Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of stated preferences methods for the valuation of natural resources: the case of contingent valuation and choice experiment

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the present study, the non-marketing value of services was provided by the ecosystem of a pasture related to individuals’ preferences to compare the contingent valuation method (CVM) and the choice experiment method (CEM). Firstly, we specified the major services of the pasture (e.g., biodiversity, medicinal plants, and ecotourism and ancient places). Then, to examine the individuals’ preferences, we used CVM with the double-bounded dichotomous technique and choice modeling with CEM, for each of which we prepared 156 separate questionnaires. The results indicated that individuals’ willingness to pay to increase ecosystem services varied in the range of $2.05 (by CEM) to $2.42 (by CVM). The total value of the services was from $82,194.09 (by CEM) to $97,107.36 (by CVM). The results confirmed that the CVM values were in accordance with CEM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Model 1 in Table 4.

  2. Model 2 in Table 4.

  3. In the questionnaire, the variables that were in 0–1 form were so signed that, say, 0 showed the respondent is male and 1 showed she was female. The same procedure was held for other variables. Thus, their interpretation is opposite.

  4. If prob χ2 < 0.05, the conditional model will not be confirmed, and only nested model can be used.

References

  • Abedi Z, Fatahi Ardakani A, Hanifnejad AR, Dashti Rahmatabadi N (2013) Groundwater valuation and quality preservation in Iran: the case of Yazd. Int J Environ Res 8(1):213–220. https://doi.org/10.22059/IJER.2014.710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Wiliiams M, Loviere J (1998) Stated preferene approaches to measuring passive use values. Am J Agric Econ 80:64–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahoughalandari M, Haghno M, Molaei M (2008) Assessment of recreational and environmental potential of Chitgar Protected Forest: approaches for its management. In: Proceedings of 2nd conference on environment engineering

  • Alipour M (2015) Economic valuation of environmental Services in Kashmar patures (M.Sc. Thesis). Zabol, Iran: Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Zabol University Press

  • Amirnejad H, Khalilian S, Assareh M (2006) The preservation and use values determination of Sisangan Forest Park, Nowshahr by using individual’s willingness to pay. Pajouhesh Sazandegi 72:15–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous (2008) Retrieved from Forests, Range and Watershed Management Organization of Iran

  • Arabzadeh Z (2011) Economic valuation of environmental services of pastures in Khorasan-e Razavi Province (M.Sc. Thesis). Mashhad, Iran: Ferdowsi University Press

  • Ataei S, Joolaie R, Fatahi Ardakani A, Amirnejad H, Shirani Bidabadi F (2013) Estimating the recreational value of wilderness areas in the tourist season with contingent valuation method (Case Study: sadiq Abad Desert). Int J Farm Allied Sci 2–23:1112–1117

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Sugden R (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bostan Y, Fatahi AA, Fehresti SM, Sadeghinia M (2018) A pricing model for the value of gas regulation function of natural resources ecosystems (A case study: Sheikh Musa pasture ecosystem). J Rangel Sci (JRS) 8(2):186–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Braat LC, de Groot R (2012) The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst Serv 1(1):4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaikaewa P, Hodgesb A, Grunwald S (2016) Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: a choice experiment approach. Ecosyst Serv 23:228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Turner RK (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 26:152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies A, Laing RA, MacMillan DC (2000) The use of choice experiments in the built environment: an innovative approach. In: Proceedings of transitions towards a sustainable europe: ecology, economy, policy. Third Biennial conference of the european society for ecological economics, Vienna. http://www.rgu.ac.uk/files/davieslaing2000vienna. Accessed 2000

  • De Groot RS, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat LC, Haines-Young R, Gowdy J, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Portela R, Ring I (2010) Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar P (ed) TEEB foundations 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB): ecological and economic foundations, chapter 1. Earthscan, London, pp 9–40

  • Dias V, Belcher K (2015) Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: a choice experiment approach. Ecosyst Serv 15:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty E, Murphy G, Hynes S, Buckley C (2014) Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: results from a discrete choice experiment. Ecosyst Serv 7:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupras J, Laurent-Lucchetti J, Revéret JP, DaSilva L (2017) Using contingent valuation and choice experiment to value the impacts of agri-environmental practices on landscapes aesthetics. Landsc Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1332172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emami Meybodi A, Qazi M (2008) An estimation of the recreational value of the Saee Park in Tehran using the contingent valuation method (CV). Econ Res 12(36):187–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Farley J (2012) Ecosystem services: the economics debate. Ecosyst Serv 1(1):40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fatahi A (2013) Implication of single-bounded dichotomous choice in estimating recreational-tourism value of environmental endowment in desert areas (case study: Gharbalbiz Spring in Yazd Providence). Iran J Agric Econ Dev Res (IJAEDR). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijaedr.2013.36067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fatahi Ardakani A (2016) Estimating willingness to pay in order to prevent external intangible effects of dust in Yazd–Ardakan plain. Int J Environ Sci Technol 13(6):1489–1496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-0986-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fatahi Ardakani A, Fazlolahi E (2015) Compare general preferences and willingness to pay of tourists and residents of the city of Surrey for the protection of the Caspian Sea. J Agric Econ 9(1):135–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Fatahi Ardakani A, Hashemi Shiri M (2017) Design of insurance pattern of organic products (case study: tomato of Murghab plain). Int J Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1577-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fatahi Ardakani A, Alavi C, Arab M (2017) The comparison of discrete payment vehicle methods (dichotomous choice) in improving the quality of the environment. Int J Environ Sci Technol 14(7):1409–1418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1246-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fatahi A, Yazdani S, Hosseini S, Sadr SK (2012) Recreational valuation of groundwater in Yazd-Ardakan plain. Iran J Agric Econ Dev Res (IJAEDR) 42(2):153–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Fatahi A, Rezvani M, Bostan Y, Arab M (2016) Estimating public participation in investment organic products in Babol (Case Study: Organic rice). https://www.civilica.com/Paper-RSTCONF03-RSTCONF03_081.html. Accessed 2016

  • Gharadaghi H, Mohammadi H, Sadeghi H (2013) Economic value of conservation Pastureland in Southern Iran. J Appl Environ Biol Sci 4(1):28–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghorbani M, Firouz Zare A (2010) An introduction to environment valuation, 2nd edn. Ferdowsi University Press, Mashhad

    Google Scholar 

  • Green WH (2000) Econometrice analysis. Prentice Hall International Editions. New York University, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Green WH (2010) Econometric analysis, 7th edn. New York University, Macmillan, p 197

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2009) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaeli D, Frid C (eds) Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis BES ecological reviews series. Cambridge University Press (CUP), Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Wright R, Adamowicz W (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11:413–428. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100828731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright R (2001) Choice modeling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation. J Econ Surv 15:435–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashemi Bonab S (2012) Assessment of economic costs and environmental damages of farming land use change: the case of Mazandaran province (Ph.D. Dissertation). Tehran, Iran: Tehran University

  • Hausman J, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52(5):1219–1240. https://doi.org/10.2307/1910997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He J, Dupras J, Poder GT (2017) The value of wetlands in Quebec: a comparison between contingent valuation and choice experiment. J Environ Econ Policy 6(1):51–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2016.1199976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hearne R, Slinas Z (2002) The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in costa rice. J Environ Manag 65:153–163. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher D (2001) The valuation of commter travel time savings for car drivers in New Zealand: evaluating alternative model specifications. Transportation 28:101–118. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101030211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Izadi H, Barzgar S (2011) The study of economic valuation methods in the analysis of environmental challenges in urban areas. In: Proceedings of 1st Iranian conference on urban economics. Mashhad, Iran: Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

  • Jacobson M, Shr YH, Dalemans F, Magaju C, Ciannella R (2018) Using a choice experiment approach to assess production tradeoffs for developing the croton value chain in Kenya. Fort Policy Econ 86:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.09.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jafari A, Saleh I, Yazdani S, Hosseini S (2013) The economics-environmental impacts analysis of the promotion of the wall of Ekbatan Dam in Hamedan. Agric Econ 7(2):69–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaung W, Putzel L, Bull GQ, Guariguata MR, Sumaila UR (2016) Estimating demand for certification of forest ecosystem services: a choice experiment with Forest Stewardship Council certificate holders. Ecosyst Serv 22:193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin J, Wang Z, Ran S (2006) Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecol Econ 57(3):430–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson FR, Kanninen B, Bingham M, Ozdemir S (2006) Experimental design for stated choice studies. In: Kanninen B (ed) Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Khodaverdizadeh M, Khalilian S, Hayati B, Pishbahar E (2014) Estimation of monetary value of services in Marakan Protected Area with choice experiment method. Q J Appl Econ Stud Iran 3(10):267–290

    Google Scholar 

  • King NA (2007) Economic valuation of environmental goods and services in the context of good ecosystem governance. Water Policy 9(2):51–67. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2007.134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster K (1996) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74:132–157. https://doi.org/10.1086/259131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods, analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831.008

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Luce RD (1959) Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers of economics. Academic Press, Lodon, pp 105–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Merino-Castello A (2003) Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: contingent ranking versus choice experiment. UPF Economics and Business Working Paper No. 705. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.562982

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future

  • Molaei M (2009) Economic-environmental assessment of Arasbaran Forest ecosystem (Ph.D. Dissertation). Tehran, Iran: Tehran University

  • Moririson MD, Bennett JW, Blamey RK (1999) Valuing improved wetland quality using choice modelling. Water Resour Res 35:2805–2814. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neshat A (2015). Pricing and consumption of chemical fertilizers with an emphasis on environmental quality: the case of Varamin plain (Ph.D. Dissertation). Tehran, Iran: University of Tarbiat Moddarres

  • Odum HT (1971) Environment, power and society. Wiley-Interscience, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Onofri L, Lange GM, Portela R, Nunes PA (2017) Valuing ecosystem services for improved national accounting: a pilot study from Madagascar. Ecosyst Serv 23:116–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orme B (1998) Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies. Sawthooth Software Research Paper Series. Sawthooth Software Inc, Squim

    Google Scholar 

  • Primmer E, Furman E (2012) Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosyst Serv 1(1):85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasouli M, Tahmasebipour N (2012). The role of public participation in the development of schemes and activities of watersheds. In: Proceedings of 1st national conference on the laws of environment and natural resources of Zagros. Khoramabad, Iran: General Office of Crisis Management, Lorestan Governership

  • Revollo-Fernández DA (2015) Economic value and ancient scenic beauty: the case of Chinampas (Raised Beds) in Xochimilco, UNESCO World Heritage Site, Mexico. Nat Resour 6(04):273. https://doi.org/10.4236/nr.2015.64024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rewitzer S, Huber R, Grêt-Regamey A, Barkmann J (2017) Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps. Ecosyst Serv 26:197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynaud A, Lanzanova D, Liquete C, Grizzetti B (2017) Going green? Ex-post valuation of a multipurpose water infrastructure in Northern Italy. Ecosyst Serv 27:70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe J, Bennett J, Loviere J (2000) Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest presevation. Ecol Econ 35(2):289–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00201-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salehnia M, Hayati B, Ghahremanzadeh M, Molaei M (2014) Estimating the value of improvement in Lake Urmia’s environmental condition: application of choice experiment approach. Agric Econ Dev 27(4):267–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaafsma M, van Beukering PJH, Oskolokaite I (2017) Combining focus group discussions and choice experiments for economic valuation of peatland restoration: a case study in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Ecosyst Serv 27:150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TEEB Foundations (2010) In: Kumar P (ed) TEEB—the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB): ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London

  • Vega DC, Alpízar F (2011) Choice experiments in environmental impact assessment: the case of the Toro 3 hydroelectric project and the Recreo Verde tourist center in Costa Rica. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 29(4):252–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Vijverberg W (2011) Testing for IIA with the Hausman-McFadden Test, IZA DP No. 5826, discussion paper series, Institute for the Study of Labor

  • Yeganeh H, Rfiei H, Saleh A, Bazgir A (2016) Estimating the recreational value of Taham watershed rangelands in Zanjan by using a contingent valuation method. Agric Econ 9(4):151–175

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all who assisted in conducting this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural and Natural Resources, Ardakan University, Ardakan, Iran

    Y. Bostan

  2. Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural and Natural Resources, Ardakan University, Ardakan, Iran

    A. Fatahi Ardakani & M. Fehresti Sani

  3. Department of Rangeland Management, Faculty of Agricultural and Natural Resources, Ardakan University, Ardakan, Iran

    M. Sadeghinia

Authors
  1. Y. Bostan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Fatahi Ardakani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Fehresti Sani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Sadeghinia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Fatahi Ardakani.

Additional information

Editorial responsibility: M. Abbaspour.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bostan, Y., Fatahi Ardakani, A., Fehresti Sani, M. et al. A comparison of stated preferences methods for the valuation of natural resources: the case of contingent valuation and choice experiment. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17, 4031–4046 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-02714-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-02714-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation