Even if natural and environmental resource plays detrimental role prosperity of nations, measuring their value is highly problematic. Lack of realistic markets data to estimate its value for the goods and services necessitates the use of nonmarket valuation techniques. The meta-analysis was carried out to see the mean size effect of certain demographic, socioeconomic and institutional factors on willingness to pay of natural resources conservation and improvement. The empirical analysis review was done on about 57 published articles for total of 116 observations. The data synthesis was done from published articles include coefficients of explanatory variable and standard error, model used, value measured, study region, sample size and publication from the year of 2002 up to 2019 year. The data analyzed in excel sheet and SPSS software. The study countries were Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Guinea, Nigeria, Malaysia, USA, Iraq, China and India. The result confirmed that measurement errors and heterogeneity of case studies, interviewed resulted difference in willingness to pay estimate. The result implied inverse relationship between willingness estimate and environmental resource valued and study destination [Eat Africa]. The meta-analysis indicated mean size effect of willingness to pay defined as function of income, age, bid value, occupation, sex, knowledge, and education level of respondents. The empirical analysis result showed that increasing awareness, enabling to expand income earning believed to increase the willingness to pay value.
Published in | International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment (Volume 9, Issue 3) |
DOI | 10.11648/j.ijeee.20240903.12 |
Page(s) | 77-89 |
Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Contingent Valuation, Natural and Environmental Resource, Market, Mean Size Effect, Meta-Analysis, Willingness to Pay
Natural & Environmental Resource valued | Frequency | Percent | Cumulative Percent |
---|---|---|---|
Biodiversity | 11 | 9.5 | 9.5 |
Ecosystem service | 44 | 37.9 | 47.4 |
Fish | 4 | 3.4 | 50.9 |
Forest | 16 | 13.8 | 64.7 |
Land | 8 | 6.9 | 71.6 |
Water | 33 | 28.4 | 100.0 |
116 | 100.0 |
Variables | Mean Size Effect value | Odds Ratio | Standard Error | t values |
---|---|---|---|---|
Income | 0.00005 | 1.00 | 0.0001 | 4.45 |
Bid amount | -0.04*** | 0.96 | 0.002 | -23.16 |
Education level | 0.10 | 1.11 | 0.01 | 9.91 |
Distance | -0.0005 | 0.99 | 0.0004 | -1.15 |
Family size | -0.05 | 0.95 | 0.06 | -0.73 |
Gender | -0.005*** | 0.99 | 0.001 | -4.99 |
Occupation | -0.08* | 0.92 | 0.05 | -1.65 |
Age | 0.37*** | 1.45 | 0.004 | 100.68 |
Knowledge | 8.73*** | 6185.73 | 2.25 | 3.87 |
Model Summary | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
1 | .511a | .262 | .228 | 49.379 |
a. Predictors: [Constant], sample size, environmental resource valued, year of publication, continent where the study done, model used for data |
Model | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Regression | 95027.450 | 5 | 19005.490 | 7.795 | .000b |
Residual | 268212.585 | 110 | 2438.296 | ||
Total | 363240.034 | 115 | |||
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to pay average | |||||
b. Predictors: [Constant], sample size, environmental resource valued, year of publication, continent where the study done, model used for data |
Coefficientsa for explanatory Variables | Unstandardized Coefficients | Std. Coef. | T | Odds ratio | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
[Constant] | -59.61 | 1891.24 | -.032 | 1.29E-26 | .975 | |
valued environmental resource | -31.33*** | 10.81 | -.266 | -2.898 | 2.47E-14 | .005 |
year of publication | .049 | .937 | .005 | .052 | 1.05 | .959 |
The survey region | -43.50*** | 10.21 | -.386 | -4.26 | 1.28E-19 | .000 |
model used for data | 35.64*** | 10.55 | .317 | 3.38 | 3.008E+15 | .001 |
sample size | .045* | .027 | .165 | 1.67 | 1.05 | .098 |
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to pay average |
CVM | Contingent Valuation Method |
SE | Standard Error |
WTA | Willingness to Accept |
WTC | Willingness to Compensate |
WTP | Willingness to Pay |
[1] | Abebe S. T., Dagnew A,. B., Zeleke, V. G., Eshetu, G. Z., and Cirella, G. T.,. 2019. Willingness to Pay for Watershed Management. MDPI Resources article, 8, 77; 1-18. |
[2] | Adepoju Adebusola Adenike and Omonona Bolarin Titus. 2012. Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply in Osogbo Metropolis; Osun State, Nigeria. Research Journal of Social Sciences, 4: 1-6. |
[3] | Ahmed M. Hussen. 2004. Principles of Environmental Economics. Second edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001. Kalamazoo College, Michigan, USA. |
[4] | Alem Mezgebo. 2012. Households’ willingness to pay for restoring environmental resource: a case study of forest resource from dire dawa area, eastern, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Economics, Vol XXI No 2: 32-62. |
[5] | Andreas KontoleonandTimothySwanson. 2003. The Willingness to Pay for Property Rights for the Giant Panda: Cana Charismatic Species Bean Instrument for Nature Conservation? Land Economics, 79(4): 483–499. |
[6] | Belay Kasaye. 2015. Farmers‟ Willingness to Pay for improved Soil Conservation Practices on communal lands in Ethiopia: case study in kuyu woreda. A thesis submitted to the school of graduate studies of Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Economics, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. |
[7] | Bengt Kriström. 1990. Valuing Environmental Benefits Using the Contingent Valuation Method - An Econometric Analysis. Umeå Economic Studies No. 219, 168 pages. |
[8] | Berhan Asmamaw, Birhanu Beyene, Misikire Tessema, Afework Kara, Biniam Goshu, Abraham Assefa. 2016. Estimating Willingness to Pay for Labeobarbus Fish Species Conservation in Lake Tana, Ethiopia: A Contingent Valuation Study. International Journal of Natural Resource Ecology and Management. Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 155-161. |
[9] | Berta Martin Lopez, Carlos Montes, and Javier Benayas. 2008. Economic Valuation of Biodiversity Conservation: the Meaning of Numbers. Conservation Biology, Volume 22, No. 3, 624–635. |
[10] | Bing Yu, Yuying Cai, Laiqun Jin and Bisheng Du. 2018. Effects on Willingness to Pay for Marine Conservation: Evidence from Zhejiang Province, China. Sustainability, 10, 2298; |
[11] | Birara Endalew and Beneberu Assefa. 2019. Determinants of households’ willingness to pay for the conservation of church forests in northwestern Ethiopia: A contingent valuation study. Cogent environmental science, 5: 1570659; 1-14. |
[12] | Bishop, J. T. 1999. Valuing Forests: A Review of Methods and Applications in Developing Countries. International Institute for Environment and Development: London. |
[13] | Brian Witt. 2018. Contingent valuation and rural potable water systems: A critical look at the past and future. WIREs Water. 2019; 6: e1333. |
[14] | Chambers, C. N., and Whitehead, J. C. 2003. A Contingent Valuation Estimate of the Benefits of Wolves in Minnesota, Springer Environmental and Resource Economics, 26(2): 249-267. |
[15] | Damodar Gujarat. 2013. Econometrics by Example. Palgrave Macmillan, First Edition, New York, USA. |
[16] | Dare, A. M., Ayinde, I. A., Shittu, A. M. Akerele, D and 2Sam-Wobo, S. O. 2018. Determinants of the factors affecting willingness to pay for improved sanitation among rural households in oyo state, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Economics [NJAE]. Volume 8(1): pp. 72-80. |
[17] | Diane Hite, Darren Hudson, and Walaiporn Intarapapong. 2002. Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvements: The Case of Precision Application Technology. Western agricultural Economics Association Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 27(2): 433-449. pp 436-449. |
[18] | Ekka A. and Arun Pandit. 2012. Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Natural Ecosystem: A Study of Sundarban Mangroves by Contingent Valuation Approach. Indian JournaL of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 67, No. 3. pp. 324-333. |
[19] | Evan E. Hjerpe and Anwar Hussain. 2016. Willingness to pay for ecosystem conservation in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest: a choice modelling study. Conservation Economics Institute, Forest Policy Center, Auburn University. Ecology and Society 21(2): 8; 1-14. |
[20] | Felix Schläpfer. 2004. Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: a meta-analysis. Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zürich, Switzerland. |
[21] | George E. Halkos and Georgia Κ. Galani. 2012. A review the use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality. University of Thessaly, Department of Economics, MPRA Paper No. 42183. Laboratory of Operations Research, Department of Economics, University of Thessaly, Korai 43, 38333, Volos, Greece. |
