69Estimating the Recreational Value of Lighvan Chay River Uses Contingent Valuation Method


Abstract:

According to rising attention of policy makers to economy growth without considering its harmful effects and environmental impact, the nature is being destroyed, and many species are subject to extinct. Beside this carelessness, the lack of awareness of the actual value of the environment would be another factor for ignoring the environmental issues. Hence, controlling and monitoring of the natural landscape, is critical to achieve a healthy planet containing an improved life quality. Economic valuation technique can play a significant role in human well-being towards a sustainable developed system. Economic valuation services can be used to improve the environmental policies for human well-being improvement. The aim of this research is to estimate the recreational value of the Lighvan Chay River with the use of contingent valuation method and Double–Bounded Dichotomous Choice (DDC). The results from 141 questionnaires which were surveyed and completed from by the tourists and visitors, and using estimating Logit model shows that both marital status and length of the visit, dissatisfaction of utilities and the offered bid variables were significant at 101, 21 and 11 respectively. In this paper the average willingness to pay was estimated 8500 Rials ($0.283) per visitor by using Shazam 10. Finally, the recreational annual value was estimated to 795,110,400 Rials, equivalent to US $26503.68 for Lighvan Chay River.

Keywords: economical valuation, contingent valuation, recreational value, Logit model, Lighvan Chay River

 

 

References:

  •   Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, Williams, M., (1994). Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 271- 292.

  • Azevedo, C. D., Herriges, J. A., Kling, C. L., (2003). Combining Revealed and Stated Preference: Consistency Tests and Their Interpretations,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85, 525-537.

  • Ciriacy-Wantrup S.V., (1947). Capital returns from soil conservation practices. Journal of Farm Economics; 29: 1181– 96.

  • Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J., Green, G.T., (2002). Recreation and the environment as cultural dimensions in contemporary American society. Leisure Science 24, 13 41.

  • Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., Schulze, W.D., editors, (1986). Valuing environmental goods: a state of the arts assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa, NJ: Roweman and Allanheld.

  • Davis, R., (1963). The value of outdoor recreation: an economic study of the marine woods. PhD Thesis. Harvard University.

  • Day, B., Mourato, S., (1998). Willingness to pay for water quality maintenance in Chinese rivers.  CSERGE Working Paper. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment University College London and University of East Anglia WM 98-02.

  • Desvousges, W.H., Johnson, F.R., Dunford, R.W., Boyle, K.J., Hudson, S.P., Wilson, N., (1993). Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability. In: Hausman JA, editor. Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland; p. 91– 159.

  • Diamond, P.A., Hausman, J.A., (1994). Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8: 45-64.

  • Englin, J., Cameron, T. A., (1996). Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data: Poisson regression analyses with individual panel data. Environmental and Resource Economics 7, 133-147.

  • Garrod, G.D., Willis, K.G., (1997). The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: a contingent ranking study. Ecological Economics 21: 45–61.

  • Gurluk, S., (2006). The estimation of ecosystem services’ value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: results from a contingent valuation survey. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 209–218.

  • Hanemann, W.M., (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation.  Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8: 19-44.

  • Hanley, N., Spash, C.L., (1995). Cost benefits analysis and the environment. Edward Elgar, Aldershot.

  • Layman, R., Boyce, R., Criddle, K., (1996). Economic Valuation of the Chinook salmon Sport Fishery of the Gulkana River, Alaska, Under Current and Alternate Management Plans.” Land Economics 72, 113-128.
  • Loomis, J. B., (1997). Panel Estimators to Combine Revealed and Stated Preference dichotomous choice data,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22, 233-245.
  • McFadden, D., (1986). The choice theory approach to market research. Market. Sci., 5: 275-297.
  • Mercer, E., Kramer, R., Sharma, N., (1995). Rain forest tourism: estimating the benefits of tourism development in a new national park in Madagascar. Journal of Forest Economics 1: 239–269.
  • Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resource for the Future.
  • Portney, P.R., (1994). The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives; 8: 3– 17.
  • Rosenberger, R., Loomis, J., (2001). Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Use Values: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revision), General technical report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
  • Shrestha, R.K., Stein, T.V., Clark, j., (2007). Valuing nature-based recreation in public natural areas of the Apalachicola River region, Florida. Journal of Environmental Management 85, 977–985.
  • Slee, B., (2007). Social indicators of multifunctional rural land use: the case of forestry in the UK. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 120: 31–40.
  • Smith, K.V., (1993). Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretative appraisal. Land Economics; 69: 1–26.
  • Swait, J., Adamowicz, V., van Bueren, M., (2004). Choice and temporal welfare impacts: incorporating history into discrete choice models, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47, 94–116.
  • Venkatachalam, L., (2004). The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 24 89–124
  • Wheeler, S., Damania, R., (2001). Valuing New Zealand recreational fishing and an assessment of the validity of the contingent valuation estimates, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45, 599–621.