Environmental Economics and Policy Studies

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 471–486 | Cite as

Who pays more to preserve a natural reserve, visitors or locals? A confidence analysis of a contingent valuation application

Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Because of the current trend in nature degradation, protected areas are gaining importance. Ehden reserve in Lebanon is one such example, a reserve providing shelter to a substantial number of endangered species. This paper was designed to have three main objectives which are firstly to measure respondents’ willingness to pay (WTP) to preserve the protected area, drawing a distinction between visitors and residents to ascertain whether there are any appreciable differences and why these might arise; Secondly, to identify the best ways to collect local funds; Thirdly, to investigate further studies and to inform decision makers about the importance of a long-term conservation and sustainable program. Using an open ended questionnaire, contingent valuation method is applied to obtain the WTP. The WTP is then tested by using a stepwise multiple regression model relating WTP to all socio demographic variables. Finally the problems of hypothetical bias are explored.

Keywords

Contingent valuation method Environmental economics Natural reserves Protected areas 

JEL Classification

Q57 Q58 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to the valuable comments of two blind referees and the handling editor of the journal Dr. Yoshiaki Kaoru.

References

  1. Abdullaha S, Jeanty W (2011) Willingness to pay for renewable energy: evidence from a contingent valuation survey in Kenya. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(2011):2974–2983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams WM, Aveling R, Brockington D, Dickson B, Elliott J, Hutton J, Roe D, Vira B, Wolmer W (2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306:1146–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal A, Redford K (2006) Poverty, development, and biodiversity conservation: shooting in the dark?. Wildlife Conservation Society, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen I, Brown TC, Rosenthal LH (1996) Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. J Environ Econ Manag 30:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EL, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Contingent valuation methodology report (Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation). Fed Regist 58:4602–4614Google Scholar
  6. Báez A, Herrero LC (2011) Using contingent valuation and cost-benefit analysis to design a policy for restoring cultural heritage. J Cultural Herit 13(3):235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bedate AM, Herrero LC, Sanz JA (2009) Economic valuation of a contemporary art museum: correction of hypothetical bias using a certainty question. J Cultural Econ 33(3):185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ben-Akiva M, McFadden D, Train K, Walker J, Bhat C, Bierlaire M, Bolduc D, Boersch-Supan A, Brownstone D, Bunch DS, Daly A, de Palma A, Gopinath D, Karlstrom A, Munizaga MA (2002) Hybrid choice models: progress and challenges. Mark Lett 13(3):163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carraro C, Marchiori C, Sgobbi A (2007) Negotiating on water: insights from non-cooperative bargaining theory. Environ Dev Econ 12(2):329–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carson RT, Hanemann WM (2005) Contingent valuation. In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Handbook of environmental economics. Valuing environmental changes, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 821–936Google Scholar
  11. Cawley J (2008) Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity. Econ Hum Biol 6:281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Champ PA, Bishop RC (2001) Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ Resour Econ 19(4):383–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chape SJ, Harrison M, Spalding M, Lysenko I (2005) Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philos Trans R Soc Ser B 360:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis RK (1963) The value of outdoor recreation: an economic study of the Maine Woods. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 8(4):45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Du X, Mendelsohn RO (2011) Estimating the value of the reduction in air pollution during the Beijing Olympics. Environ Dev Econ 16(6):735–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dziegielewska DAP, Mendelsohn R (2005) Valuing air quality in poland. Environ Resour Econ 30(2):131–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fairweather JR, Swaffield SR (2002) Visitors and locals experiences of Rotorua, New Zealand: an interpretative study using photographs of landscapes and Q method. Int J Tour Res 4:283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM (2011) Protecting ecosystems and alleviating poverty with parks and reserves: ‘Win-Win’ or tradeoffs? Environ Resour Econ 48(2):269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halkos GE, Jones N (2012) Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection. Ecol Econ 78:90–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanemann WM, Kanninen B (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In: Willis KG, Bateman IJ (eds) Valuing environmental preferences. theory and practice of the contingent valuation in the US, EU and developing countries. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 302–441Google Scholar
  22. Hanemann W, Loomis J, Kaninnen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73:1255–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herrero LC, Sanz JA, Bedate A, Barrio MJD (2011) Who pays more for a cultural festival, tourists or locals? A certainty analysis of a contingent valuation application. Int J Tour Res 14(5):409–512Google Scholar
  24. Hess S, Beharry-Borg N (2012) Accounting for latent attitudes in willingness-to-pay studies: the case of coastal water quality improvements in tobago. Environ Res Econ 52(1):109–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2009) Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in developing countries, Position paper for UNFCCC Climate Change Talks at BonnGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindhjem H, Tuan TH (2012) Valuation of species and nature conservation in Asia and Oceania: a meta-analysis. Environ Econ Policy Stud 14(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Markandya A, Murty MN (2004) Cost-Benefit analysis of cleaning the Ganges: some emerging environment and development issues. Environ Dev Econ 9(1):61–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Memon MA, Matsuoka S (2002) Validity of contingent valuation estimates from developing countries: scope sensitivity analysis. Environ Econ Policy Stud 5:39–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: policy responses: findings of the Responses Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Ministry of Environment/Lebanese University/United Nations Development Programme (2004) Biodiversity assessment and monitoring in the protected areas/Lebanon Leb/95/G31, Horsh Ehden Nature Reserve. Lebanese University Press, BeirutGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using survey to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the future, Washington. p 463Google Scholar
  33. Municipality of Ehden (2011) Public records, ZghartaGoogle Scholar
  34. Poe GL, Clark JE, Rondeau D, Schulze WD (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity test of contingent valuation. Environ Res Econ 23(1):105–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Polyzou E, Jones N, Evangelinos KI, Halvadakis CP (2011) Willingness to pay for drinking water quality improvement and the influence of social capital. J Socio-Econ 40(1):74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robalino JA (2007) Land conservation policies and income distribution: who bears the burden of our environmental efforts? Environ Dev Econ 12(4):521–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sattout EJ, Talhouk SN, Caligari PDS (2007) Economic value of cedar relics in Lebanon: an application of contingent valuation method for conservation. Ecol Econ 61:315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scherl LM, Wilson A, Wild R, Blockhus J, Franks P, McNeely JA, McShane TO (2004) Can protected areas contribute to poverty reduction? Opportunities and limitations. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stevens TH, Dennis D, Kittredge D, Rickenbach M (1999) Attitudes and preferences toward co-operative agreements for management of private forestlands in the North-eastern United States. J Environ Manag 55(2):81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ulibarri CA, Ulibarri VC (2010) Benefit-transfer valuation of a cultural heritage site: the Petroglyph National Monument. Environ Dev Econ 15(01):39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vassanadumrongdee S, Matsuoka S, Shirakawa H (2004) Meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies on air pollution-related morbidity risks. Environ econ policy stud 6(1):11–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang Y, Zhang Y (2009) Air quality assessment by contingent valuation in Ji’nan China. J Environ Manag 90(2):1022–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whitehead JC (2006) A practitioner’s primer on the contingent valuation method. In: Alberini A, Kahn JR (eds) Handbook on contingent valuation. Edward Elgar, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilkie DS, Morelli GA, Demmer J, Starkey M, Telfer P, Steil M (2006) Parks and people: assessing the human welfare effects of establishing protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 20:247–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies and Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business Studies and EconomicsArab Open UniversityBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations