• Home
  • Investigating the effect of education on environment conservation (Case study: Shirin Park, Kermanshah city)

Share To

Article Url


Manuscript ID : 13264 Visit : 146 Page: 171 - 183

10.22034/jest.2018.13264

Article Type: Original Research

Investigating the effect of education on environment conservation (Case study: Shirin Park, Kermanshah city)

Subject Areas : environmental management

Masoumeh Mansouri 1 , Ziaedin Badehian 2 , Mohammad Pashabadi 3

1 - M.Sc. Student, Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agricultural, University of Lorestan, Iran. *(Corresponding Author)
2 - Assistant Professor, Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agricultural, University of Lorestan, Iran.
3 - M.Sc. Student, Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agricultural, University of Lorestan, Iran.

Received: 2015-05-23 Accepted : 2015-12-01 Published : 2018-09-23

Keywords: Conditional valuation, Shirin Park, Education, Logit model, Question,

Abstract :

Background and Objective: In this study, the effect of education on increasing the individuals’ willingness for the conservation of Shirin Park in Kermanshah city has been investigated. Method: The required data were collected using 200 questionnaires. Also, three different informative brochures about the ecosystem of Shirin Park and its crucial role in human life were handed to 100 people as an intervention group. The control group also included 100 people. Data were analyzed using the contingent valuation method (CVM) and Logit function. Findings: Results show a significant difference between the two groups in their willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation of Shirin Park environment. Estimation of the Logit model showed that educational intervention has a significant effect on individuals’ WTP for the conservation of this ecosystem. By adding to the brochures with new information, the probability of willingness to pay increases by 0.013 units. Monthly individuals’ WTPs for conservation of the environment in the control and intervention groups were estimated as 14453 and 23423 Rials, respectively. Annual WTPs for each household were estimated as 62870.55 and 122502.29 Rials in the mentioned groups. Discussion and Conclusion: According to the results, increase of people’s information about the importance of Shirin Park would lead to a considerable increase in the visitors’ WTP for conservation of this ecosystem.

References:


  1. Amirnejhad, H. and Ataee Solout, K., 2011. Economic valuation of environmental resources, The first, Avaye Masih Press, sari, Iran, 432 p. (In Persian).
    2.
  2. Heal, G. M., Barbier, E. B, Boyle K. J, Covich, A. P., Gloss, S. P., Hershner, C. H, Hoehn, J. P., Pringle, C. M., Polasky, S., Segerso, K., Schrader- Frechette, K., 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services. Toward Better Environmental Decision- Making. The National Academies Press, Washington, D. C.
    3.
  3. Bateman. J. and Willis, K. G., 1999. Valuing Environmental Preferences Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. Oxford University Press.        
    4.
  4. Hanemann, W. M., 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4): 19-43.
    5.
  5. Dahlberg, A., 1974. Geografisk rorlighet: Sociala och economiska effecter (Geographic mobility: social and economic effect) Department of economic. University of Umea Sweden (in Swedish).
    6.
  6. Bohm, P., 1972. Estimating demand for public goods. An experiment. 3: 111- 30. European Economic Review.
    7.
  7. Spash, C. L., 2005. Economics of the environment and development. (Ed) Pushpam Kumar, Ane Book Publication, New Delhi.
    8.
  8. Costanza, R., Degroot, R., Grass, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., Oneil, R. V and Paruelo, J., 1997. The value of the world ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387: 60- 253.
    9.
  9. Hadker, N., 1997. Willingness-to-pay for Borivil National park: evidence from a contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 21: 105-122.
    10.
  10. Lee, C. and Han, S. 2002. Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks tourism resource using a contingent valuation method, Tourism Managemen: 23:531-540.
    11.
  11. Amigues, J., Boulatoff, C. and Desaigues, B., 2002. The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: A willingness to accept / willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecological Economics. 43: 17-31.
    12.
  12. Turpie, J. K. 2003. The Existence Value of Biodiversity in South Africa: How Interest, Experience, Knowledge, Income and Perceived Level of Threat Influence Local Willingness to Pay. Ecological Economics, 46: 199-216.
    13.
  13. Chen, W., Hong, H., Liu, Y., Zhang, L., Hou, X. and Raymond, M., 2004. Recreation demand and economic value: An application of travel cost method for Xiamen Island. China Economic Review, 15: 398-406.
    14.
  14. Brouwer, R. 2006. Do stated preference methods stand the test of time? A test of the stability of contingent values and models for health risks when facing an extreme event; Ecological Economics 399-406.
    15.
  15. Jin J., Wang, Z and Ran, S. 2006. Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management program in Macao; Ecological Economics 57, 430-441.
    16.
  16. Johnson, N. L. and Baltodano, M. E., 2004. The economics of community watershed management: Some evidence from Nicaragua; Ecological Economics 49, 57-71.
    17.
  17. Asheim, G. B. 2000. Green National Accounting: Why and How? Environment and Development, Economics, Vol. (5) 25-48.
    18.
  18. Fleming, C. M. and Cook, A. 2008. The recreational value of Lake McKenzie, Fraser Island: An application of the travel cost method. Tourism Management, 29: 1197-1205.
    19.
  19. Reynisdottir, M., Song, H. and Agrusa, J. 2008. Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tourism Management. 29:1076– 1083.
    20.
  20. Majnounian, H. 1995. Debates about parks, green spaces and outdoor recreations Tehran, Iran: Tehran Parks.
    21.
  21. Amirnejad, H. and Khalilian S., 2007. Estimation of the Golestan National Park's Preservation Value using the willingness to pay individuals, 6th Iranian Agricultural Economics Conference, Mashhad. (In Persian)
    22.
  22. Dashti, G. H. and Sohrabi, F., 2008. Estimated recreational value of Park of prophets of Karaj with Using Contingent Valuation Method, Journal of Natural Resources Faculty, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp. 932-921.
    23.
  23. Imami-Mibodi, A. and Ghazi, M., 2008. Estimation of recreational value of Saii park in Tehran with Using Contingent Valuation Method. Iranian Journal of Economic Research, No. 36, pp. 202-187.
    24.
  24. Khosravi, M. and Sabouhi, M., 2011. Estimation of Protective Value of Fahlian River Margin Trees Using Conditional Valuation Method, Journal of Environmental Science, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 25- Venkatachalam, L., 2003. the Contingent Valuation Method, A Review. Environmental Impact Assesssment Review, 24: 89- 124.
    25.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

