10.1007/s40095-014-0077-5

Choice modeling: assessing the non-market environmental values of the biodiversity conservation of swamp forest in Vietnam

Show Details XML HTML PDF
  • Huynh Viet Khai*1,
  • Mitsuyasu Yabe2,
  1. Agricultural, Resource and Environmental Economics, School of Economics and Business Administration, Can Tho University, Can Tho, VN
  2. Laboratory of Environmental Economics, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 812-8581, JP

Published in Issue 2014-03-05

How to Cite

Khai, H. V., & Yabe, M. (2014). Choice modeling: assessing the non-market environmental values of the biodiversity conservation of swamp forest in Vietnam. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 5(1 (April 2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-014-0077-5
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

HTML views: 34

PDF views: 124

Abstract

Abstract The study investigated the economic value of biodiversity attributes that could provide policy makers reliable information to estimate welfare losses due to biodiversity reductions and analyze the trade-off between biodiversity and economics. To obtain the non-market benefits of biodiversity conservation, an indirect utility function and willingness to pay for biodiversity attributes were applied using the approach of choice modeling with the analysis of multinomial logit model. The study found that Mekong Delta residents accepted their willingness to pay of VND 913 monthly for a 1 % increase in healthy vegetation, VND 360 for an additional mammal species and VND 2,440 to avoid the welfare losses of 100 local farmers.

Keywords

  • Choice modeling,
  • Genetic resources,
  • Wetland conservation,
  • Marginal willingness to pay
HTML PDF

References

  1. Adamowicz et al. (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation 80(1) (pp. 64-75) https://doi.org/10.2307/3180269
  2. Bennett, J., Bueren, M.V., Whitten, S.: Estimating Society’s Willingness to Pay to Maintain Viable Rural Communities. In: The 46th Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Canberra, Australia 2002
  3. Birol et al. (2006) Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece 60(1) (pp. 145-156) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.002
  4. Blamey et al. (2000) A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies 32(2) (pp. 269-286) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00101-9
  5. Boxall et al. (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation 18(3) (pp. 243-253) https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0
  6. Carlsson et al. (2003) Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments 47(1) (pp. 95-103) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2002.09.003
  7. Carson et al. (1995) Natural Resource Damage Assessment
  8. Chen and Jim (2010) Resident motivations and willingness-to-pay for urban biodiversity conservation in Guangzhou (China) 45(5) (pp. 1052-1064) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9478-2
  9. Christie et al. (2006) Valuing the diversity of biodiversity 58(2) (pp. 304-317) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.034
  10. Colombo et al. (2005) Designing policy for reducing the off-farm effects of soil erosion using choice experiments 56(1) (pp. 81-95) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2005.tb00123.x
  11. Dang, N.X.: Biodiversity survey—rapid assessment of flora and terrestrial animals in the key areas of Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. In: Technical Report 09E0809DANG. Conservation and Development of the Biosphere Reserve of Kien Giang Province Project (2009)
  12. Do and Bennett (2009) Estimating wetland biodiversity values: a choice modelling application in Vietnam’s Mekong River Delta 14(02) (pp. 163-186) https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08004841
  13. Greene, W.H.: Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall (2001)
  14. Liljenstolpe (2008) Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production 24(1) (pp. 67-84) https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20147
  15. Louviere and Hensher (1982) Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling
  16. Louviere et al. (2000) Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831
  17. Luce (1959) Decision-making—an experimental approach—Davidson, D, Suppes, P 56(4) (pp. 173-177) https://doi.org/10.2307/2022058
  18. Maddala (1986) Cambridge University Press
  19. McFadden and Zarembka (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior Academic Press
  20. Morrison et al. (1999) Valuing improved wetland quality using choice modeling 35(9) (pp. 2805-2814) https://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900020
  21. Morrison, M.D., Blamey, R.K., Bennett, J.W., Louviere, J.J.: A comparison of stated preference techniques for estimating environmental values. In: Choice Modelling Research Report No. 1. University College. University of New South Wales, Canberra (1996)
  22. Othman et al. (2004) Environmental values and resource management options: a choice modelling experience in Malaysia (pp. 803-824) https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X04001718
  23. Rolfe et al. (2000) Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation 35(2) (pp. 289-302) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00201-9
  24. Thuy, D.T.: Willingness to Pay for Conservation of the Vietnamese Rhino. In. The Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) (2007)
  25. Wang et al. (2007) Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: a choice modeling approach 63(1) (pp. 114-125) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.001