تخمین منافع اقتصادی برنامه‌های‌ احیا و حفظ تالاب جازموریان

الموضوعات : فصلنامه علمی -پژوهشی تحقیقات اقتصاد کشاورزی

عباس میرزایی ¹ , منصور زیبایی ²

1 - دانش آموخته دکتری اقتصاد دانشکده اقتصاد، مدیریت و بازرگانی دانشگاه تبریز.
2 - دانشیار دانشکده اقتصاد، مدیریت و بازرگانی دانشگاه تبریز.

تاريخ الإرسال : 02 الأربعاء , شعبان, 1439 تاريخ التأكيد : 22 السبت , ذو القعدة, 1439 تاريخ الإصدار : 14 الخميس , رجب, 1440

الکلمات المفتاحية: تمایل به پرداخت, روش ارزشگذاری مشروط, انتخاب دوگانه, ارزش اقتصادی کل, تالاب جازموریان,

ملخص المقالة :

    تالاب­ها برای ارایه خدمات اکوسیستم با ارزش ضروری هستند. برنامه­های احیا و حفظ تالاب­ها، عرضه خدمات اکوسیستمی را افزایش خواهد داد. هدف از این مقاله، برآورد ارزش کل اقتصادی برنامه­های احیا و حفظ تالاب جازموریان در استان کرمان است. داده­های مورد نیاز برای تحلیل از راه مصاحبه از 312 خانوار مناطق اطراف تالاب جازموریان در سال 1396 گرفته شد. در ابتدا، روش کوپر بمنظور طراحی بهینه برای روش ارزش‌گذاری مشروط انتخاب دوگانه مورد استفاده قرار گرفته و مقادیر پیشنهادی و اندازه نمونه متناظر با هر پیشنهاد محاسبه شد. سپس، مدل­های لاجیت و کم‌ترین مربعات معمولی به منظور محاسبه کل ارزش اقتصادی برنامه­های احیا و حفظ تالاب تخمین زده شد. نتایج نشان دادند که بر مبنای جمعیت مناطق اطراف تالاب جازموریان، ارزش کل اقتصادی برنامه­های احیا و حفظ تالاب در محدوده­ی 412/34 تا 566/63 میلیارد ریال در سال است. این تخمین­ها می­تواند جهت توجیه سطح مخارج برنامه­های احیا و حفظ تالاب جازموریان استفاده شود.   طبقه­بندی JEL: Q₂، Q₅، Q₂₄، Q₅₁، Q₅₇، Q₂₅₀.

المصادر:

 

- Amirnejad, H. Khalilian, S. Assareh, M. H. & Ahmadian, M. (2006). Estimating the existence value of North Forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method. Ecological Economic, 58(4), 665-675.

- Arrow, K. Solow, A. Portney, P. R. Leamer, E. E. Radnner, R. & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 4601-4614.

- Bateman, I. J. Carson, R. T. Day, B. Hanemann, M. Hanley, N. Hett, T. Jones-Lee, M. Loomes, G. Mourato, S. Ozdemiroglu, E. Pearce, D. W. Sugde, R. & Swanson, J. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

- Bateman, I. J. & Langford, I. H. (1997). Non-users’ willingness to pay for a National Park: An application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Regional Studies, 31(6), 571-582.

- Bishop, R. & Heberlein, T. (1979). Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures biased?. American Journal of Agricultural Economic, 61, 926-930.

- Bishop, R. Thomas, C. Heberlein, A. & Mary, J. K. (1983). Contingent Valuation of Environmental Assets: Comparison with a Simulated Market. Natural Resources Journal, 23(3), 619-633.

- Boyle, K. J. (2003). Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., Brown, T.C. (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 111e169.

- Boyle, K. L. Welsh, M. P. & Bishop, R. C. (1988). Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: Comment. Land Economic, 64, 94-98.

- Cameron, T. A. (1989). Sample design for estimator efficiency in Probit-based discrete choice contingent valuation models. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, Los Angeles.

