IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa13p920.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measurement of Use and Non-use Values of Shirakami Mountain Range by using CVM Consistent with TCM

Author

Listed:
  • Eiji Ohno
  • Ryuta Mori
  • Masafumi Morisugi
  • Hiroshi Sao

Abstract

Shirakami Mountain Range has the largest primeval forest in the world, and has some public functions; the biodiversity function, the water resource cultivation function, the health and recreation function and so on. This study tries to measure its environmental economic value by using the travel cost method (TCM) and the contingent valuation method (CVM). The TCM and the CVM are well-known as the typical technique of environmental economic valuation. The TCM can measure only the direct and current use value of environmental goods, but the CVM can measure the whole value including the non-use value of them. In the practice of environmental economic valuation, it is often adopted that the use value is measured by the TCM and that the non-use or the whole values are measured by CVM. However, there is no statistical significance in the difference between those values measured by the TCM and the CVM, because these methods are modeled independently and have no theoretical consistency. In this study, we have constructed a valuation model based on the CVM consistent with the TCM, in order to measure the use and the non-use values of environmental goods consistently. By applying this model to measurement of environmental economic value of Shirakami Mountain Range, practicality of the method is also examined. The result indicated that the willingness to pay (WTP) for the environmental preservation of Shirakami Mountain Range was estimated as 6,679 JPY/person/year by using the CVM which had no consistency with the TCM, but it was estimated as 1,028 JPY/person/year by using our model based on the CVM consistent with the TCM. Now, 6,679 JPY/person/year means its whole value, but 1,028 JPY/person/year means its non-use value. On the other hand, by using the TCM, the consumer surplus (CS) was estimated as 11,154 JPY/person/year in the local area of Shirakami Mountain Range and 5,579 JPY/person/year in Tokyo. Here, these values mean the use value of Shirakami Mountain Range. That is to say, the whole value was estimated as lower than the use value by using the CVM which had no consistency with the TCM. As a result, our model could measure the use and the non-use values of environmental goods consistently.

Suggested Citation

  • Eiji Ohno & Ryuta Mori & Masafumi Morisugi & Hiroshi Sao, 2013. "Measurement of Use and Non-use Values of Shirakami Mountain Range by using CVM Consistent with TCM," ERSA conference papers ersa13p920, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa13p920
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa13/ERSA2013_paper_00920.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    2. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 1997. "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Should Revealed and Stated Preference Data Be Combined?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 240-255, November.
    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. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    2. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    3. Hoyos, David & Riera, Pere, 2013. "Convergent validity between revealed and stated recreation demand data: Some empirical evidence from the Basque Country, Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 234-248.
    4. Munro, Alistair, 2007. "When is some number really better than no number? On the optimal choice between non-market valuation methods," MPRA Paper 8978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    6. Richard A. Hofler & John A. List, 2004. "Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements of Value," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 213-221.
    7. Villas-Boas, Sofia B, 2020. "Reduced Form Evidence on Belief Updating Under Asymmetric Information," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt08c456vk, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    8. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    9. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    10. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    11. Donggen Wang & Jiukun Li & Harry Timmermans, 2004. "Measuring Bifurcation Points in Choice Behavior: Principles and Illustration," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(6), pages 1125-1138, June.
    12. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    13. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    14. Jakus, Paul M. & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Davis, George C., 2003. "Revenue Impacts of MPP Branded Funds: A Firm-Level Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 184-197, October.
    15. Lori D. Snyder & Robert N. Stavins & Alexander F. Wagner, 2003. "Private Options to Use Public Goods Exploiting Revealed Preferences to Estimate Environmental Benefits," Working Papers 2003.49, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    16. Lienhoop, Nele & Ansmann, Till, 2011. "Valuing water level changes in reservoirs using two stated preference approaches: An exploration of validity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1250-1258, May.
    17. Stina Hökby & Tore Söderqvist, 2003. "Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(3), pages 361-383, November.
    18. John Loomis & Bryon Allen, 2008. "Using Non Market Valuation to Inform the Choice Between Permits and Fees in Environmental Regulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 329-337, July.
    19. Moeltner, Klaus & Boyle, Kevin J. & Paterson, Robert W., 2007. "Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation-addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 250-269, March.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    travel cost method; contingent valuation method; use value; non-use value; Shirakami Mountain Range;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Restaurants; Recreation; Tourism
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa13p920. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.