_||_

  1. Amirnejhad, H. and Ataee Solout, K., 2011. Economic valuation of environmental resources, The first, Avaye Masih Press, sari, Iran, 432 p. (In Persian).
    2.
  2. Heal, G. M., Barbier, E. B, Boyle K. J, Covich, A. P., Gloss, S. P., Hershner, C. H, Hoehn, J. P., Pringle, C. M., Polasky, S., Segerso, K., Schrader- Frechette, K., 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services. Toward Better Environmental Decision- Making. The National Academies Press, Washington, D. C.
    3.
  3. Bateman. J. and Willis, K. G., 1999. Valuing Environmental Preferences Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. Oxford University Press.        
    4.
  4. Hanemann, W. M., 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4): 19-43.
    5.
  5. Dahlberg, A., 1974. Geografisk rorlighet: Sociala och economiska effecter (Geographic mobility: social and economic effect) Department of economic. University of Umea Sweden (in Swedish).
    6.
  6. Bohm, P., 1972. Estimating demand for public goods. An experiment. 3: 111- 30. European Economic Review.
    7.
  7. Spash, C. L., 2005. Economics of the environment and development. (Ed) Pushpam Kumar, Ane Book Publication, New Delhi.
    8.
  8. Costanza, R., Degroot, R., Grass, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., Oneil, R. V and Paruelo, J., 1997. The value of the world ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387: 60- 253.
    9.
  9. Hadker, N., 1997. Willingness-to-pay for Borivil National park: evidence from a contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 21: 105-122.
    10.
  10. Lee, C. and Han, S. 2002. Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks tourism resource using a contingent valuation method, Tourism Managemen: 23:531-540.
    11.
  11. Amigues, J., Boulatoff, C. and Desaigues, B., 2002. The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: A willingness to accept / willingness to pay contingent valuation approach. Ecological Economics. 43: 17-31.
    12.
  12. Turpie, J. K. 2003. The Existence Value of Biodiversity in South Africa: How Interest, Experience, Knowledge, Income and Perceived Level of Threat Influence Local Willingness to Pay. Ecological Economics, 46: 199-216.
    13.
  13. Chen, W., Hong, H., Liu, Y., Zhang, L., Hou, X. and Raymond, M., 2004. Recreation demand and economic value: An application of travel cost method for Xiamen Island. China Economic Review, 15: 398-406.
    14.
  14. Brouwer, R. 2006. Do stated preference methods stand the test of time? A test of the stability of contingent values and models for health risks when facing an extreme event; Ecological Economics 399-406.
    15.
  15. Jin J., Wang, Z and Ran, S. 2006. Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management program in Macao; Ecological Economics 57, 430-441.
    16.
  16. Johnson, N. L. and Baltodano, M. E., 2004. The economics of community watershed management: Some evidence from Nicaragua; Ecological Economics 49, 57-71.
    17.
  17. Asheim, G. B. 2000. Green National Accounting: Why and How? Environment and Development, Economics, Vol. (5) 25-48.
    18.
  18. Fleming, C. M. and Cook, A. 2008. The recreational value of Lake McKenzie, Fraser Island: An application of the travel cost method. Tourism Management, 29: 1197-1205.
    19.
  19. Reynisdottir, M., Song, H. and Agrusa, J. 2008. Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tourism Management. 29:1076– 1083.
    20.
  20. Majnounian, H. 1995. Debates about parks, green spaces and outdoor recreations Tehran, Iran: Tehran Parks.
    21.
  21. Amirnejad, H. and Khalilian S., 2007. Estimation of the Golestan National Park's Preservation Value using the willingness to pay individuals, 6th Iranian Agricultural Economics Conference, Mashhad. (In Persian)
    22.
  22. Dashti, G. H. and Sohrabi, F., 2008. Estimated recreational value of Park of prophets of Karaj with Using Contingent Valuation Method, Journal of Natural Resources Faculty, Volume 61, Issue 4, pp. 932-921.
    23.
  23. Imami-Mibodi, A. and Ghazi, M., 2008. Estimation of recreational value of Saii park in Tehran with Using Contingent Valuation Method. Iranian Journal of Economic Research, No. 36, pp. 202-187.
    24.
  24. Khosravi, M. and Sabouhi, M., 2011. Estimation of Protective Value of Fahlian River Margin Trees Using Conditional Valuation Method, Journal of Environmental Science, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 25- Venkatachalam, L., 2003. the Contingent Valuation Method, A Review. Environmental Impact Assesssment Review, 24: 89- 124.
    25.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Related articles

The rights to this website are owned by the Raimag Press Management System.
Copyright © 2021-2024

Home| Login| About Us| Contact Us|
[فارسی] [العربية] [fa] [ar]