IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v120y2015icp296-302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An economic valuation of mangrove restoration in Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • de Rezende, Carlos Eduardo
  • Kahn, James R.
  • Passareli, Layra
  • Vásquez, William F.

Abstract

Mangrove forests are under considerable pressure in many developing countries and Brazil is not an exception to this problem. We investigate preferences for the restoration of mangrove areas in Brazil, using a choice experiment that varies the level and time of restoration. By interacting those attributes, we are able to identify nine potential scenarios that are expected to provide insight for policies and programs aimed to restore the threatened mangrove forest in the area. Conditional logit and scale heterogeneity multinomial logit models are estimated to analyze the respondents' choices. Our findings indicate that, out of the nine scenarios, respondents prefer a moderate restoration (i.e. vegetation health improvement of existing mangrove forest area) in less than 10years. There also is a strong preference for complete restoration in 11 to 20years, with complete restoration entailing vegetation health improvements and extension of the mangrove forest area of 20%. Results suggest that respondents understand that there are tradeoffs between levels and time of restoration.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:120:y:2015:i:c:p:296-302
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915004279
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.019?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. Lankia, Tuija & Neuvonen, Marjo & Pouta, Eija & Sievänen, Tuija, 2014. "Willingness to contribute to the management of recreational quality on private lands in Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 141-160.
    2. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    3. Danielle Hagerty & Klaus Moeltner, 2005. "Specification of Driving Costs in Models of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
    4. Young-Sook Eom & Douglas Larson, 2006. "Valuing housework time from willingness to spend time and money for environmental quality improvements," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 205-227, September.
    5. Frank J. Cesario, 1976. "Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 52(1), pages 32-41.
    6. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    7. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    8. Barbier, Edward B., 2000. "Valuing the environment as input: review of applications to mangrove-fishery linkages," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 47-61, October.
    9. Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Jarvis, Lovell S. & Larson, Douglas M., 2014. "Using a choice experiment framework to value conservation-contingent development programs: An application to Botswana," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 39-48.
    10. Yuanyuan Gu & Arne Risa Hole & Stephanie Knox, 2013. "Fitting the generalized multinomial logit model in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(2), pages 382-397, June.
    11. Casey, James F. & Kahn, James R. & Rivas, Alexandre A.F., 2008. "Willingness to accept compensation for the environmental risks of oil transport on the Amazon: A choice modeling experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 552-559, November.
    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. Meginnis, Keila & Hanley, Nick & Mujumbusi, Lazaaro & Lamberton, Poppy H.L., 2020. "Non-monetary numeraires: Varying the payment vehicle in a choice experiment for health interventions in Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    2. Pearson, Jasmine & McNamara, Karen E. & Nunn, Patrick D., 2019. "Gender-specific perspectives of mangrove ecosystem services: Case study from Bua Province, Fiji Islands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Matthew Oliver Ralp Dimal & Victor Jetten, 2020. "Analyzing preference heterogeneity for soil amenity improvements using discrete choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 1323-1351, February.
    4. Wan-Yu Liu & Yen-Yu Lin & Han-Shen Chen & Chi-Ming Hsieh, 2019. "Assessing the Amenity Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: Perspectives from the Use of Sustainable Green Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-23, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Ranjan, Ram, 2019. "Optimal mangrove restoration through community engagement on coastal lands facing climatic risks: The case of Sundarbans region in India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 736-749.
    7. Su, Jie & Gasparatos, Alexandros, 2024. "Assessing the heterogeneity of public acceptability for mangrove restoration through a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).

    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. Wendong Zhang & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Do U.S. Anglers Care about Harmful Algal Blooms? A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lake Erie Recreational Anglers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 868-888.
    2. Xin Nie & Qian Chen & Ting Xiao & Han Wang, 2019. "Willingness to pay for ecological function regions protection based on a choice experiment method: a case study of the Shiwandashan nature reserve," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 813-829, March.
    3. Giacomo Pallante & Adam Drucker, 2014. "Niche Markets for Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Preference and Scale Heterogeneity Effects on Nepalese Consumers’ WTP for Finger Millet Products," SEEDS Working Papers 1414, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    4. Kocsis, Tamás & Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna, 2018. "Gazdag szegények. Időráfordítási hajlandóság a környezeti javak értékelésében [The wealthy poor - "willingness to spend time" in evaluating environmental benefits]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1154-1171.
    5. Sever, Ivan & Verbič, Miroslav & Klarić Sever, Eva, 2019. "Cost attribute in health care DCEs: Just adding another attribute or a trigger of change in the stated preferences?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Susana Oliveira & Lígia M. Costa Pinto, 2021. "Choice experiments to elicit the users’ preferences for coastal erosion management: the case of Praia da Amorosa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 9749-9765, July.
    7. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Beyene,Abebe Damte & Bluffstone,Randall & Gebreegziabher, Zenebe & Martinsson,Peter & Mekonnen,Alemu & Toman,Michael A. & Vieider,Ferdinand M., 2015. "Preferences for REDD+ contract attributes in low-income countries : a choice experiment in Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7296, The World Bank.
    8. Mulatu, Dawit Woubishet & Alvsilver, Jessica & Siikamäki, Juha, 2019. "Valuing Residents’ Preferences for Improved Urban Green Space Ecosystem Services in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia," EfD Discussion Paper 19-2, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    9. Maria Salvo & Giuseppe Cucuzza & Giovanni Signorello, 2022. "Using discrete choice experiments to explore how bioecological attributes of sites drive birders’ preferences and willingness to travel," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 24(2), pages 119-146, April.
    10. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    11. Laura Enthoven & Goedele Van den Broeck, 2021. "Promoting Food Safety in Local Value Chains: The Case of Vegetables in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Tobias Börger, 2016. "Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 389-413, October.
    13. Crooker, John R., 2007. "Nonparametric Bounds on Welfare with Measurement Error in Prices: Techniques for Non-Market Resource Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 239-252, October.
    14. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    15. Schaak, Henning & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Public preferences for pasture landscapes and the role of scale heterogeneity," FORLand Working Papers 04 (2018), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    16. Pedro Ramos & Hélio Alves & Paulo Guimarães & Maria A. Ferreira, 2017. "Junior doctors’ medical specialty and practice location choice: simulating policies to overcome regional inequalities," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(8), pages 1013-1030, November.
    17. Kailu Wang & Eliza Lai-Yi Wong & Amy Yuen-Kwan Wong & Annie Wai-Ling Cheung & Eng-Kiong Yeoh, 2022. "Preference of Older Adults for Flexibility in Service and Providers in Community-Based Social Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-13, January.
    18. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    19. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    20. Arthur, Lilian & Vondolia, Godwin Kofi & Dasmani, Isaac, 2024. "Superstition and attitudes towards restoration of a mining-degraded forest reserve: Evidence from Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(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:ecolec:v:120:y:2015:i:c:p:296-302. 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.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.