- Cameron, T. A. & Quiggin, J. (1994). Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economic Management, 27(3), 218-234.

- Carson, R. T. (2000). Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environmental Science Technology, 34, 1413-1418.

- Cooper, J. C. (1993). Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 24, 25-40.

- Costanza, R. & Folke, C. (1997). Valuing ecosystem services with efficiency, fairness and sustainability as goals. In: Daily, G. (Ed.), Nature’s Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Island Press, Washington DC. pp. 49–70.

- Dias, V. & Belcher, K. (2015). Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: A choice experiment approach. Ecosystem Services, 15, 35-44.

- Duffield, J. W. & Patterson, D. A. (1991). Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice Contingent valuation. Land Economic, 67(2), 225.

- Haab, T. C. & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

- Hanemann, M. & Loomis, J. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(4), 1255.

- Hassan, S. (2017). Environmental attitudes and preference for wetland conservation in Malaysia. Journal for Nature Conservation, 37, 133-145.

- Jeanty, P. W. Haab, T. & Hitzhusen, F. (2007). Willingness to Pay for Biodiesel in Diesel Engines: A Stochastic Double Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey (Annual Meeting No. Selected Paper 174514). Portland, Oregon: American Agricultural Economics Association.

- Johnston, R. J. Boyle, K. J. Adamowicz, W. & Bennett, J. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4(2), 319-405.

- Kolstad, C. (2000). Environmental Economics. Axford University Press.

- Loomis, J. Kent, P. Strange, L. Fausch, K. & Covich, A. (2000). Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics, 33, 103-117.

- MacMillan, D. Hanley, N. & Lienhoop, N. (2006). Contingent valuation: Environmental polling or preference engine. Ecological Economics, 60, 299-307.

- Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R.T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. Resource for the Future, Washington, DC.

- Ndebele, T. (2009). Economic non-market valuation techniques: Theory and application to ecosystems and ecosystem services (Unpublished MPhil Thesis in Economics). Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

- Ndebele, T. & Forgie, V. (2017). Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration program in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach. Economic Analysis and Policy, 55, 75-89.

- Parsons, G. & Myers, K. (2016). Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: An application to an endangered shorebird species. Ecological Economics, 129, 210-219.

- Pattison J. K. (2009). The non-market valuation of wetland restoration and retention in Manitoba. Available at: www.il.proquest.com.

- Pedroso, C. Freitas, H. & Domingos, T. (2007). Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interview. Ecological Economics, 62, 388-398

- Sagoff, M. (1988). The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

- Spash, C. Stagl, S. & Getzner, M. (2005). Exploring Alternatives for Environmental Valuation, Alternatives for Environmental Valuation. Routledge, Oxon.

- Trenholm, R. Haider, W. Lantz, V. Knowler, D. & Haegeli, P. (2017). Landowner preferences for wetlands conservation programs in two Southern Ontario watersheds. Journal of Environmental Management, 200, 6-21.

- Venkatachalam, L. (2004). The contingent valuation method: A review. Environmental Impact Assess, 24 (1), 89-124.

- Wattage, P. (2002). Effective Management for Biodiversity Conservation in Sri Lankan Coastal Wetlands, an Estimation of Economic Value for Conservation of Wetlands. CVM Report II. University of Portsmouth, UK.

- Wattage, P. & Mardle, S. (2007). Total economic value of wetland conservation in Sri Lanka identifying use and non-use values. Wetland Ecological Management, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11273-007-9073-3.

- White, P. C. L. & Lovett, J.C. (1999). Public preferences and willingness-to-pay for nature conservation in the North York Moors National Park UK. Journal of Environmental Management,55, 1-13.

- Zhongmin, X. Guodong, C. Zhiqiang, Z. Zhiyong, S. & Loomis, J. (2003). Applying contingent valuation in china to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecological Economics, 44, 345-358.