Advertisement

Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 925–934 | Cite as

Economic valuation of Shadegan International Wetland, Iran: notes for conservation

  • Sara kaffashiEmail author
  • Mad Nasir Shamsudin
  • Alias Radam
  • Khalid Abdul Rahim
  • Mohd Rusli Yacob
  • Azizi Muda
  • Muhammad Yazid
Original Article

Abstract

Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems on the earth. They produce various market and non-market goods and services, which have a significant role in human welfare. Despite the great opportunities from sustainable development, wetlands all over the world are under serious threat from a diverse range of non-sustainable activities. One of the major reasons for excessive depletion and the conversion of wetland resources is due to underestimating the non-market values of wetlands during development decisions. Shadegan International Wetland (SIW) in southern Iran is one of these wetland areas that is threatened by undervaluation and overexploitation from commercial activities. This study utilizes the contingent valuation method to estimate the economic benefits of SIW from the view point of peoples’ willingness to pay (WTP). The logit model was defined based on dichotomous choice to measure individuals’ WTP. The estimated mean WTP was US$ 1.74 per household as a onetime donation. This study concludes that the benefits of SIW to society could encourage managers to set priorities to ensure that the health of the ecosystem, its integrity, and its uniqueness would be conserved in a proper manner.

Keywords

Shadegan International Wetland Non-market value Contingent valuation Willingness to pay Logit model 

References

  1. Alberini A (1995) Optimal design for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single bound, double boundand bivariate models. J Environ Econ Manage 28:287–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansari M, Mohammadi Gh (2006) Comparison of fish and fishery situation in Shadegan International Wetland (In Persion). The 3rd Iranian Congress on Environmental Crises and their rehabilitation methodologies. Ahvaz 27–29 Dec 2006Google Scholar
  3. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Report to the General Counsel of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Resources for the future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Azavedo C, Herriges JA, Kling CL (2000) Iowa wetland: perceptions and values. Staff report 00-SR 91. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbier E, Acrerman M, Knowler D (1997) Economic valuation of wetlands: a guide for policy makers and planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau Publication, GlandGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Graham A (1995) A Survey of Non-users’ Willingness to Pay to Prevent Saline Flooding in the Norfolk broads. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 95-11. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, School of environmental sciences, University of East Anglia, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Jones IP, Kerr GN, Scarpa R (2000) Bound and Path Effects in Double and Triple Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Tenth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource economists (EAEARE, 2000). University of Crete. Rethymnon, 30th June to 2nd July 2000Google Scholar
  8. Behrouzi Rad B (1993) Census of waterfowls and waders in the lakes and wetlands of Iran, DOEGoogle Scholar
  9. Brouwer R, Langford IH, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (1999) A meta analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Reg Environ Change 1(1):47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron TA (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manage 15:355–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Grass M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Rakin RG, Sutton P, Van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260Google Scholar
  12. Desvousges WH, Johnson RR, Banzhaf HS (1998) Environmental policy analysis with limited information: principles and applications of the transfer method. Edward Elgar, Northampton, p 14Google Scholar
  13. Evans MI (1994) Important bird areas in the middle east. BirdLife conservation series No. 2. BirdLife international, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Firous E (2000) Vertebrata of Iran. Department of Environment of Iran (DOE)Google Scholar
  15. Freeman AM III (1993) The measurement of environmental and resource values. Resources for the Future, Washington, p 170Google Scholar
  16. Gren IM (1995) The value of investing in wetlands for nitrogen abatement. Eur Rev Agric Econ 22:157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gren I-M, Scharin H (2007) Efficient management of eutrophic coastal zones in theory and practice: an application on Stockholm archipelago. Reg Environ Change 1:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hadker N, Sharma S, Ashish D, Maralaeedharan TR (1997) Willingness to pay for borivli national park: evidence from contingent valuation. Ecol Econ 21:105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanemann M (1984) Discrete/continuous models of consumer demand. Econometrica 52:541–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright R (2001) Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ Surv 15:433–460Google Scholar
  21. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2008) 2008 Red List of threatened species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. http://www.iucnredlist.org/. Accessed on 21 Dec 2008
  22. Kanninen B (1993) Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Econ 69:138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loomis J (1990) Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open ended contingent valuation techniques. J Environ Econ Manage 18:19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A (2000) Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol Econ 33:103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McConnell K (1990) Models for referendum data: the structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 18:19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Ojeda MI, Mayer AS, Solomon BD (2008) Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta. Ecol Econ 65:155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pandam Consulting Engineer (2002) The natural environment of Shadegan Wetland ecosystem. Report 1 of the EC-IIP environmental management project for Shadegan WetlandGoogle Scholar
  29. Ragkos A, Psychoudakis A, Christofi A, Theodoridis A (2006) Using a functional approach to wetland valuation: the case of Zazari–Cheimaditida. Reg Environ Change 6(4):193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramsar Convention Bureau (2010) http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-list/main/ramsar/1-31-218_4000_0. Accessed on Dec 2010
  31. Roberts LA (1997) Economic valuation of some wetland outputs of Mud Lake, minnesota-south Dakota. North Dakota State University (Master Thesis). http://www.ccalt.org/…/TPL%20Report.pdf. Accessed on 12 Apr 2008
  32. Schuyt K, Brander L (2004) The economic values of the world’s wetlands. World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), Gland/AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  33. Scott DA (ed) (1995) A directory of wetlands in the Middle East. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and IWRB, Slimbridge, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  34. Scott DA (2001) Birds of Shadegan Wetland, Unpublished reportGoogle Scholar
  35. Shabman L, Bertelson MK (1979) The use of development value estimates for coastal wetland permit decision. Land Econ 55(2):213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thang ND, Bennett J (2005) An economic valuation of wetlands in Vietnam’s mekong delta: a case study of direct use values in Camau Province. Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government. Working paper, 16–23 ppGoogle Scholar
  37. Turner RK, Bateman IJ, Georgiou S, Jones A, Langford IH, Matias NGN, Subramanian L (2004) An ecologic economics approach to the management of a multi-purpose coastal wetland. Reg Environ Chang 4:86–99Google Scholar
  38. UNEP (2001) The Mesopotamian Marshlands: the demise of an ecosystem. Early Warning and Assessment Technical Report. Partow H (ed). UNEP/DEWA/TR.01–3 Rev. 1. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. http://www.grid.unep.ch/activities/sustainable/tigris/marshland. Accessed on 21 Mar 2010
  39. Venkatachalam L (2003) The contingent valuation method: a review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24:89–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wattage P, Mardle S (2007) Total economic value of wetland conservation in Sri Lanka identifying use and non-use values. Wetl Ecol Manage 16(5):359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zare-Maivan H (2004) Monitoring of ecological change in Shadegan Wetland plant communities affected severely by oil spills and soot consequent to the Iraq—Kuwait War. DRAFT version final report on monitoring and assessment claim No. 5000344. Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture, IR IranGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara kaffashi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mad Nasir Shamsudin
    • 1
  • Alias Radam
    • 1
  • Khalid Abdul Rahim
    • 1
  • Mohd Rusli Yacob
    • 1
  • Azizi Muda
    • 1
  • Muhammad Yazid
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Management, Faculty of Environmental StudiesUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSerdang, SelangorMalaysia

Personalised recommendations