Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:08:10.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating wetland biodiversity values: a choice modelling application in Vietnam's Mekong River Delta

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2009

THANG NAM DO  and
JEFF BENNETT
THANG NAM DO*
Affiliation:
Ph.D. candidate, Environmental Management and Development Program, Crawford School of Economics and Government, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia. Email: [email protected].
JEFF BENNETT
Affiliation:
Professor and Director, Environmental Management and Development Program, Crawford School of Economics and Government, Australian National University. Email: [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A lack of information on environmental protection values, especially non-market values, has contributed to wetland degradation in the Mekong River Delta. To fill this information gap, this study uses choice modelling to estimate the biodiversity protection values of Tram Chim National Park, a typical wetland ecosystem of the Delta. The estimated net social benefit of a proposed protection program ranges from USD0.52 million to USD1.84 million. This suggests that the program's implementation would improve social welfare. Some choice modelling issues, including the use of focus groups, aspects of questionnaire designs, and different survey modes, are discussed in the context of a developing country application.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 163 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aadland, D. and Caplan, A.J. (2006), ‘Cheap talk reconsidered: new evidence from CVM’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 60: 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbier, E.B., Acreman, M., and Knowler, D. (1997), ‘Economic valuation of wetlands: a guide for policy makers and planners’, Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. and Blamey, R. (2001), ‘Strengths and weaknesses of environmental choice modelling’, in Bennett, J. and Blamey, R. (eds), The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 227–242.Google Scholar
Bennett, J., Van Bueren, M., and Whitten, S. (2004), ‘Estimating society's willingness to pay to maintain viable rural communities’, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 48: 487–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birol, E. and Cox, V. (2007), ‘Using choice experiments to design wetland management programmes: the case of Severn Estuary wetland, UK’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50: 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birol, E., Karousakis, K., and Koundouri, P. (2006), ‘Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece’, Ecological Economics 60: 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, K.J. and Bishop, R.C. (1987), ‘Valuing wildlife in benefit–cost analysis: a case study involving endangered species’, Water Resources Research 23: 943–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boxall, P. and Adamowicz, V. (2002), ‘Understanding heterogenuous preferences in random utility models: the use of latent class analysis’, Environmental and Resource Economics 23: 421–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckton, S.T., Cu, N., Quynh, H.Q., and Tu, N.D. (1999), ‘The conservation of key wetlands site in the Mekong Delta’, Birdlife International Vietnam Conservation Program Report No. 12, Birdlife International Vietnam Program, Hanoi, Vietnam.Google Scholar
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., and Liljenstolpe, C. (2003), ‘Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments’, Ecological Economics 47: 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo, S., Calatrava-Requena, J., and Hanley, N. (2007), ‘Testing choice experiment for benefit transfer with preference heterogeneity’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89: 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, J., Whittington, D., Do, G.C., Johnson, F.R., and Nyamete, A. (2007), ‘Reliability of stated preferences for cholera and typhoid vaccines with time to think in Hue, Vietnam’, Economic Inquiry 45: 100–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, R.G. and Taylor, L.O. (1999), ‘Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for contingent valuation method’, American Economic Review 89: 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, R.S., Stuip, M.A.M., Finlayson, C.M., and Davidson, N. (2006), Valuing Wetlands: Guidance for Valuing the Benefits Derived from Wetland Ecosystem Services, Ramsar Technical Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27, Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Do, N.T. (2007), ‘Impacts of dykes on wetland values: a case study in the Plain of Reeds, Vietnam's Mekong River Delta’, Research Report, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), Singapore.Google Scholar
Do, N.T. and Bennett, J. (2005), ‘Economic valuation of wetlands in Vietnam's Mekong Delta: a case study of direct use values in Camau province’, Occasional Paper, Environment Management and Development Program, APSEG, ANU, Canberra, Australia http://eprints.anu.edu.au/archive/00003166/01/emd_op8.pdf.Google Scholar
Gordon, J., Chapman, R., and Blamey, R. (2001), ‘Assessing the options for the Canberra water supply: an application of choice modelling’, in Bennett, J. and Blamey, R. (eds), The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 73–92.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. (2007), Nlogit Version 4.0 Reference Guide, New York: Econometric Software Inc.Google Scholar
Hadker, N., Shamra, S., David, A., and Muraleedharan, T.R. (1997), ‘Willingness to pay for Borivli National Park: evidence from a contingent valuation’, Ecological Economics 21: 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hang, T.T.T. and An, N.T.N. (1999), ‘An economic analysis of Cangio mangrove scheme in Ho Chi Minh city’, in Francisco, H. and Glover, D. (eds), Economy and Environment: Case Studies in Vietnam, Singapore: EEPSEA, pp. 204–221.Google Scholar
Hanley, N., Mourato, S., and Wright, R.E. (2001), ‘Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation’, Journal of Economic Surveys 15: 435–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., and Adamowicz, V. (1998), ‘Using choice experiments to value the environment’, Environmental and Resource Economics 11: 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, D. (2005), ‘Does payment vehicle affect willingness to pay of Pilipino for Philippines eagle conservation’, Paper presented at the EEPSEA Biannual Workshop, Siemriep November 2005.Google Scholar
