Estimating the Value of Improvement in Lake Urmia’s Environmental Situation Using Choice Experiment

International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development

مقاله 4، دوره 5، شماره 4، اسفند 2015، صفحه 271-282   

نوع مقاله: Research Article

نویسندگان

Mina Salehnia^{* 1}؛ Baballah Hayati²؛ Mohammad Ghahremanzadeh²؛ Morteza Molaei³

¹Ph.D Candidate, 2Associate Professors and 3Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics

²Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Iran

³Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Urmia, Iran

چکیده

The Lake Urmia and its satellite wetlands have been selected as a demonstration site for the United Nations Development Program / Global Environment Facility / Department of Environment Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project. This project aims to demonstrate reduction of the major threats of this wetland protected area coordinated through an integrated management plan. A choice experiment was developed to examine public preferences and elicit their willingness to pay on improvements in lake’s indicators toward good environmental status. A pilot choice experiment study was administered in Urmia municipality and the data were analyzed using a random parameter logit model. The results revealed that residents of this municipality might strongly prefer improvement in water quantity and were willing to pay significant amounts to promote current water level to the highest level. Furthermore, water quality, numbers of flamingos and Artemia stock were identified as the next important issues which warranted additional management attention.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Choice Experiment؛ Lake Urmia؛ Random parameters logit model؛ Willingness to pay

مراجع

1. .      Alipour, S. (2008). Atlas of the Urmia Lake national park. West Azerbaijan Provincial Directory of Environmental Protection. West Azerbaijan.
2. Baral, N., Stern, M., J., & Bhattarai, R. (2008). Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development. Ecological Economics, 66, 218-227.
3. Bennett, J., & Blamey, R. (2001). The Choice Modeling Approach to Nonmarket Valuation. Cheltenham UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
4. Bergmann, A., Hanley, N., & Wright, R. (2006). Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy, 34, 1004-1014.
5. Birol, E., & Das, S. (2010). Estimating the value of improved wastewater treatment: The case of River Ganga, India. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 2163- 2171.
6. Birol,  E., Karousakis,  K., & Koundouri, P. (2006a). Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecological Economics, 60, 145- 156.
7. Birol, E., Karousakis, K., & Koundouri, P. (2006b). Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: A survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Science of Total Environment, 365, 105-122.
8. Boxall, P. C., & Adamowicz, W. L. (2002). Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: A latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 421-446.
9. Brey, R., Riera, P., & Mogas, J. (2007). Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: An application to Spanish forests. Ecological Economics, 64, 305-312.
10. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Liljenstolpe, C. (2003). Valuing wetland attributes: An application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 47, 95- 103.
11. Collins, J. P. (2007). Choice experiments: Application to air quality policy options and investigation of method's incentive compatibility. Unpublished dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
12. Czajkowski, M., Buszko-Briggs, M., & Hanley, N. (2009). Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 68, 2910-2917.
13. Eggert, H., & Olsson, B. (2009). Valuing multi-attribute marine water quality. Marine Policy, 33, 201- 206.
14. Eimanifar, A., & Mohebbi, F. (2007). Urmia Lake (Northwest Iran): a brief review. Saline Systems, 3, 5. Retrieved from http://www.salinesystems.org/content/3/1/5.
15. Firouzzareh, A., & Ghorbani, M. (2011). Investigating welfare effects of air pollution related strategies in Iran, Mashhad. First Conference of Urban Economics. Mashhad, Iran, November.
16. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis, (5^th ed). Macmillan, New York.
17. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., & Wright, R. (2001). Choice modeling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 435-462.
18. Hanley, N., Wright, R. E., & Alvarez-Farizo, B. (2006). Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: An application to the water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management, 78, 183-193.
19. Hausman, J. A., & McFadden, D. (1984). Specification tests for the multinomial log it model. Econometrica, 52, 1219-1240.
20. Hensher, D. A., & Greene, W. H. (2003).  The mixed log it model: The state of practice. Transportation, 30, 133-176.
21. Hensher, D., Rose, J., & Greene, W. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press.
22. Horne, P., Boxall, P. C., & Adamowicz, W. L. (2005). Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: A spatially explicit choice experiment. Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 189-199.
23. Jin, J., Wang, Z., & Ran, S. (2006). Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecological Economics, 57, 430-441.
24. Kuhfeld, W. F. (2010). Marketing research methods in SAS. SAS institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA.
25. Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economics, 74, 217-231.
26. Lehtonen, E., Kuuluvainen, J., Pouta, E., Rekola, M., & Li, C. (2003). Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science and Policy, 6, 195-204.
27. Liu, X., & Wirtz, K. W. (2010). Managing coastal area resources by stated choice experiments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 86, 512-517.
28. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D., Swait, J., & Adamowicz, W. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
29. Luce, D. (1959). Individual choice behaviour. John Wiley, New York, NY.
30. Maddala, G. S. (1999). Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
31. Maliki, M. (2011). Estimating Conservative Value of Lake Urmia. Unpublished dissertation, University of Tabriz. Iran.
32. Manski, C. (1977). The Structure of random utility models. Theory and Dicision, 8, 229-254.
33. Meyerhoff, J., Liebe, U., & Hartje, V. (2009). Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: Evidence from two choice experiments in Germany. Journal of Forest Economics, 15, 37-58.
34. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P., Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York.
35. National Population and Housing Census, (2011). Selected findings, The President’s Office, Deputy of Strategic Planning and Control, Statistical Center of Iran.
36. Nielsen, A. B., Olsen, S.B., & Lundhede, T. (2007). An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80, 63-71.
37. Othman, J., Bennett, J., & Blamey, R. (2004). Environmental values and resource management options: A choice modeling experience in Malaysia. Environment and Development Economics, 9, 803-824.
38. Paulrud, S., & Laitila, T. (2010). Farmers' attitudes about growing energy crops: A choice experiment approach. Biomaass and Bioenergy, 34, 1770-1779.
39. Revelt, D., & Train, K. (1998). Mixed log it with repeated choices: Households' choice of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics, 53, 647-657.
40. Romano, D., de Groot, D., Grafakas, S., Hein, L., Nocella, G., & Tassone, V. (2008). Internet-based valuation and group valuation methodologies. SENSOR Report Series. Retrieved from http:// www.sensor-ip.eu, ZALF, Germany.
41. Smyth, R. L., Watzin, M. C., & Manning, R. E. (2009). Investigating public preferences for managing Lake Champlain using a choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 615-623.
42. Taylor, T., & Longo, A. (2010). Valuing algal bloom in the Black Sea Coast of Bulgaria: A choice experiments approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1963-1971.
43. Train, K. (1998). Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land economics, 74, 230-239.
44. Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press.
45. Wallmo, K., & Lew, D.K. (2011). Valuing improvements to threatened and endangered marine species: An application of stated preference choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1793-1801. 
46. Westerberg, V. H., Lifran, R., & Olsen, S. (2010). To restore or not? A valuation of social and ecological functions of the Marais des Baux wetland in Southern France. Ecological economics, 69, 2383-2393.
47. Whitehead, J. C. (2006). A practitioner’s primer on contingent valuation. In: Alberini, A., Kahn, J., contingent valuation handbook. Edward Elgar.
48. Wielgus, J., Gerber, L. R., Sala, E., & Bennett, J. (2009). Including risk in stated preference economic valuations: Experiments on choices for marine recreation. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 3401-3409.
49. West Azerbaijan Department of Environment. (2008). Zoning of Lake Urmia national park and satellite wetlands. Department of Environment, West Azerbayjan.