Evaluation of the accuracy of benefit transfers in contingent valuation method (case study: SardabRud River)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Seyed Jamaleddin Asadabadi University, Asad Abad, Iran\

2 Assistant Professors, Department of Agricultural Economics, Seyed Jamaleddin Asadabadi University, Asad Abad,, Iran

Abstract

Benefits transfer method (BTM) uses economic data collected in a specific temporal and spatial situation to draw results about the value of goods and environmental services in another situation. One important consideration in the use of BTM is the validity and reliability of the method in estimating the error. Accordingly, the present study compared the entertainment value of the Sardab Rud River in Chalus, Iran estimated by BTM and main valuation by the contingent method to find out the error of BTM. The error is usually measured by convergent validity test. According to this test, the error is measurable when the main valuation research is carried out in a new location and is compared with the values derived from benefit transfer. In this study, It was found that the consumers’ mean willingness to pay for each recreational visit in the Sardab Rud River was estimated at 57679 IRR by BTM and 59,041 IRR by CVM (the main research in a new context) per family in 2014. Thus, BTM exhibited an error of 2.34%. Given the scientific validity of the previous study, this error is mainly caused by the error in the transfer of benefits and the measurement error has a negligible role. This low error implies the high reliability of the method

Keywords

References

  1. Andreopoulos, D., & Damogos, D. (2017). To transfer or not to transfer? Evidence from validity and reliability tests for international transfers of non-market adaptation benefits in river basins. Journal of environmental management. 185:44-53
  2. Brenner, J., Jiménez, J.A., Sardá, R., Garola, A. 2010. An Assessment of the Non-Market Value of the Ecosystem Services Provided by the Catalan Coastal Zone, Spain. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53: 27-38
  3. Bergstrom, J.C., & de Civita, P. (1996) Status of benefit transfer in the United States and Canada: A review.Can. J. Agric. Econ. 47, 79–87
  4. Brookshire, D.S., & Neill, H.R (1992). Benefit transfers: Conceptual and ethical issues. Water Resour. Res., 28, 651–655.
  5. Brouwer, R (2000). Environmental value transfer: State of the art and future prospects. Ecol. Econ., 32, 137–152.
  6. Brouwer, R., Barton, D., Bateman, I., Brander, L., Georgiou, S., Martin-Ortega, J., Narvud, S., Pulido-Velazquez, P. Schaafsma, M., & Wagtendonk, A. (2009). Economic Valuation of Environmental and Resource Costs and Benefits in the Water Framework Directive: Technical Guidelines for Practitioners. EU funded project AquaMoney.1-240.
  7. Columbo, S.; Hanley, N (2008). How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Econ. 84, 128–147.
  8. Constanza, R., Arge, R., de Groot, S., Farber, M., Grasso, B., Hannon, K., Limburg, S., Naeem, R., O ‘Neill, J., Paruelo, R., Raskin, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural. Capital Nature. 387: 253-260.
  9. Desvousges, W. H., Johnson, F. R., & Banzhaf, H. S. (1998). Environmental policy analysis with limited information: Principles and applications of the transfer method. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
  10. Figueroa, E., & Pasten., R. 2009. Country-specific Environmental Kuznets Curves: a Random Coefficient Approach Applied to High-income Countries. Estudios de Economia, 36: 5-32.
  11. Figueroa, E., & Pasten, R. 2010. A Characterization of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: The Role of the Elasticity of Substitution. Universidad de Talca. Working Paper.
  12. Florax, G.M. (2008). Methodological pitfalls in meta-analysis: Publication bias. In Comparative Environmental Economic Assessment; Florax, R.J.G.M., Nijkamp, P., Willis, K.G., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: Northampton, MA, USA; pp. 177–207.
  13. 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., Sugden, R. & Swanson, J. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. Edward Elgar publishing,inc.cheltenham.uk. Northampton, MA, USA.
  14. Ibarraran, M. E., & Rodriguez, M. 2007. Estudio Sobre Economía del Cambio Climático en Mexico. INE/ADE-008/2007.
  15. Johnston, R.J., & Rosenberger, R.S. (2010). Methods, trends, and controversies in contemporary benefit J. Econ. Surv. 24, 479–510.
  16. R. J., Rolfe. J., Rosenberger, R. S., & Brouwer, R (2015). Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values, The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources 14.
  17. I., Zha. M., Khan.S. U., Yao. L., Ullah. A., & Xu, T (2018). Spatial heterogeneity of preferences for improvements in river basin ecosystem services and its validity for benefit transfer. Ecological Indicators.93: 627-637
  18. Liu, S., Costanza, R., Troy, A., D’Angostino, J., & Mates, W. (2010). Valuing New Jersey’s ecosystem services and natural capital: A spatially explicit benefit transfer approach. J. Environ. Manag. 45, 1271–1285.
  19. López, M.T., Zuk, M., Garibay, V., Tzintzun, G., Iniestra, R., & Fernández, A. 2005. Health Impacts from Power Plant Emissions in Mexico. Atmospheric Environment 39: 1199-1209.
  20. McKinley, G., Zuk, M., Hojer, M., Avalos, M., Gonzalez, I., Iniestra, R., Laguna, I., Martinez, M., Osnaya, P., Reynales, L., Valdes, R., & Martinez, J .2005. Quantification of Local and Global Benefits from Air Pollution Control in Mexico City, Environ. Sci. Technol. 39–61.
  21. Macías, P., & Islas, J. 2010. Damage Costs Produced by Electric Power Plants: An Externality Valuation in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area. Science of The Total Environment, 408: 4511-23
  22. Mitchell, R. and Carson, R. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
  23. Navrud, S.; Ready, R. (2007). Review of methods for value transfer. In Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods; Navrud, S., Ready, R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp: 1–10.
  24. Rivers & Coastals in Law Perspective.2012. Ministry of Energy. Iran Water Resources Management Co. River and Coastal Engineering Bureau. (In Persian)
  25. Rosenberger, R.S., & Loomis, J.B. (2001). Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Use Values: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan. No. RMRS-GTR-72; USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA.
  26. Rosenberger, R.S., & Stanley, T.D. (2006). Measurement, generalization and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecol. Econ. 60, 372–378.
  27. Rosenberger, R. S., & Johnston, R. J. (2009). Selection effects in meta-analysis and benefit transfer: Avoiding unintended consequences. Land Economics, 85, 410–428.
  28. Samdeliri, A. 2014. Total Economic Valuation of Water in western of Mazandaran Province, Iran. Dissertation for the Degree of (Ph.D) In Agricultural Economics. Department of Agricultural Economics. Faculty of Agriculture. Tarbiat Modares University.1-195(In Persian with English abstract)
  29. Statistical Center of Iran. Consumer Price Index for All Consumers (years of 2012, 2013, 2014).
  30. moe.gov.ir

Yong. J., Stephen. K.S., & Michael, M (2004). "An Empirical Assessment Of Convergent Validity Of Benefit Transfer In Contingent Choice: Introductory Applications With New Criteria," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20040, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association)

Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research
Volume 52, Issue 3
August 2021
Pages 643-654

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics