IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea03/22009.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring Values For Wetlands Protection In A Developing Country From Domestic And International Citizen Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Allen, James C.
  • Bergstrom, John C.

Abstract

Because of pressures to convert natural areas to commercial economic development uses, protecting natural areas in developing countries is a major challenge. A developing country may desire to protect natural areas, but relatively high out-of-pocket and opportunity costs of protection may pose considerable hurdles. To help protect natural areas in a developing country, the international community often gets involved; for example, providing funds to purchase and preserve natural areas such as rain forests, river corridors and wetlands. Thus, to determine the economic feasibility of protecting a particular natural area in their country, decision-makers in a developing country may be interested in measuring the economic value (e.g., willingness-to-pay) of protection on the part of both residents and nonresidents of the country. The overall purpose of this study was to test a common methodology for measuring both domestic and international citizen groups' values (willingness-to-pay) for protecting a natural area in a developing country. The natural area studied was a wetland area called the Nariva Swamp located in the developing country of Trinidad. A common contingent valuation survey was conducted both in Trinidad and the State of Georgia, USA. The survey instrument worked well in both countries demonstrating the feasibility of administering a common valuation methodology to very different citizen groups living in developing and developed countries. The Nariva Swamp in Trinidad is one of the largest freshwater wetlands in the Caribbean, supporting a diverse population of flora and fauna, including waterfowl, anacondas, and manatees. The swamp also supports recreation in the form of hunting, fishing, and ecotourism. Furthermore, subsistence rice and vegetable farming and subsistence fishing of cascadura fish and conchs occur in the swamp. However, some commercial rice production by local residents, who do not have legal ownership of land, is causing serious environmental damage to the swamp. Overuse of water due to commercial rice production with itinerant irrigation canals has increased the influx of sea water into the swamp, thereby increasing salinity of water in the swamp. If this continues, it could be devastating for flora and fauna in the swamp, local subsistence farming and fishing, and future ecotourism benefits. In order to avoid a worst-case scenario, human activities in the swamp should be balanced to provide economic benefits while protecting the ecosystem functions and services that support these benefits. Attaining such a balance requires knowledge of Nariva Swamp values and benefit-cost analyses of swamp use and management. The contingent valuation method can be applied to measure use and nonuse values of protecting natural areas. The contingent valuation survey instrument for measuring values of protecting the Nariva Swamp to Trinidad and Georgia, USA citizens was developed jointly by researchers at the University of the West Indies and the University of Georgia. The survey instrument collected data on qualitative attitudes and preferences for Nariva Swamp protection, and quantitative data to estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) for protecting the swamp. The survey instrument was administered to a sample of general public citizens in both countries. From these data, a common valuation model was estimated and used to calculate mean WTP for Nariva Swamp protection on the part of Trinidad and Georgia citizens. The valuation model generated theoretically consistent and expected results. Trinidad respondents show a higher WTP than Georgia respondents due to greater familiarity and proximity with the Nariva swamp. In this case study, the valuation results suggest that monetary support from USA citizens for protecting the Nariva Swamp may be relatively low. Thus, the economic feasibility of protecting the swamp would likely depend mostly on a domestic analysis that compares benefits (e.g., aggregate willingness-to-pay) and costs to Trinidad citizens of protecting the swamp. Whether or not benefits to the international community should even be considered in a developing country's benefit-cost analysis of protecting a domestic natural area is open to debate and discussion. If benefits of protecting a natural area to the international community are considered by decision-makers in a developing country to be relevant and important, a question for discussion remains as to whether a different natural area in a different developing country would generate more interest and WTP for protection on the part of the international community. To obtain more insight on the causes of differences in preferences and values between developing and developed country citizens for protecting a natural area in a developing country, survey responses to a series of environmental values and attitudes questions were also analyzed. Responses to environmental value questions indicate the relative weight Trinidad and Georgia citizens place on use and nonuse values of Nariva Swamp protection. We were interested to learn if nonuse values of Nariva Swamp protection are important to Trinidad citizens, and if use values are important to Georgia citizens since part of the purpose of the overall study was to gauge the potential of the Nariva Swamp as an international ecotourism destination. Results suggest that relatively few Georgia citizens would be interested in visiting the Nariva Swamp, but very many Trinidad citizens would like to visit the swamp. Nonuse values appeared to represent a small portion of Trinidad citizens support for Nariva Swamp protection. We also compared responses from Trinidad and Georgia citizens to questions designed to assess their general environmental ethics and attitudes towards natural area protection. Research literature suggests that, generally, respondents from more economically developed countries should show a greater interest in environmental issues and natural area protection. This is due to a shift from focus on physical sustenance and safety to a broader understanding and appreciation for quality of life, based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. However, more recent research suggests this approach could be inaccurate. The survey results provide evidence of consistent environmental ethics and natural area protection attitudes on the part of Trinidad and Georgia citizens, with some notable differences that would provide for interesting debate and discussion.

