[en] Rivers as a blue ecosystem have a lot of ecosystem services that awareness of the value of their services will protect them as much as possible and communities will benefit from their environmental services. In this study, Tajan river basin ecosystem services in the north of Iran was valuated. To valuate, the choice experiment method was used to estimate willingness to pay. Tajan river basin ecosystem services attributes including regulating, supporting, provisioning and cultural services and a price attribute at three levels were determined. Data from 239 resident households of Mazandaran province were used in 2017. The empirical analysis did by the conditional logit model and mixed logit model. Also, multi criteria decision making including techniques Entropy, TOPSIS and SAW used for evaluating the role and importance of the Tajan river basin ecosystem services. The findings indicated that residents were willing to pay for the conservation of Tajan river basin ecosystem services, 13.77 USD per year. It was for regulating, supporting, provisioning and cultural services of Tajan river basin, 2.62, 6.30, 2.50 and 2.35 USD per year to move away from the status quo to the improvement status respectively. Also, findings of weighting and prioritization of Tajan river basin ecosystem services with TOPSIS and SAW methods showed that supporting and provisioning services had the highest weight for the evaluation Tajan river basin ecosystem services. In other words, the residents prefer the services as the most important Tajan river basin ecosystem services. Results showed that willingness to pay can be introduced as a useful tool to investigated people's preference for conservation of river basin ecosystem services under various activities. Therefore, by determining the value of river ecosystem services, community will understand that river services are of great importance, and the application of its value in calculations related to comprehensive management of basin water resources will provide a suitable economic solution to increase user utility the river.
Disciplines :
Agriculture & agronomy
Author, co-author :
Amirnejad, Hamid; Department of Agricultural Economics, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Iran
Hosseini, Sareh; Department of Forestry, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Iran
Azadi, Hossein ; Université de Liège - ULiège > TERRA Research Centre > Modélisation et développement
Language :
English
Title :
Evaluation and valuation of tajan river basin ecosystem services
SANRC - Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University
Funding text :
The article was supported by research project funding in the Sari agricultural sciences and natural resources universities. The research project number is 02\u20132017\u201316.
Ahtiainen, H., Pouta, E., Artell, J., Modeling asymmetric preferences for water quality in choice experiments with individual-specific status quo alternatives. Water Resour. Econ 12 (2015), 1–13, 10.1016/j.wre.2015.10.003.
Alcon, F., Tapsuwan, S., Brouwer, R., Miguel, M., Adoption of irrigation water policies to guarantee water supply: a choice experiment. Environ. Sci. Policy 44 (2014), 226–236, 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.08.012.
Andreopoulos, D., Damigos, D., Comiti, F., Fischer, C., Estimating the non-market benefits of climate change adaptation of river ecosystem services: a choice experiment application in the Aoos basin, Greece. Environ. Sci. Policy 45 (2015), 92–103, 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.003.
Badura, T., Ferrini, S., Burton, M., Ferrini, S., Burton, M., Binner, A., Bateman, I., Using individualized choice maps to capture the spatial dimensions of value within choice experiments. Environ. Resource Econ 75 (2020), 297–322, 10.1007/s10640-019-00358-3.
Barbier, E., The protective value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services in awealth accounting framework. Environ. Resource Econ 64 (2016), 37–58, 10.1007/s10640-015-9931-z.
Barrena, J., Nahuelhual, L., Baez, A., Valuing cultural ecosystem services: agricultural heritage in Chiloe Island, southern Chile. Ecosyst. Serv 7 (2014), 66–75, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.005.
Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R., Swanson, J., Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. 2002, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, USA https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/economic-valuation-with-stated-preference-techniques-9781840649192.html.
Bergstrom, J., Loomis, J., Economic valuation of river restoration: an analysis of the valuation literature and its uses in decision-making. Water. Resour. Econ 17 (2017), 9–19, 10.1016/j.wre.2016.12.001.
Bliem, M., Getzner, M., Rodiga-Laßnig, P., Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. J. Environ. Manage 103 (2012), 65–73, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.02.029.
Chaikaew, P., Hodges, A.W., Grunwald, S., Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: a choice experiment approach. Ecosyst. Serv, 31, 2016, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.015.
Costa, P., Hernandez, D., 2019. The economic value of ecosystem conservation: a Discrete Choice Experiment at the Taravo River Basin in Corsica. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27804.74888.
Dashore, K., Pawar, S., Sohani, N., Verma, D., Product evaluation using entropy and multi criteria decision making methods. IJETT 4:5 (2013), 2183–2187 https://www.ijettjournal.org/archive/ijett-v4i5p169.
De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M., A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ 41 (2002), 393–408, 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7.
Dias, V., Belcher, K., Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: a choice experiment approach. Ecosyst. Serv 15 (2015), 35–44, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.07.004.
Dugstad, A., Grimsrud, K., Kipperberg, G., Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments. Environ. Resource Econ 80 (2021), 21–57, 10.1007/s10640-021-00577-7.
