Shahbazi, H., Samdeliri, A. (2017). Valuing Recreational Benefits in an Aquatic Ecosystem Area with Contingent Valuation Method: Case of ShirinSou Wetland, Iran. International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 7(1), 133-140.
Habib Shahbazi; Ahmad Samdeliri. "Valuing Recreational Benefits in an Aquatic Ecosystem Area with Contingent Valuation Method: Case of ShirinSou Wetland, Iran". International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 7, 1, 2017, 133-140.
Shahbazi, H., Samdeliri, A. (2017). 'Valuing Recreational Benefits in an Aquatic Ecosystem Area with Contingent Valuation Method: Case of ShirinSou Wetland, Iran', International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 7(1), pp. 133-140.
Shahbazi, H., Samdeliri, A. Valuing Recreational Benefits in an Aquatic Ecosystem Area with Contingent Valuation Method: Case of ShirinSou Wetland, Iran. International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 2017; 7(1): 133-140.
Valuing Recreational Benefits in an Aquatic Ecosystem Area with Contingent Valuation Method: Case of ShirinSou Wetland, Iran
Receive Date: 28 December 2015,
Revise Date: 12 February 2016,
Accept Date: 10 January 2017
Abstract
In this study, the recreational value of ShirinSou Wetland of the Kabodarahang County in Hamadan Province, Iran was estimated and the visitors' willingness to Pay (WTP) was measured by using Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) and One and One Half Boundmodel (OOHB) dichotomous choice (DC) questionnaire. The results show that 81 percent of investigating individuals will pay for recreational usage of the studied wetland. Estimated WTP is 44671 IRR (US$ 1.68) for each visitor. The total annual recreational value of this wetland is estimated at about 809 (million IRR) (or US$ 30348). Furthermore, the variables of proposed bids and visitors' monthly income are statistically significant at 1%; so, these two variables are considered as the most important factors affecting visitors' WTP. Also, these tow variables have negative and positive effect on WTP, respectively. Age and level of education were the next effective factors with significant impact at the 10% level. Policy makers can take these values into consideration in the decision-making process of the development of the wetlands.
Amigues, JP., Boulatoff, C., Desaigues. B., Gauthier, C., & Keith, JE. (2002). The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: A willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecological Economics, 43(1), 17-31.
Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D., Sugden, R. & Swanson, J. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. Edward Elgar publishing,inc.cheltenham.uk. Northampton,MA,USA.
Birol, E., & Cox, V. (2007). Using choice experiments to design wetland management programmes: The case of Severn Estuary Wetland, UK. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(3), 363-380.
Brouwer, R., Barton, D. N., Bateman, I. J., Brander, L., Georgiou, S., Martín-Ortega, J., & Wagtendonk, A. (2009). Economic valuation of environmental and resource costs and benefits in the water framework directive: technical guidelines for practitioners. Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Bell, F. W., & Leeworthy, V. R. (1990). Recreational Demand by Tourists for Salwater Beach Days. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 18(3), 189-205.
Boyle, K., Walsh, M., & Bishop, R. (1988). Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: Comment. Land Economics, 64(1), 94-98.
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Liljenstolpe, C. (2003). Valuing wetland attributes: An application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 47(1), 95-103.
Cooper, J. C., Hanemann, M., &Signorello, G. (2002). One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous- Choice Contingent Valuation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84 (4), 742-750.
Fatahi, A., &Fathzade, A. (2012). Preserving valuation of watershed areas using contingent valuation method (case study: Gomishan wetland). Iranian Journal of Watershed Management Science and Engineering. 5(17), 47- 52.
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(2), 183-193.
Horton, B., Colarullo, G., Bateman, I.J., & Peres, C.A. (2003). Evaluating non-user willingness to pay for a large scale conservation programme in Amazonia: a UK/Italian contingent valuation study. Environmental Conservation,30(2), 139-146.
Kosz, M. (1996). Valuing riverside wetlands: The case of the “Donau-Auen” national park. Ecological Economics, 16 (2), 109-127.
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. Ecological Economics, 33(1), 103-117.
Madani, SH., Ahmadian, M., Khaliliaraghi, M., & Rahbar, F. (2012). Estimating Total Economic Value of Coral Reefs of Kish Island (Persian Gulf). International Journal of Environmental Research, 6(1), 51-60.
Milon, J.W., Scrogin, D. (2006). Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics, 56(2), 162-175.
Mitchell, R., & Carson, R. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Washington DC, USA.
Nourikamri, A., MafiGholami, D., &Yarali, N.A. (2010). Evaluation of Recreational Valu By Using Contingent Valuation (C.V) and Zonal Travel Cost (Z.T.C) Methods (Case Study: International Wetland of Choghakhor of ChahrmahalVaBakhtiariPrivince). Journal of Wetland Ecobiology, 1(2), 37-58.
Ojeda, M.I., Mayer, A.S., & Solomon, B.D. (2008). Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui river delta. Ecological Economics, 65(1), 155-166.
Okuyama, T (2015). Valuing the Recreational Benefits of Wetland Biodiversity. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 7(6), 330-345.
Oh, C.O., Draper, J., & Dixon, A. W. (2010). Comparing resident and tourist preferences for public beach access and related amenities. Ocean and Coastal Management, 53(5), 245-51.
Oh, C.O., Dixon, A., Mjelde, J., & Draper, J. (2008). Valuing visitors’ economic benefits of public beach access points. Ocean and Costal Management. 51(12), 847-853
Pazhouyan, J., &Falihi, N. (2008).The Economic Valuation of Recreation Services of Environment Resources, Case: Anzali Wetland. Economic Research Review, 8(1), 147-171
Shrestha, R.K., Seidl, A.F., & Moraes, A.S. (2002). Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: A travel cost analysis using count data models. Ecological Economics, 42(1), 289-299.
Wang, X., Bennett, J., Xie, C., Zhang, Z., & Liang, D. (2007). Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the conversion of cropland to forest and grassland program: A choice modeling approach. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 114-125
Weldesilassie, A.B., Fror, O., Boelee, E., & Dabbert, S. (2009). The Economic Value of Improved Wastewater Irrigation: A Contingent Valuation Study in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 34(3), 428-449.
Top