Keywords
ecosystem services
economic valuation
natural resource economics
How to Cite
##article.highlights##
- The intervals of the mean of the willingness to pay (WTP) of the parametric and non-parametric methods were compared.
- No differences were observed in the mean values of the WTP between the two methods.
- The use of non-parametric methods is recommended as a complement to the parametric method.
- Within the non-parametric methods, no differences were observed in the estimated mean.
Abstract
Introduction: Contingent valuation (CVM) is the most significant direct method for estimating the total monetary value of ecosystem services.
Aims: The parametric and non-parametric methods of estimation of the willingness to pay (WTP) were compared through the intervals of the mean, to give recommendations of use in the valuation of ecosystem services.
Materials and Methods: In order to provide support for the comparison of the methods, two case studies that applied the CVM were used. Within the non-parametric approach, the mean and variance intervals obtained with the Boman, Bostedt and Kriström formulas were compared with those obtained by the Haab and McConnell method.
Results and Discussion: The parametric and non-parametric methods can be used indistinctly to obtain the mean of the WTP, because no significant differences were observed among the estimated values. In non-parametric methods, the two approaches analyzed do not differ in the estimation of the mean, but there are differences when calculating the variances; the Haab and McConnell method generates relatively larger mean variances.
Conclusions: It is recommended to use the non-parametric method as a complement or validation of the results of the parametric method, since the latter includes socioeconomic explanatory variables of the WTP.
References
Abdullah, S., & Jeanty, P. W. (2011). Willingness to pay for renewable energy: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey in Kenya. Renewable and Sustainable Reviews, 15(6), 2974–2986. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.03.016
Ayer, M., Brunk, H. D., Ewing, G. M., Reid, W. T., & Silverman, E. (1955). An empirical distribution function for sampling with incomplete information. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 26(4), 641−647. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2236377
Azqueta, O. D. (1994). Valoración económica de la calidad ambiental (1a ed.). Madrid, España: Ed. McGraw-Hill.
Boman, M., Bostedt, G., & Kriström, B. (1999). Obtaining welfare bounds in discrete-response valuation studies: A non-parametric approach. Land Economics, 75(2), 284−294. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3147011
Cerda, U. A., & Vásquez, L. F. (2005). Differences between parametric and non-parametric estimation of welfare measures: An application to the río Claro, Talca, Chile. Panorama Socioeconómico, 23(31), 22−31. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=39903103
De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393–408. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
Del Saz, S. S., & García, M. L. (2007). Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does proximity matter? Land Use Policy, 24(1), 296–305. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.011
Haab, T. C., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hanemann, W. M., & Kanninen, B. (1999). The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV Data. In I. J. Bateman, & K. G. Willis (Eds.), Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the USA, EC, and developing countries (pp. 302–441). New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Jeanty, P. W. (2008). WTPCIKR: Stata module to estimate Krinsky and Robb confidence intervals for mean and median willingness to pay. USA: Statistical Software Components, Boston College Department of Economics. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s456965.html
Krinsky, I., & Robb, A. L. (1986). On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economic and Statistics, 68, 715−719. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1924536
Mogas, J., & Riera, P. (2003). Validación del experimento de elección en la transferencia de beneficios. Hacienda Pública Española/Revista de Economía Pública, 165(2), 79−95. http://www.ief.es/documentos/recursos/publicaciones/revistas/hac_pub/165_Validacion.pdf
Perman, R., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J., & Common, M. (2003). Natural resource and environmental economics (3a ed.). United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
Riera, P., Brey, R., & Gándara, G. (2008). Diseño de pagos para aproximaciones no paramétricas en valoración contingente con formato dicotómico simple. Hacienda Pública Española/Revista de Economía Pública, 186(3), 43−60. http://www.ief.es/documentos/recursos/publicaciones/revistas/hac_pub/186_DisenoPagos.pdf
Sánchez, J. (2008). Disponibilidad a pagar por la conservación del bosque amazónico por parte de usuarios indirectos. Revista economía y administración, 71, 59−84. http://www2.udec.cl/~rea/REVISTA%20PDF/Rev71/art3.pdf
Soncco, M. C., & Armas, B. A. (2008). Aproximación paramétrica y no paramétrica para la estimación de la disposición a pagar por servicios ambientales. Anales científicos, 69(3), 87–94. http://www.revistascientificasunalm.org/index.php/cientificos/article/view/219
StataCorp LLC. (2015). Stata. Data analysis and statistical software. USA: Author.
Tallis, H., & Polasky, S. (2009). Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural resource management. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1162, 265−283. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04152.x
Valdivia, A. R., García, A. E., López, S. M. A., Hernández, O. J., & Rojano, A. A. (2011). Valoración económica por la rehabilitación del río Axtla, S. L. P. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente, 17(3), 333−342. doi: https://doi.org/10.5154/r.rchscfa.2010.07.045
Valdivia, A. R., Abelino, T. G., López, S. M. A., & Zavala, P. M. J. (2012). Valoración económica del reciclaje de desechos urbanos. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente, 17(3), 435−447. doi: https://doi.org/10.5154/r.rchscfa.2010.07.044
Vaughan, W. J., & Rodríguez, D. J. (2000). A note on obtaining welfare bounds in referendum contingent valuation studies. https://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/4748
Villena, M. G., & Lafuente, E. (2013). Valoración económica de bienes ambientales por beneficiarios circundantes y no circundantes. Cuadernos de Economía, 32(59), 67−102. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=282126853005
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2017 Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente