IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/col/000411/011077.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluación económica de preservar el Mono Tití Cabeciblanco: Una aplicación del método de valoración contingente

Author

Listed:
  • Lili Reyes Hernandez
  • Melissa Yepes Tafur

Abstract

El Mono Tití Cabeciblanco (Saguinus oedipus) es una especie endémica que habita en los bosques tropicales localizados entre el Urabá Antioqueno y el departamento del Atlántico. La principal amenaza a esta especie es la pérdida del área de ocupación debida a los continuos cambios en el uso del suelo. En este trabajo se estima, a través del Método de Valoración Contingente, la disponibilidad a pagar y la disponibilidad a trabajar de las personas del área de influencia (Luruaco, Atlántico, y Santa Catalina, Bolívar), en proyectos que permiten conservar el bosque seco tropical y el Mono Tití. Los datos fueron recolectados a través de encuestas personales. Se halló que la disponibilidad a pagar media de las personas es de Col$3772 (unos US$2) y que la disponibilidad a trabajar es de cuatro días, aproximadamente. Los resultados indican que aquellas personas que son miembros de actividades de conservación tienen una mayor disposición tanto a trabajar como a pagar.

Suggested Citation

  • Lili Reyes Hernandez & Melissa Yepes Tafur, 2013. "Evaluación económica de preservar el Mono Tití Cabeciblanco: Una aplicación del método de valoración contingente," Revista Economía y Región, Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar, vol. 7(1), pages 69-99, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:col:000411:011077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://revistas.utb.edu.co/index.php/economiayregion/article/view/39
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Echessah, Protase N. & Swallow, Brent M. & Kamara, Damaris W. & Curry, John J., 1997. "Willingness to contribute labor and money to tsetse control: Application of contingent valuation in Busia District, Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 239-253, February.
    2. Catherine Chambers & John Whitehead, 2003. "A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 249-267, October.
    3. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clem, 2004. "The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 93-107, January.
    4. Anabeth L Indab, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Whale Shark Conservation in Sorsogon, Philippines," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper tp200711t2, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Nov 2007.
    5. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    6. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Liu, Xuemin, 2008. "Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: A policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 328-335, December.
    7. David Hoyos & Petr Mariel, 2010. "Contingent Valuation: Past, Present and Future," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2010(4), pages 329-343.
    8. Patricia A. Champ & Nicholas E. Flores & Thomas C. Brown & PJames Chivers, 2002. "Contingent Valuation and Incentives," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 591-604.
    9. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    10. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Heinke, Antonia & Duc, Nguyen Minh & Dinh, Pham Van, 2010. "Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies: how good is it really?," FZID Discussion Papers 13-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    11. Anne Savage & Len Thomas & Katherine A. Leighty & Luis H. Soto & Felix S. Medina, 2010. "Novel survey method finds dramatic decline of wild cotton-top tamarin population," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, December.
    12. Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
    13. Dale Whittington, 2002. "Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 323-367, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    2. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    4. J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
    5. Xiaojiong Zhao & Jian Wang & Junde Su & Wei Sun & Haoxian Meng, 2021. "Research on a Biodiversity Conservation Value Assessment Method Based on Habitat Suitability of Species: A Case Study in Gansu Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-30, March.
    6. Syed A. Shah & Dana L. K. Hoag & John Loomis, 2017. "Is willingness to pay for freshwater quality improvement in Pakistan affected by payment vehicle? Donations, mandatory government payments, or donations to NGO’s," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(4), pages 807-818, October.
    7. Jin Jianjun, 2008. "Economic Valuation of Black-faced Spoonbill Conservation in Macao," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper tp200801t2, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jan 2008.
    8. Bernd Süssmuth, 2012. "The Econometric Analysis of Willingness to Pay for Intangibles with Experience Good Character," Chapters, in: Wolfgang Maennig & Andrew Zimbalist (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Mega Sporting Events, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. John A. List & Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet, 2004. "Examining the Role of Social Isolation on Stated Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 741-752, June.
    10. Bernd Süssmuth & Malte Heyne & Wolfgang Maennig, 2010. "Induced Civic Pride and Integration," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 72(2), pages 202-220, April.
    11. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    12. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Glenn Bush & Nick Hanley & Mirko Moro & Daniel Rondeau, 2013. "Measuring the Local Costs of Conservation: A Provision Point Mechanism for Eliciting Willingness to Accept Compensation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 490-513.
    14. Groothuis, Peter A. & Whitehead, John C., 2009. "The Provision Point Mechanism and Scenario Rejection in Contingent Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 271-280, October.
    15. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's 'Dubious to Hopeless' Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    16. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2016. "Constructing markets: environmental economics and the contingent valuation controversy," MPRA Paper 78814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    18. Vondolia, Godwin K. & Navrud, Ståle, 2019. "Are non-monetary payment modes more uncertain for stated preference elicitation in developing countries?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 73-87.
    19. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Heinke, Antonia & Duc, Nguyen Minh & Dinh, Pham Van, 2010. "Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies: how good is it really?," FZID Discussion Papers 13-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    20. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clem, 2004. "The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 93-107, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Mono Tití Cabeciblanco; conservación; valoración contingente; disponibilidad a pagar; disponibilidad a trabajar;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:col:000411:011077. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Economia y Region (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feutbco.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.