Hein, L., van Koppen, L., de Groot, R., and van Ierland, E.C. (2006), ‘Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services’, Ecological Economics 57: 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., and Greene, W.H. (2005), Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoang, H.C., Dang, T.H., Ngo, A., and Trinh, T.G. (2005), ‘The legal and institutional framework and the economic values of wetlands in the Mekong River Delta of Vietnam’, in Oh, E.J.V., Ratner, B.D., Bush, S.R., Kolandai, K., and Too, T.Y. (eds), Wetlands Governance in the Mekong Region: Country Reports on the Legal-Institutional Framework and Economic Valuation of Aquatic Resources, Penang: World Fish Center, pp. 92–132.Google Scholar
Jianjun, J., Harder, D., Nabangchang, O., Indab, A., Thuy, T.D., and Subade, R. (2006), ‘Willingness to pay for marine turtle conservation: a cross-country comparison in Asia’, paper presented at the 3rd World Congress on Environmental Economics, Kyoto, July 2006.Google Scholar
Krinsky, I. and Robb, A. (1986), ‘On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities’, Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 715–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langford, I.H., Bateman, I.J., and Langford, H.D. (1996), ‘A multilevel modelling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation’, Environmental and Resource Economics 7: 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D. (2000), Stated Choice Methods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milon, J.W. and Scrogin, D. (2006), ‘Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration’, Ecological Economics 56: 162–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M. (2000), ‘Aggregation biases in stated preferences’, Australian Economic Paper 39: 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M., Bennett, J., and Blamey, R. (1999), ‘Valuing improved wetland quality using choice modelling’, Water Resources Research 35: 2805–2814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J.J., Stenven, T.H., and Weatherhead, D. (2005), ‘Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism?’, Environmental Resource Economics 30: 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, X.V. and Wyatt, A.B. (2006), ‘Situation analysis: Plain of Reeds, Vietnam’, Mekong Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Program, Vientiane, Lao, 60 pp.Google Scholar
Othman, J., Bennett, J., and Blamey, J.R. (2004), ‘Environmental values and resource management options: a choice modelling experience in Malaysia’, Environment and Development Economics 9: 803–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacovsky, J. (2005), ‘Restoration of wetlands in the Tram Chim nature reserve’, http://horticulture.coafes.umn.edu/vd/h5015/01papers/pacovsky2.htm (13/5/05)Google Scholar
Poe, G.L., Giraud, K.L., and Loomis, J.B. (2005), ‘Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distribution’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provencher, B. and Moore, R. (2006), ‘A discussion of “Using angler characteristics and attitudinal data to identify environmental preference classes: a latent class model”’, Environmental and Resource Economics 34: 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thanh, N.C. (2003), ‘Socio-economic situation, management, rational utilization and development potentials of Tram Chim, a Wetlands Ecosystem Conservation National Park’, in Torell, M., Salamanca, A.M., Ratner, B.D. (eds), Wetlands Management in Vietnam: Issues and Perspectives, Penang: World Fish Centre, pp. 75–80.Google Scholar
Thuy, T.D. (2006), ‘Willingness to pay for conservation of Vietnamese Rhino’, paper presented at the EEPSEA biannual workshop, Singapore November 2006.Google Scholar
Torell, M. and Salamanca, A.M. (2003), ‘Wetlands management in Vietnam's Mekong Delta: an overview of pressures and responses’, in Torell, M., Salamanca, A.M., Ratner, B.D. (eds), Wetlands Management in Vietnam: issues and perspectives, Penang: World Fish Centre, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Torell, M., Salamanca, A.M., and Ahmed, M. (2001), ‘Management of wetland resources in the Lower Mekong Basin: issues and future directions’, Naga 24: 4–10.Google Scholar
Tram Chim National Park Management Board (2005), ‘Tram Chim five year work plan’, unpublished report, Vietnam.Google Scholar
Triet, T., Man, L.C., and Nga, N.T.P. (2004), ‘Impacts of mimosa pigra on native plants and soil insect community in Tram Chim National Park, Vietnam’, in Julien, M., Flanagan, G., Heard, T., Hennecke, B., Paynter, Q., and Wilson, C. (eds), Research and Management of Mimosa, Canberra: CSRIO, pp. 22–27.Google Scholar
Tuan, T.H. and Navrud, S. (2007), ‘Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates’, Environmental and Resource Economics 38: 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, R.K., Van Den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Soderqvist, T., Barendregt, A., Van Der Straaten, J., Maltby, E., and van Ierland, E.C. (2000), ‘Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy’, Ecological Economics 35: 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNDP/IUCN/MRC/GEF (2005), ‘Integrated water and fire management strategy Tram Chim National Park’, unpublished report, Vietnam.Google Scholar
UNEP/GEF (2003), ‘Vietnam wetland component: wetland socio-economic assessment in Vietnam’, http://www.unepscs.org/documents/RTF-E1/RTF-E.1–12%20Viet%20nam%20wetland.pdf (15/4/2004).Google Scholar
Vietnam Environmental Protection Agency, IUCN and MWBP (2005), Overview of Wetland Status in Vietnam Following 15 Years of RAMSAR Convention Implementation, Vietnam.Google Scholar
Vietnam General Statistics Office (2004), Statistical Year Book 2004, Vietnam: Statistics Publisher.Google Scholar
Vietnam Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (2002), Cac khia canh ve dieu kien tu nhien dat ngap nuoc o Vietnam (in Vietnamese) (Issues of Natural Conditions of wetlands in Vietnam), Vietnam: Vietnam Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.Google Scholar
Whitten, S. and Bennett, J. (2005), Managing Wetlands for Public and Social Good, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar New Horizon in Environmental Economics Series.Google Scholar
Whittington, D. (2002), ‘Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries’, Environmental and Resource Economics 22: 323–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar