)

  • Smart, James C. R.

    (Griffith School of Environment University of Griffith Brisbane AUSTRALIA)

  • Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie

    (Faculty of Economic and Management University College Bestari 22100 Permaisuri, Setiu, Terengganu MALAYSIA)

Abstract

The fundamental objective of discrete Choice Experiments (CEs) model or Choice Modelling (CM) is to understand the behavioural processes among individuals which drive the choice decisions based on selected attributes and choice options. Preferences may differ among individuals triggered by their specific characteristics such as sociodemographics, constraints and attitudes. Preferences could also vary among groups and within a particular group by forming different segments of groups or subgroups. The Latent Class (LC) model is a distinctive approach which can accommodate preference heterogeneity where preferences are assumed to be relatively homogenous within the segments, but substantially different between the segments. This LC model was applied to account for preference heterogeneity among aquaculturists in the Setiu Wetlands, Terengganu. Currently, fish cage culture is the main socio-economic activity which imposes considerable impacts on the wetland ecosystem and thus affect its ability to deliver ecosystem service outcomes to other stakeholder groups. This research quantifies the aquaculturists’ preferences heterogeneity with regard to the ecosystem impacts under different management scenarios. The existence of sub-divisions of preferences within the stakeholder subgroups was tested. This study revealed three latent classes or segments which show relatively distinct sets of preferences. Segment 1 shows a strong preference for higher harvest rates, a moderately strong preference for higher fisheries income and a moderately strong preference for lower shellfish collections. Segment 2 shows a moderately strong linear preference for higher harvest rates and a very strong preference for retaining the status quo. Segment 3 shows a perplexing set of significant preferences for increasing harvest rates and a modest preference for higher fisheries income. In direct contrast to Segment 2, Segment 3 shows a very strong aversion to retaining the status quo. The results of aquaculturists’ preferences for delivery of different ecosystem services in Setiu Wetlands suggest that Latent Class Model (LCM) could be applied successfully in a Malaysian setting. The success of the LC model is evidenced by the high level of fit obtained from the best fitting models. The main finding of this research suggests that a good understanding of the main research objective, familiarity with the research area and carefully designed choice set, as well as employing appropriately trained enumerators are the main factors that particularly contribute to a successful application of the LC model in a developing country setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Mat Alipiah, Roseliza & Anang, Zuraini & Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub & Smart, James C. R. & Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie, 2018. "Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(2), pages 253-266.
    • Handle: RePEc:ukm:jlekon:v:52:y:2018:i:2:p:253-266
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/JEM-2018-5202-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ukm.my/jem/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/jeko_522-20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/JEM-2018-5202-20?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. Turner, R. Kerry & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. & Soderqvist, Tore & Barendregt, Aat & van der Straaten, Jan & Maltby, Edward & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2000. "Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 7-23, October.
    2. Cati Torres & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Economic valuation of coastal and marine ecosystem services in the 21st century: an overview from a management perspective," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2016-01, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    3. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    4. Layton, David F., 2000. "Random Coefficient Models for Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 21-36, July.
    5. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    6. Barton, David N. & Bergland, Olvar, 2010. "Valuing irrigation water using a choice experiment: an ‘individual status quo’ modelling of farm specific water scarcity," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 321-340, June.
    7. J. Heckman & B. Singer, 1984. "The Identifiability of the Proportional Hazard Model," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 51(2), pages 231-241.
    8. repec:bla:ecorec:v:66:y:1990:i:193:p:146-56 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Winkler, Ralph, 2006. "Valuation of ecosystem goods and services: Part 2: Implications of unpredictable novel change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 94-105, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    12. Zhai, Guofang & Suzuki, Takeshi, 2008. "Public willingness to pay for environmental management, risk reduction and economic development: Evidence from Tianjin, China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 551-566, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    15. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
    19. 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.
    20. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    21. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    22. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
    23. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    24. Bingham, Gail & Bishop, Richard & Brody, Michael & Bromley, Daniel & Clark, Edwin (Toby) & Cooper, William & Costanza, Robert & Hale, Thomas & Hayden, Gregory & Kellert, Stephen, 1995. "Issues in ecosystem valuation: improving information for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 73-90, August.
    25. Othman, Jamal & Bennett, Jeff & Blamey, Russell, 2004. "Environmental values and resource management options: a choice modelling experience in Malaysia," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(6), pages 803-824, December.
    26. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    27. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    28. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
    29. Edward Morey & Kathleen Greer Rossmann, 2003. "Using Stated-Preference Questions to Investigate Variations in Willingness to Pay for Preserving Marble Monuments: Classic Heterogeneity, Random Parameters, and Mixture Models," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 215-229, November.
    30. Edward Morey & Jennifer Thacher & William Breffle, 2006. "Using Angler Characteristics and Attitudinal Data to Identify Environmental Preference Classes: A Latent-Class Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 91-115, May.
    31. Chopra, Kanchan & Adhikari, Saroj Kumar, 2004. "Environment development linkages: modelling a wetland system for ecological and economic value," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 19-45, February.
    32. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa, 2010. "Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The Case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 528-538, January.
    33. Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo & Dugald Tinch & Andrew Black & Ashar Aftab, 2006. "Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: are benefits transferable?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(3), pages 391-413, September.
    34. Louviere, Jordan J & Hensher, David A, 1983. "Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(3), pages 348-361, December.
    35. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    36. J. D. Snowball & K. G. Willis, 2011. "Interview versus self-completion questionnaires in discrete choice experiments," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(16), pages 1521-1525.
    37. Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2.
    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. Che Ibrahim, Nur Syuhada & Kamaludin, Mahirah & Shaari, Nur Fatihah, 2019. "A Discrete Choice Experiment in Estimate Public Willingness to Pay for Attributes of Water Services in Terengganu, Malaysia," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 53(2), pages 213-225.

    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    5. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    6. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    8. 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).
    9. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Robinson, Jackie & Kaneko, Shinji & Komatsu, Satoru, 2013. "Estimating the value of economic benefits associated with adaptation to climate change in a developing country: A case study of improvements in tropical cyclone warning services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 117-128.
    10. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    16. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    17. Francisco J. Mas & Juan Luis Nicolau, 2004. "Stochastic Choice Analysis Of Tourism Destinations," Working Papers. Serie AD 2004-07, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    18. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    19. Engelman, Marc & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2018. "Hunters' trade-off in valuation of different game animals in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 73-81.

    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:ukm:jlekon:v:52:y:2018:i:2:p:253-266. 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: Muhammad Asri Abd Ghani (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feukmmy.html .

    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.