IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecanpo/v71y2021icp123-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholders’ use and preservation valuation of lagoon ecosystems

Author

Listed:
  • Suresh, Kanesh
  • Khanal, Uttam
  • Wilson, Clevo

Abstract

Globally, lagoons are among the most productive and valuable ecosystems. Human pressure on lagoon ecosystems and their exploitation has been rapidly increasing in recent years. Stakeholder awareness of the existence of lagoon resources and their future potential is vital for future sustainability. This paper explores how and in what circumstances stakeholder preferences relating to lagoon resources differ among key users — fishermen, recreational visitors’ and residents who are subjected to flood damage. In particular, we assess stakeholders’ preferences for lagoon conservation and their deterioration. This is achieved by employing a discrete choice experiment involving 432 respondents using two phases of a repeated survey in Sri Lanka. Our findings suggest that various stakeholders’ perceived value of conservation attributes differ based on their own interest rather than holistic conservation benefits. Moreover, we find that fish diversity, the extent of mangrove coverage, flora and fauna and flood control are the most significant resources in the lagoon ecosystem. This study indicates that lagoon users are seeking greater compensation compared to contributions sought for lagoons’ perceived future benefits. These findings contribute to a growing body of empirical work which points to the heterogeneity of lagoon users’ preferences and from its various stakeholders. This study suggests that ecosystem management strategies should be based on how its various users value its potential benefits rather than on holistic conservation beliefs and attitudes.

Suggested Citation

  • Suresh, Kanesh & Khanal, Uttam & Wilson, Clevo, 2021. "Stakeholders’ use and preservation valuation of lagoon ecosystems," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 123-137.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecanpo:v:71:y:2021:i:c:p:123-137
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eap.2021.04.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S031359262100062X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eap.2021.04.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whittington, Dale, 1998. "Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 21-30, January.
    2. Do, Thang Nam & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "Estimating wetland biodiversity values: a choice modelling application in Vietnam's Mekong River Delta," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 163-186, April.
    3. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    4. McFadden, Daniel L., 1984. "Econometric analysis of qualitative response models," Handbook of Econometrics, in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 24, pages 1395-1457, Elsevier.
    5. Kularatne, Thamarasi & Wilson, Clevo & Lee, Boon & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Tourists’ before and after experience valuations: A unique choice experiment with policy implications for the nature-based tourism industry," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 529-543.
    6. José F. Rodríguez & Patricia M. Saco & Steven Sandi & Neil Saintilan & Gerardo Riccardi, 2017. "Potential increase in coastal wetland vulnerability to sea-level rise suggested by considering hydrodynamic attenuation effects," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, January.
    8. Silva, E. I. L. & Katupotha, J. & Amarasinghe, O. & Manthrithilake, Herath & Ariyaratne, Ranjith, 2013. "Lagoons of Sri Lanka: from the origins to the present," IWMI Books, Reports H046256, International Water Management Institute.
    9. Jérôme Dupras & Jérémy Laurent-Lucchetti & Jean-Pierre Revéret & Laurent DaSilva, 2018. "Using contingent valuation and choice experiment to value the impacts of agri-environmental practices on landscapes aesthetics," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 679-695, July.
    10. Hung Vo Trung & Thanh Viet Nguyen & Michel Simioni, 2020. "Willingness to pay for mangrove preservation in Xuan Thuy National Park, Vietnam: do household knowledge and interest play a role?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 402-420, October.
    11. de Rezende, Carlos Eduardo & Kahn, James R. & Passareli, Layra & Vásquez, William F., 2015. "An economic valuation of mangrove restoration in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 296-302.
    12. Boyce, Rebecca R, et al, 1992. "An Experimental Examination of Intrinsic Values as a," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1366-1373, December.
    13. Clem Tisdell & Clevo Wilson, 2012. "Nature-based Tourism and Conservation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13773.
    14. Köhlin, Gunnar, 2001. "Contingent valuation in project planning and evaluation: the case of social forestry in Orissa, India," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 237-258, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2022. "Understanding the public’s perceptions of the importance, management, and conservation of biodiversity," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 262-270.
    2. Li, Yuxin & Yao, Zili & Guo, Zhanfeng, 2023. "Willingness to pay and preferences for rural tourism attributes among urban residents: A discrete choice experiment in China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 460-471.

    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. Schaafsma, M. & van Beukering, P.J.H. & Oskolokaite, I., 2017. "Combining focus group discussions and choice experiments for economic valuation of peatland restoration: A case study in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 150-160.
    2. Tran Huu Tuan, 2007. "Valuing the Economic Benefits of Preserving Cultural Heritage: The My Son Sanctuary World Heritage Site in Vietnam," EEPSEA Research Report rr2007072, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Jul 2007.
    3. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    4. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    5. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    6. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    7. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    8. Nthambi, Mary & Wätzold, Frank & Markova-Nenova, Nonka, 2018. "Quantifying benefit losses from poor governance of climate change adaptation projects: A discrete choice experiment with farmers in Kenya," MPRA Paper 94678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Fedrigotti Valérie Bossi & Troiano Stefania & Fischer Christian & Marangon Francesco, 2020. "Public Preferences for Farmed Landscapes: the Case of Traditional Chestnut Orchards in South Tyrol," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 99-118, March.
    10. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    11. Agimass, Fitalew & Mekonnen, Alemu, 2011. "Low-income fishermen's willingness-to-pay for fisheries and watershed management: An application of choice experiment to Lake Tana, Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 162-170.
    12. Bass, Daniel A. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Messer, Kent D., 2021. "A case for measuring negative willingness to pay for consumer goods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    13. Lécole, Pauline & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2022. "Designing an effective small farmers scheme in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    14. Regmi, Arun & Kreye, Melissa M. & Kreye, Jesse K., 2023. "Forest landowner demand for prescribed fire as an ecological management tool in Pennsylvania, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    15. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2013. "Valuing Local Environmental Amenity with Discrete Choice Experiments: Spatial Scope Sensitivity and Heterogeneous Marginal Utility of Income," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 105-130, September.
    16. Sara Sousa & Anabela Botelho & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Marieta Valente, 2019. "How Relevant Are Non-Use Values and Perceptions in Economic Valuations? The Case of Hydropower Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, August.
    17. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    18. Prathivadi Bhayankaram Anand, 2001. "Consumer Preferences for Water Supply?: an Application of Choice Models to Urban India," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2001-145, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    19. Ekin Birol & Sukanya Das, 2010. "The Value of Improved Public Services : An Application of the Choice Experiment Method to Estimate the Value of Improved Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure in India," Development Economics Working Papers 23062, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    20. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).

    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:eee:ecanpo:v:71:y:2021:i:c:p:123-137. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/economic-analysis-and-policy .

    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.