Estimating Willingness to Pay to Avoid Changes in Agricultural Land Use: Choice Experiment Methods

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Agricultural Economics Department, Agricultural Faculty, Urmia University

2 M.Sc. in Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Economics Department, Agricultural Faculty, Urmia University

Abstract

Population growth and rising demand for urban services have led to an expansion of the urban area and a great deal of pressure on agricultural lands to change their use and have environmental impacts. In recent years, concerns have been raised regarding the environmental impacts of manufacturing activities. Hence, there should be fundamental principles in land resource management that can balance environmental values and economic added value. In this study, using collected data from 104 inhabitants of urban and rural areas of Siahkal County and using the choice experiment method, non-use values of agricultural land were estimated according to scenarios. The results of this study showed that respondents willing to pay more for orchards and paddy lands than the default lands, which is dryland. In addition, results show that respondents have more willingness to pay for orchards than paddy fields. On the base of the results of this study, mean willingness to pay for paddy fields and orchards are 28977.99 and 42732.53 million Rials, respectively.

Keywords

References

  1. Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M. and Louviers, J. (1995). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiment versus contingent valuation. Department of Rural Economy Faculty of Agricultural, Forestry, and Home Economics University of Alberta Edmonton, Canada Rural Economy Staff Papers.
  2. Birol, E., Karousakis, K. and Koundouri, P. (2006). Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Science of the Total Environment, 365: 105-122.
  3. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P. and Liljenstolpe, C. (2003). Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 47: 95-103.
  4. Cramer, J. S. (2003). Logit models from economics and other fields. Cambridge University Press.
  5. Farizo, B.A., Joyce, J. and Solino, M. (2014). Dealing with heterogeneous preferences using multilevel mixed models. Land Economics, 90 (1): 181–198.
  6. Ghadermazy, H. and Afshari, M. (2008). Comparative analysis of urban and rural developments in the Zagros region during the last half century. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Traditional Zagros Settlements, Sanandaj. (Persian)
  7. Ghorbani, R. and  Sadr Mousavi,  M.S. (2006). Environmental impacts of the expansion of settlements Case study: The valley of Oskoo. Journal of Geography and Regional Development, 8: 137-156. (Persian)
  8. Goibov, M., Schmitz, P.M., Bauer, S. and Ahmed, M.N. (2012). Application of a choice experiment to estimate farmers preferences for different land use options in northern Tajikistan. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(5): 2-16.
  9. Hanley, N., Mourato, S. and Wright, R. (2001). Choice modeling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15: 435-462.
  10. Hashemi Bonab, S. (2012). Assessment of economic costs and environmental damage in land use change (case study: Mazandaran province). Ph.D. Thesis. Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources. University of Tehran. (Persian)
  11. Liu, X. and Wirtz, K.W. (2010(. Managing coastal area resources by stated choice experiments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 86: 512-517.
  12. Louviere, J., Henscher D. and Swait, J. (2000). Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Lynch, L. and Joshua, M.D. (2007). Economic benefits of farmland preservation: Evidence from the United States. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of Maryland, College Park.
  14. Mallawaarachchi, T. (2006). Choice modeling to determine the significance of environmental amenity and production alternatives in the community value of peri-urban Land: Sunshine Coast, Australia. Land Use Policy, 23(3): 323-332.
  15. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics, Zarembka, P. (Ed.) New York: Academic Press, 105-142.
  16. Monshizadeh, R. and Khoshhal, F. (2004). Effect of tourism on land use change in Lahijan (with emphasis on rural land). Journal of Geographical Science, 5: 85-102. (Persian)
  17. Rasul, G. (2009). Ecosystem services and agricultural land use practices: s case study of Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Available at Http://Ejournal.Nbii.Org.
  18. Sheikhi, A. (2009). The increasing risk of land use changes in the north. Farhikhtegan. (Persian)
  19. Smyth, R.L., Watzin, M.C. and Manning, R.E. (2009). Investigating public preferences for managing Lake Champlain using a choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 615-623.
  20. Statistical Center of Iran. (2006). Statistical Yearbook of the Country. (Persian)
  21. Statistics Center of Iran. (2011). Selection of the results of general census and housing population. (Persian)
  22. Zia Tavana, M.H. and Ghadermazy, H. (2009). Land use changes of peri-urban villages in urban sprawl process: case study: Naisar and Hassanabad Villages of Sanandaj. Human Geography Research, 42(68): 119-135.  (Persian)

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics