IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i21p6184-d283879.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using RPL Model to Probe Trade-Offs among Negative Externalities of Controlling Invasive Species

Author

Listed:
  • Tzu-Ming Liu

    (Graduate Institute of Marine Affairs, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan)

Abstract

This empirical study uses the choice experiment method to analyze the preferences of national park (NP) visitors regarding the negative externalities of NP measures to prevent and control invasive alien species (IAS). In addition, it estimates the visitor responses to the trade-offs between various negative externalities and the prices visitors are willing to pay. Based on these trade-offs and the willing-to-pay prices, NPs can plan IAS prevention that has the least impact on visitors. Adopting visitors to Taiwan’s Shei-Pa National Park as the survey respondents, this paper uses a stratified random sampling method to select the survey time and applies systematic sampling to select respondents during the survey period. A total of 602 questionnaires and 2998 observations were obtained. The results reveal that visitors believe that the negative externalities of IAS have a significant impact on them. However, their preference for prevention and control outweighs their preference for no prevention and control measures. In terms of the negative externalities associated with IAS prevention and control, visitors award priority to avoidance of ecological disturbance and harm to visitor health, and are more likely to accept the reduction of recreational area.

Suggested Citation

  • Tzu-Ming Liu, 2019. "Using RPL Model to Probe Trade-Offs among Negative Externalities of Controlling Invasive Species," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:6184-:d:283879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6184/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/6184/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McIntosh, Christopher R. & Shogren, Jason F. & Finnoff, David C., 2010. "Invasive species and delaying the inevitable: Valuation evidence from a national survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 632-640, January.
    2. Burnett, Kimberly M. & D'Evelyn, Sean & Kaiser, Brooks A. & Nantamanasikarn, Porntawee & Roumasset, James A., 2008. "Beyond the lamppost: Optimal prevention and control of the Brown Tree Snake in Hawaii," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 66-74, August.
    3. Bolhaar, Jonneke & Lindeboom, Maarten & van der Klaauw, Bas, 2012. "A dynamic analysis of the demand for health insurance and health care," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 669-690.
    4. 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.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    6. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    7. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    8. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Kessels, Roselinde, 2016. "Homogeneous versus heterogeneous designs for stated choice experiments: Ain't homogeneous designs all bad?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 2-9.
    10. Rischatsch, Maurus, 2015. "Who joins the network? Physicians’ resistance to take budgetary co-responsibility," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 109-121.
    11. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    12. Mwebaze, P. & MacLeod, A. & Tomlinson, D. & Barois, H. & Rijpma, J., 2010. "Economic valuation of the influence of invasive alien species on the economy of the Seychelles islands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2614-2623, October.
    13. Beville, Stephen T. & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2012. "Valuing impacts of the invasive alga Didymosphenia geminata on recreational angling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 1-10.
    14. Corey J. A. Bradshaw & Boris Leroy & Céline Bellard & David Roiz & Céline Albert & Alice Fournier & Morgane Barbet-Massin & Jean-Michel Salles & Frédéric Simard & Franck Courchamp, 2016. "Massive yet grossly underestimated global costs of invasive insects," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, December.
    15. Raja Chakir & Maia David & Estelle Gozlan & Aminata Sangare, 2016. "Valuing the Impacts of An Invasive Biological Control Agent: A Choice Experiment on the Asian Ladybird in France," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 619-638, September.
    16. Bithas, Kostas & Latinopoulos, Dionysis & Kolimenakis, Antonis & Richardson, Clive, 2018. "Social Benefits From Controlling Invasive Asian Tiger and Native Mosquitoes: A Stated Preference Study in Athens, Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 46-56.
    17. Tzu-Ming Liu & Chia-Mei Tien, 2019. "Assessing Tourists’ Preferences of Negative Externalities of Environmental Management Programs: A Case Study on Invasive Species in Shei-Pa National Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-11, May.
    18. Adams, Damian C. & Bwenge, Anafrida N. & Lee, Donna J. & Larkin, Sherry L. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2011. "Public preferences for controlling upland invasive plants in state parks: Application of a choice model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 465-472, July.
    19. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    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. Helen K. Liu & Chung-Chi Lin & Li-Hsin Huang & Sin-An Huang & Rong-Nan Huang, 2020. "Eradication and Control Strategies for Red Imported Fire Ants ( Solenopsis invicta ) in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Tzu-Ming Liu & I-Jean Chen & Ho-Ching Jenny Yuan, 2021. "Using Stated Preference Valuation to Support Sustainable Marine Fishery Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, April.

    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. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    2. Yao, Richard T. & Wallace, Lisa, 2024. "A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    4. 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).
    5. Engelman, Marc & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2018. "Hunters' trade-off in valuation of different game animals in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 73-81.
    6. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Mat Alipiah, Roseliza & Anang, Zuraini & Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub & Smart, James C. R. & Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie, 2018. "Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(2), pages 253-266.
    8. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Jha,Prakash & Adhikari,Bhim & Bista,Rajesh & Bluffstone,Randall & uintel,Harisharan & Martinsson,Peter & Paudel,Naya Sharma & Somanathan,E. & Toman,Michael A., 2015. "Community managed forest groups and preferences for REDD contract attributes: a choice experiment survey of communities in Nepal," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7326, The World Bank.
    9. 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.
    10. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    11. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    12. Tzu-Ming Liu & Chia-Mei Tien, 2019. "Assessing Tourists’ Preferences of Negative Externalities of Environmental Management Programs: A Case Study on Invasive Species in Shei-Pa National Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-11, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    15. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    16. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    17. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    18. Giovanni B Concu, 2009. "Measuring Environmental Externality Spillovers through Choice Modelling," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 199-212, January.
    19. Guimarães, Maria Helena & Nunes, Luís Catela & Madureira, Lívia & Santos, José Lima & Boski, Tomasz & Dentinho, Tomaz, 2015. "Measuring birdwatchers preferences: A case for using online networks and mixed-mode surveys," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 102-113.
    20. Cheng Zong & Kun Cheng & Chun-Hung Lee & Nai-Lun Hsu, 2017. "Capturing Tourists’ Preferences for the Management of Community-Based Ecotourism in a Forest Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:6184-:d:283879. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.