Suggested Citation

  • Allen, James C. & Bergstrom, John C., 2003. "Measuring Values For Wetlands Protection In A Developing Country From Domestic And International Citizen Groups," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22009, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea03:22009
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.22009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/22009/files/sp03al03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.22009?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. Myrick Freeman III, 1985. "Supply Uncertainty, Option Price, and Option Value," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 176-181.
    2. Sun, Henglun & Bergstrom, John C. & Dorfman, Jeffrey H., 1992. "Estimating the Benefits of Groundwater Contamination Control," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 63-71, December.
    3. Max J. Pfeffer & J. Mayone Stycos, 2002. "Immigrant Environmental Behaviors in New York City," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 64-81, March.
    4. Bergstrom, John C. & Stoll, John R. & Titre, John P. & Wright, Vernon L., 1990. "Economic value of wetlands-based recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 129-147, 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. Sun, Henglun & Bergstrom, John C. & Dorfman, Jeffrey H., 1992. "Estimating the Benefits of Groundwater Contamination Control," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 63-71, December.
    2. Lei, Mingyu & Cai, Wenjia & Liu, Wenling & Wang, Can, 2022. "The heterogeneity in energy consumption patterns and home appliance purchasing preferences across urban households in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    3. Hermine Vedogbeton & Robert J. Johnston, 2020. "Commodity Consistent Meta-Analysis of Wetland Values: An Illustration for Coastal Marsh Habitat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 835-865, April.
    4. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    5. Olivier Beaumais & Anne Briand & Katrin Millock & Céline Nauges, 2010. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Better Tap Water Quality? A Cross-Country Valuation Study," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10051, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    6. Souter, Ray A. & Bowker, James Michael, 1996. "A Note On Nonlinearity Bias And Dichotomous Choice Cvm: Implications For Aggregate Benefits Estimation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-6.
    7. Zhang, Fan & Fogarty, James, 2015. "Nonmarket Valuation of Water Sensitive Cities: Current Knowledge and Issues," Working Papers 207694, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    8. Helen Kopnina, 2011. "What is (responsible) consumption? Discussing environment and consumption with children from different socioeconomic backgrounds in The Netherlands," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 216-226, September.
    9. Elgloria Harrison & Ashley D. Milton & Matthew L. Richardson, 2020. "Knowledge and Perceptions of Environmental Issues by African Americans/Blacks in Washington, DC, USA: Giving Voice to the Voiceless," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-14, November.
    10. Bergstrom, John C. & Dorfman, Jeffrey H. & Loomis, John B., 2003. "Estuary Management And Recreational Fishing Benefits," Faculty Series 16694, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    11. Zamboni, Nadia Selene & Noleto Filho, Eurico Mesquita & Carvalho, Adriana Rosa, 2021. "Unfolding differences in the distribution of coastal marine ecosystem services values among developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    12. Poe, Gregory L. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Bergstrom, John C., 2000. "A Meta Analysis Of Contingent Values For Groundwater Quality In The United States," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21871, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Glenk, Klaus & Colombo, Sergio, 2013. "Modelling Outcome-Related Risk in Choice Experiments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(4), pages 1-20.
    14. Chien, Yu-Lan & Larson, Douglas, 1991. "Measuring Supply-Side Option Price: Estimates for Preserving the Northern Spotted owl," WAEA/ WFEA Conference Archive (1929-1995) 321472, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Guizhen Ma, 2019. "Similar or Different? A Comparison of Environmental Behaviors of US-Born Whites and Chinese Immigrants," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1203-1223, November.
    16. Bockstael, N. & Costanza, R. & Strand, I. & Boynton, W. & Bell, K. & Wainger, L., 1995. "Ecological economic modeling and valuation of ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 143-159, August.
    17. Toledo, David & Briceño, Tania & Ospina, German, 2018. "Ecosystem service valuation framework applied to a legal case in the Anchicaya region of Colombia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 352-359.
    18. Charles F. Mason & Lucija A. Muehlenbachs & Sheila M. Olmstead, 2015. "The Economics of Shale Gas Development," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 269-289, October.
    19. Aric P. Shafran, 2014. "Equivalent Option Price With Supply Uncertainty," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(S1), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Hanjin Xie & Xi Tan & Chunmei Yang & Cheng Li, 2022. "Does Urban Forest Control Smog Pollution? Evidence from National Forest City Project in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-15, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:ags:aaea03:22009. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.