Enriquez-Acevedo, T., Camilo, M., Botero, R., Cantero-Rodelo, A., Pertuz, A., Suare, Z., Willingness to pay for beach ecosystem services: the case study of three Colombian beaches. Ocean Coast. Manage 161 (2018), 96–104, 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.04.025.
Garcia-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Nunes, P.A.L.D., Castro, A.J., Montes, C., A choice experiment study for land-use scenarios in semi-arid watershed environments. J. Arid Environ 87 (2012), 219–230, 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.07.015.
Garrod, G.D., Willis, K.G., Economic valuation of the environment: methods and case studies. 1999, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/economic-valuation-of-the-environment-9781840643275.html.
Hensher, D., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H., Applied Choice Analysis. A Primer. 2005, Cambridge University Press UK https://www.cambridge.org/pw/titles/applied-choice-analysis-primer.
Hosseini, S., Amirnejad, H., Azadi, H., Impacts of Hyrcanian forest ecosystem loss: the case of Northern Iran. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 22, 2024, 10.1007/s10668-023-04408-1.
Hosseini, S., Oladi, J., Amirnejad, H., The evaluation of environmental, economic and social services of national parks. Environ. Dev. Sustain 23:6 (2021), 9052–9075, 10.1007/s10668-020-01011-6.
Hu, M., Li, Z., Wang, Y., Jiao, M., Li, M., Xia, B., Spatio-temporal changes in ecosystem service value in response to land-use cover changes in the Pearl River Delta. Resources, Conserv. Recycl 149 (2019), 106–114, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.032.
Hua, J., Chen, W.Y., Prioritizing urban rivers' ecosystem services: an importance-performance analysis. Int. J. Urban plan. Dev 94 (2019), 11–23, 10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.014.
Hua, Z., Wanga, S., Baia, X., Luoe, G., Lia, Q., Wua, L., Yanga, Y., Tiana, S., Lia, Ch., Denga, Y., Changes in ecosystem service values in karst areas of China. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ, 301, 2020, 107026.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., Multiple Attribute Decision making: Methods and Applications. 1981, Springer, Berlin, 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
Johnston, R.J., Besedin, E.Y., Stapler, R., Enhanced geospatial validity for meta-analysis and environmental benefit transfer: an application to water quality improvements. Environ. Resource Econ 68 (2017), 1–33, 10.1007/s10640-016-0021-7.
Jollodar Naderi, M., Rouhi, A., Haghighi, F., Importance of the Tajan River in the conservation of species of the Southern Caspian Sea, Caspian. J. Env. Sci 1:2 (2016), 25–34 In Persian https://fcsj.areeo.ac.ir/article_108055.html.
Kahn, J., Vasquez, W., De Rezende, C., Choice modeling of system wide or large-scale environmental change in a developing country context: lessons from the Paraıba do Sul River. Sci. Total Environ., 2017, 488–496, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.059.
Kaliszewski, I., Podkopaev, D., Simple additive weighting a metamodel for multiple criteria decision analysis methods. Expert Syst. Appl 54 (2016), 155–161, 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.01.042.
Kunwara, S., Boharab, A., Thacher, J., Public preference for river restoration in the Danda Basin, Nepal: a choice experiment study. Ecol. Econ, 175, 2020, 20, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106690.
Lan, T., Huyen, N., Chien, H., Hens, L., Identification and estimation of the marine ecosystem services surrounding selected offshore islands of Vietnam. Environ. Dev. Sustain 23 (2020), 2224–2242, 10.1007/s10668-020-00671-8.
Lancaster, K., A new approach to consumer theory. J. Political Econ 84 (1996), 132–157 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1828835.
Lavelle, P., Rodríguezc, N., Arguelloc, O., Bernalc, J., Boteroa, C., Chaparroa, P., Gómezc, Y., Gutiérrezc, A., et al. Soil ecosystem services and land use in the rapidly changing Orinoco River Basin of Colombia. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ 185 (2014), 106–117.
Liu, J., Kutschke, S., Keimer, K., Kosmalla, V., Schürenkamp, D., Goseberg, N., Bol, M., Experimental characterisation and three-dimensional modelling of Elymus for the assessment of ecosystem services. Ecol. Eng., 166, 2021, 17, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2021.106233.
Lizin, R., Brouwer, R., Liekens, I., Broeckx, S., Accounting for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in a labeled choice experiment. J. Environ. Manage, 2016, 289–297, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.038.
Louviere, J., Hensher, D., Discrete choice models with experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for a unique cultural event. J. Consum. Res 10:3 (1983), 348–361.
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., Stated choice methods: analysis and application. 2000, Cambridge University Press, UK, 10.1017/CBO9780511753831.008.
Lullai, F., 1999. Evaluation of sturgeon migration in Tajan River, Eilat fisheries research institute. Final Report of the Research Project. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2488807.
Mandal, M., Roy, A., Siddique, G., Spatial dynamics in people‑wetland association: an assessment of rural dependency on ecosystem services extended by Purbasthali Wetland, West Bengal. Environ. Dev. Sustain 23 (2020), 10831–10852, 10.1007/s10668-020-01089-y.
