IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v22y2020i2d10.1007_s10668-018-0250-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing preference heterogeneity for soil amenity improvements using discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Oliver Ralp Dimal

    (University of Twente)

  • Victor Jetten

    (University of Twente)

Abstract

Understanding the soil’s economic value is essential in promoting stakeholder participation for its sustainable use and efficient management. However, its less tangible ecological functions have not been measured by conventional market-based valuation approaches. From the decision-making perspective, indirect-use value provides a robust apparatus for examining soil-use alternative and management options. In this study, we analyzed the value of specific soil ecosystem services as indicated by the stakeholders’ willingness to pay (WTP) for soil amenity improvements. Using a choice experiment in the Philippine town of Norzagaray, Bulacan, we analyzed the motivations and preferences in soil utility and conservation. Our results showed that in general, the respondents have a positive attitude toward spending for soil improvements. Preference heterogeneity was found to be influenced by spatial determinants and by the socio-demographic characteristics of individual respondents. The results revealed that the respondent’s education, income level, and environmental awareness had significant influence on stakeholders’ preference and WTP values. Spatial determinants including environmental risks and proximity to amenities were likewise found to explain preference heterogeneity. Despite methodological limitations, this study improves our understanding of soil’s explicit value, stakeholder perception, and preference variability, which is useful in designing and implementing more sustainable soil-use management and conservation initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10668-018-0250-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-018-0250-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-018-0250-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-018-0250-8?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. Farnsworth, K.D. & Adenuga, A.H. & de Groot, R.S., 2015. "The complexity of biodiversity: A biological perspective on economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 350-354.
    2. Kliebenstein, James, 2012. "Multiple Approaches to Valuation of Conservation Design and Low-Impact Development Features in Residential Subdivisions," Staff General Research Papers Archive 35968, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. David Pimentel, 2006. "Soil Erosion: A Food and Environmental Threat," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 119-137, February.
    4. Morse-Jones, Sian & Bateman, Ian J. & Kontoleon, Andreas & Ferrini, Silvia & Burgess, Neil D. & Turner, R. Kerry, 2012. "Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 9-18.
    5. Colombo, Sergio & Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick, 2013. "What are the consequences of ignoring attributes in choice experiments? Implications for ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 25-35.
    6. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2012. "Does one size fit all? Heterogeneity in the valuation of community forestry programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 85-94.
    7. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    8. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline & Burdon, Daryl & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Austen, Melanie C., 2014. "Valuing conservation benefits of an offshore marine protected area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 229-241.
    9. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    10. Viteri Mejía, César & Brandt, Sylvia, 2015. "Managing tourism in the Galapagos Islands through price incentives: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-11.
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    12. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    13. Daniel, Vanessa E. & Florax, Raymond J.G.M. & Rietveld, Piet, 2009. "Flooding risk and housing values: An economic assessment of environmental hazard," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 355-365, December.
    14. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    15. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    16. Alex Bowen & Nicholas Stern, 2010. "Environmental policy and the economic downturn," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 26(2), pages 137-163, Summer.
    17. Cai, Beilei & Cameron, Trudy Ann & Gerdes, Geoffrey R., 2011. "Distal order effects in stated preference surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1101-1108, April.
    18. Bowen, Alex & Stern, Nicholas, 2010. "Environmental policy and the economic downturn," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37589, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Termansen, Mette & McClean, Colin J. & Jensen, Frank Søndergaard, 2013. "Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 48-57.
    20. 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.
    21. Wünscher, Tobias & Engel, Stefanie & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 822-833, May.
    22. Veronesi, Marcella & Chawla, Fabienne & Maurer, Max & Lienert, Judit, 2014. "Climate change and the willingness to pay to reduce ecological and health risks from wastewater flooding in urban centers and the environment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-10.
    23. Kousky, Carolyn & Walls, Margaret, 2014. "Floodplain conservation as a flood mitigation strategy: Examining costs and benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 119-128.
    24. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    25. Caf, . "CAF's Environmental Strategy," Books, CAF Development Bank Of Latinamerica, number 504.
    26. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Robinson, Jackie & Kaneko, Shinji & Komatsu, Satoru, 2013. "Estimating the value of economic benefits associated with adaptation to climate change in a developing country: A case study of improvements in tropical cyclone warning services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 117-128.
    27. Bienabe, Estelle & Hearne, Robert R., 2006. "Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 335-348, December.
    28. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    29. Tapsuwan, Sorada & Polyakov, Maksym & Bark, Rosalind & Nolan, Martin, 2015. "Valuing the Barmah–Millewa Forest and in stream river flows: A spatial heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent (SHAC) approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 98-105.
    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. Francisco José Areal, 2024. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Soil Quality Protection and Improvement," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, July.

    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. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    2. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    3. Abbie A. Rogers & Fiona L. Dempster & Jacob I. Hawkins & Robert J. Johnston & Peter C. Boxall & John Rolfe & Marit E. Kragt & Michael P. Burton & David J. Pannell, 2019. "Valuing non-market economic impacts from natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 99(2), pages 1131-1161, November.
    4. Ladenburg, Jacob & Hevia-Koch, Pablo & Petrović, Stefan & Knapp, Lauren, 2020. "The offshore-onshore conundrum: Preferences for wind energy considering spatial data in Denmark," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2021. "Urban forests valuation and environmental disposition: The case of Puerto Rico," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    7. Colombo, Sergio & Calatrava-Requena, Javier & Hanley, Nick, 2006. "Analysing the social benefits of soil conservation measures using stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 850-861, July.
    8. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    9. Westerberg, Vanja Holmquist & Lifran, Robert & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2010. "To restore or not? A valuation of social and ecological functions of the Marais des Baux wetland in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2383-2393, October.
    10. Baker, K. & Baylis, K. & Bull, G.Q. & Barichello, R., 2019. "Are non-market values important to smallholders' afforestation decisions? A psychometric segmentation and its implications for afforestation programs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 1-13.
    11. 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," Working Papers 2010-051, Madras School of Economics,Chennai,India.
    12. Wakita, Kazumi & Kurokura, Hisashi & Oishi, Taro & Shen, Zhonghua & Furuya, Ken, 2019. "Exploring the effect of psychometric variables on willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services: A survey in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 130-138.
    13. Stoeckl, Natalie & Farr, Marina & Larson, Silva & Adams, Vanessa M. & Kubiszewski, Ida & Esparon, Michelle & Costanza, Robert, 2014. "A new approach to the problem of overlapping values: A case study in Australia׳s Great Barrier Reef," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 61-78.
    14. Kehinde, M. O. & Shittu, A. M. & Osunsina, I. O. O., 2019. "Willingness to Accept Incentives for a Shift to Climate-Smart Agriculture among Lowland Rice Farmers in Nigeria," Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 9(1), October.
    15. Boscow Okumu & Edwin Muchapondwa & Herbert Ntuli, 2018. "Can local communities afford full control over wildlife conservation? The Case of CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe," Working Papers 766, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    16. Thiagu Ranganathan & Sarthak Gaurav & Ashish Singh, 2016. "Demand for Price Insurance among Farmers in India: A Choice Experiment-based Approach," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 10(2), pages 198-224, May.
    17. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Tibesigwa, Byela & Ntuli, Herbert & Muta, Telvin, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Nature Restoration and Conservation in Sub-Saharan African Cities: The Case of Forests, Rivers and Coasts in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania," EfD Discussion Paper 23-7, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    19. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    20. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2016. "Classification and valuation of soil ecosystem services," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 24-38.

    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:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10668-018-0250-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.