Mann, M., Kaufmann, R., Bauer, D., Gopal, S., Baldwin, J., Vera-Diaz, M., Ecosystem service value and agricultural conversion in the amazon: implications for policy intervention. Environ. Resource Econ 53 (2012), 279–295, 10.1007/s10640-012-9562-6.
Markandya, A., Perelet, R., Mason, P., Taylor, T., Dictionary of Environmental Economics. 2001, Earthscan, UK https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/a-dictionary-of-environmental-economics.
McFadden, D., Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka, P., (eds.) Frontiers in Econometrics, 1974, Academic Press, New York https://eml.berkeley.edu/reprints/mcfadden/zarembka.pdf.
McFadden, D., Train, K., Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ 15:5 (2000), 447–470 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2678603.
MEA. Millennium ecosystem assessment, ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. 2003, Island Press https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.
Mulliner, E., Malys, N., Maliene, V., Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega 59 (2016), 146–156, 10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013.
Obst, C., Hein, L., Edens, B., National accounting and the valuation of ecosystem assets and their services. Environ. Resource Econ 64 (2016), 1–23, 10.1007/s10640-015-9921-1.
Penga, J., Liua, Y., Wua, J., Lv, H., Hu, X., Linking ecosystem services and landscape patterns to assess urban ecosystem health: a case study in Shenzhen City, China. Landsc. Urban Plan 143 (2015), 56–68, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.007.
Perni, A., Martínez-Paz, J.M., Measuring conflicts in the management of entropized ecosystems: evidence from a choice experiment in a human-created Mediterranean wetland. J. Environ. Manage 203:Pt 1 (2017), 40–50, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.049.
Pires, M., Watershed protection for a world city: the case of New York. Land use policy 21 (2004), 161–175, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.08.001.
Price, J., Janmaat, J., Sugden, F., Bharati, L., Water storage systems and preference heterogeneity in water-scarce environments: a choice experiment in Nepal's Koshi River Basin. Water. Resour. Econ 13 (2016), 6–18, 10.1016/j.wre.2015.09.003.
Pullanikkatil, D., Penelope, J.M., Palamuleni, L., Ruhiiga, T., Shackleton, Ch., Unsustainable trade‑offs: provisioning ecosystem services in rapidly changing Likangala River catchment in southern Malawi. Environ. Dev. Sustain 22 (2020), 1145–1164, 10.1007/s10668-018-0240-x pages.
Rudd, M., Andres, Sh., Kilfoil, M., Non-use economic values for little-known aquatic species at risk: comparing choice experiment results from surveys focused on species, guilds, and ecosystems. Environ. Manage 58 (2016), 476–490, 10.1007/s00267-016-0716-0.
Sieber, J., Pons, M., Assessment of urban ecosystem services using ecosystem services reviews and GIS-based Tools. Procedia Eng 115 (2015), 53–60, 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.07.354.
Symmanka, L., Nathob, S., Mathias, S., Schrödera, U., Raupach, K., Schulz-Zunkel, G., The impact of bioengineering techniques for riverbank protection onecosystem services of riparian zones. Ecol. Eng., 158, 2020, 10, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.106040.
Train, K.E., Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation, Seconded. 2009, Cambridge University Press, USA, Cambridge, 10.1017/CBO9780511805271.
Vafaei, N., Rita, A., Ribeiro, M., Luis, M., Matos, C., Data normalisation techniques in decision making: case study with TOPSIS method. Int. J. Inf. Decis. Sci 10:1 (2018), 19–38.
Wang, Y., Li, X., Sun, M., Yu, H., Managing urban ecological land as properties: conceptual model, public perceptions, and willingness to pay. Resour. Conserv. Recy 133 (2018), 21–29, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.038.
Wang, Y., Sun, M., Song, B., Public perceptions of and willingness to pay for sponge city initiatives in China. Resour. Conserv. Recy 122 (2017), 11–20, 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.002.
Wu, J., Wang, G., Chen, W., Pan, S., Zeng, J., Terrain gradient variations in the ecosystem services value of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv, 34(e02008), 2022, 15, 10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02008.
Xu, Z., Hejie, W., Weiguo, F., Xuechao, W., Peng, Z., Jiahui, R., Nachuan, L., Zhicheng, G., Xiaobin, D., Weidong, K., Relationships between ecosystem services and human well-being changes based on carbon flow (A case study of the Manas River Basin, Xinjiang, China). Ecosyst. Serv, 37, 2019, 16, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100934.
Yang, Q., Liu, G., Giannetti, B.F., Agostinho, F., Almeida, C.M.V.B., Casazza, M., Emergy-based ecosystem services valuation and classification management applied to China's grasslands. Ecosyst. Serv., 42, 2020, 101073, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101073.
Zander, K., Straton, A., An economic assessment of the value of tropical river ecosystem services: heterogeneous preferences among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Ecol. Econ 69:12 (2010), 2417–2426, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.010.
Zawadzka, J., Gallagher, E., Smith, H., Corstanje, R., Ecosystem services from combined natural and engineered water and wastewater treatment systems: going beyond water quality enhancement. Ecol. Eng., 142S(16), 2019, 100006, 10.1016/j.ecoena.2019.100006.