[22] | Georgiou, S. f. Langford, I H, Bateman I J and R K. 1996. Turner Determinants of individuals' willingness to pay for perceived reductions in environmental health risks: a case study of bathing water quality. CSERGE, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, and University College London, London. Environment and Planning A 1998, volume 30, pages 577–594. |
[23] | Gidey Kindu Mazgebo and Zeleke Ewnetu. 2014. Household Willingness to pay for improved water services in urban area: A case study from Nebelet town, Ethiopia. Department of Natural resource economics and management, Mekele University, Mekele, Ethiopia. Full length research paper, Journal of development and agricultrl economics, Vol. 7(1), pp. 12-19. ISSN: 2006-9774. |
[24] | IAN J. BATEMAN ANDREW A. LOVETT JULII S. BRAINARD. 2003. APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS A GIS Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU United Kingdom. |
[25] | International Institute for Environment and Development [IIED]. 2003. Valuing forests a review of methods and applications in developing countries. Environmental Economics Programme. Earthprint Limited, Orders Department, Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 4TP 3 En. dsleigh Street London WC1H 0DD UK. |
[26] | James A. Brox, Ramesh C. Kumar & Kenneth R. Stollery. 1996. WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY ENHANCEMENTS IN THE GRAND RIVER WATERSHED, Canadian Water Resources Journal, 21: 3, 275-288. |
[27] | Javad Javan-Noughabi, Zahra Kavosi, Ahmad Faramarzi and Mohammad Khammarnia. 2017. Identification determinant factors on willingness to pay for health services in Iran. Health economic reviwu Open Access Spriner Journal. |
[28] | Lalisa A. Duguma, Joanes Atela, Peter A. Minang, Alemayehu N. Ayana, Belachew Gizachew, Judith M. Nzyoka and Florence Bernard. 2019. Deforestation and Forest Degradation as an Environmental Behavior: Unpacking Realities Shaping Community Actions. Land article 8, 26; 1-17. |
[29] | Loomis, John B.; González-Cabán, Armando; Gregory, Robin. 1996. A contingent valuation study of the value of reducing fire hazards to old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. Res. Paper PSW-RP-229-Web. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 24 p. |
[30] | Margaret M. Calderson, Leni D, Camacho, Myrna G, Carandan, Joesfina T. Diazon, Lucrecio L. Rebugio and Noel L. Tolentiono. 2005. Willingness to pay for improved watershed management: Evidance from Metro Manila, Ohillipiness. Fores science and Technology Vol. 2, No. 1 pp. 42-50. |
[31] | Martínez-Paz, J. M. and Perni, A. 2011. Environmental Cost of Groundwater: A contingent Valuation Approach. Department of Applied Economics, University of Murcia, Spain Water and Environment Institute, University of Murcia, Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res., 5(3): 603-612. |
[32] | Mattias Boman, Anni Huhtala, Charlotte Nilsson, Sofia Ahlroth, Göran Bostedt, Leif Mattsson and Peichen Gong. 2012. Applying the Contingent Valuation Method in Resource Accounting. Working Paper No. 85, Published by The National Institute of Economic Research Stockholm, Sweden. |
[33] | Mesfin Tilahun, Erik Mathijs, Bart Muys, Liesbet Vranken, Jozef Deckers Kidanemariam gebregziabher, Kindeya Gebrehiwot, Hans Bauer. 2011. Division of Agricultural and Food Economics, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, K. U. Leuven, Celestijnenlaan Leuven, Belgium. Department of Economics, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia. Paper prepared for presentation at the EAAE 2011 Congress Change and Uncertainty Challenges for Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. |
[34] | Michael Ansong and Eivin Røskaft. 2014. Local communities’ willingness to pay for sustainable forest management in Ghana JENRM, Vol. I, No. 2, 80-87. |
[35] | Nelson H. W. Wawire and Aggrey. D. M Thuo. 2016. Economic Environmental Valuation, Book chapter, Kenyatta University, Department of Economics; Kenyatta university, Environmental Planning and Management Programme, Environment and Sustainable Development, Volume 2 chapter 5, Kenya. |
[36] | Nnaemeka a. Chukwuone and chukwuemeka e. Okorji. 2008. Willingness to pay for systematic management of community forests for conservation of non-timber forest products in nigeria’s rainforest region, Implications for poverty alleviation, Centre for Entrepreneurship and Development Research and Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria Nsukka, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria Nsukka. Rob B. Dellink and Arjan Ruijs [eds.], Economics of Poverty, Environment and Natural Resource Use, 117-137. Springler. |
[37] | Noughabi Zahra Kavosi, Ahmad Faramarzi and Mohammad Khammarnia. 2017. Identification determinant factors on willingness to pay for health services in Iran. Health Economics Review. |
[38] | Nyongesa J. M., H. K. Bett, J. K. Lagat and O. I. Ayuya. 2016 Estimating farmers’ stated willingness to accept pay for ecosystem services: case of Lake Naivasha watershed Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme-Kenya. Ecoloical Process crossmax Springler open access Journal, 1-15. |
[39] | Paola Gatto, Enrico Vidale, laura Secco, Davide Pettenella. 2014. Exploring the willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services by residents of the Veneto Region. Bio-based and Applied Economics 3(1): 21-43. |
[40] | Randall A. Kramer, Thomas P. Holmes, and Michelle Haefele. 2003. Contingent Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Protection. Duke University, USDA Forest Service, and Colorado State University. USA. |
[41] | Raymond J. G. M. Florax, Chiara M. Travisi and Peter Nijkamp. 2005. A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, 403 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2056, USA. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence, Rhode Island, July 24-27. |
[42] | Richard T. Carson. 2000. Contingent Valuation: A User’s Guide, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 1413-1418. |
[43] | Richard T. Carson. 2012. Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative when Prices Aren’t Available. University of California, San Diego, University of California, San Diego, USA. Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 26, Number 4—Fall 2012—Pages 27–42. |
[44] | Robert J. Johnston, Mahesh Ramachandran, Eric T. Schultz, Kathleen Segerson, Elena Y. Besedin. 2011. willingness to pay hot spots and the distribution of ecosystem service values: implications for benefit transfer association of Environmental and Resource Economists Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Seattle. George Perkins Marsh Institute Clark University. Annual meeting selected paper. |
[45] | Roger Perman, Yue Ma, James McGilvray and Michael Common. 2003. Natural Resource and Environmental Economics. Third Edition. Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE. |
[46] | Rohana, A. R. Mohd Parid, M. Azharizan, M. N. 2011. Conservation of Forest reserve in Urban area: how much residents’ willingness to pay. Forest Research Institute Malaysia [FRIM], Kepong, Selangor, Malaysia. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2 | No. 10, ISSN: 2278-6236. |
[47] | Shemelis Kebede, Hundie Lamessa and Tariku Abdisa. 2016. Households’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply: Application of the Contingent Valuation Method; Evidence from Jigjiga Town, Ethiopia. Department of Economics, Jigjiga University, Ethiopia. The Romanian Economic Journal, Year XIX no. 62, pp 191-214. |
[48] | Steven C. Hackett. 2006. Environmental and Natural Resources Economics. Theory, Policy, and the Sustainable Society, 3rd edition. M. E. Sharpe Armonk, New York London, England. |
[49] | Surendran A. and Sekar C. 2010. An economic analysis of willingness to pay [WTP] for conserving the biodiversity. International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 37 Issue: 8, pp. 637-648. |
[50] | Tadesse Getachew. 2018. Estimating Willingness to Pay for Forest Ecosystem Conservation The Case of Wof-Washa Forest, North Shewa Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia Debre Berhan University College of Agriculture and Natural Resource Sciences Department of Natural Resource Management. ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal Vol. 46. |
[51] | Thalany Kamri. 2013. Willingness to Pay for Conservation of Natural Resources in the Gunung Gading National Park, Sarawak. Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor 43400, Malaysia Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sarawak, 94300, Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 506–515. |
[52] | Tom Tietenberg and Lynne Lewis. 2012. Environmental & Natural Resource Economics Emeritus, Colby College and Bates College. 9th Edition, Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved, United States of America. |
[53] | Tony Parto. 1998. Natural Resource and Environmetal Economics. Iowa State Unversity Press/Amen. Iowa 50014, USA. |
[54] | Tully, Stephanie and Winer, Russell S. 2014. The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-Analysis. Available at SSRN: |
[55] | Xiu-hua Song, Tae-Dong Cho1, Xiao-xia Lang, Yong-Ji Piao. 2013. Influencing the Willingness to Pay for Urban Park Service Functions. China Journal of Environmental Science International ORIGINAL ARTICLE 22(10); 1279-1285. |
[56] | Zander KK, Ainsworth GB, Meyerhoff J, Garnett ST. 2014. Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia. PLoS ONE 9(6): e100411. |
[57] | Zelalem Lema and Fekadu Beyene. 2012. Willingness to Pay for Improved Rural Water Supply in Goro-Gutu District of Eastern Ethiopia: An Application of Contingent Valuation. International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Haramaya University, Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, Vol. 3, No. 14. pp, 145-159. |
APA Style
Bassa, Z. (2024). Empirical Review on Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Natural and Environmental Resource Valuation: Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment, 9(3), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20240903.12
ACS Style
Bassa, Z. Empirical Review on Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Natural and Environmental Resource Valuation: Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Econ. Energy Environ. 2024, 9(3), 77-89. doi: 10.11648/j.ijeee.20240903.12
@article{10.11648/j.ijeee.20240903.12, author = {Zekarias Bassa}, title = {Empirical Review on Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Natural and Environmental Resource Valuation: Meta-Analysis }, journal = {International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment}, volume = {9}, number = {3}, pages = {77-89}, doi = {10.11648/j.ijeee.20240903.12}, url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20240903.12}, eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijeee.20240903.12}, abstract = {Even if natural and environmental resource plays detrimental role prosperity of nations, measuring their value is highly problematic. Lack of realistic markets data to estimate its value for the goods and services necessitates the use of nonmarket valuation techniques. The meta-analysis was carried out to see the mean size effect of certain demographic, socioeconomic and institutional factors on willingness to pay of natural resources conservation and improvement. The empirical analysis review was done on about 57 published articles for total of 116 observations. The data synthesis was done from published articles include coefficients of explanatory variable and standard error, model used, value measured, study region, sample size and publication from the year of 2002 up to 2019 year. The data analyzed in excel sheet and SPSS software. The study countries were Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Guinea, Nigeria, Malaysia, USA, Iraq, China and India. The result confirmed that measurement errors and heterogeneity of case studies, interviewed resulted difference in willingness to pay estimate. The result implied inverse relationship between willingness estimate and environmental resource valued and study destination [Eat Africa]. The meta-analysis indicated mean size effect of willingness to pay defined as function of income, age, bid value, occupation, sex, knowledge, and education level of respondents. The empirical analysis result showed that increasing awareness, enabling to expand income earning believed to increase the willingness to pay value. }, year = {2024} }
TY - JOUR T1 - Empirical Review on Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Natural and Environmental Resource Valuation: Meta-Analysis AU - Zekarias Bassa Y1 - 2024/08/20 PY - 2024 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20240903.12 DO - 10.11648/j.ijeee.20240903.12 T2 - International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment JF - International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment JO - International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment SP - 77 EP - 89 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2575-5021 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20240903.12 AB - Even if natural and environmental resource plays detrimental role prosperity of nations, measuring their value is highly problematic. Lack of realistic markets data to estimate its value for the goods and services necessitates the use of nonmarket valuation techniques. The meta-analysis was carried out to see the mean size effect of certain demographic, socioeconomic and institutional factors on willingness to pay of natural resources conservation and improvement. The empirical analysis review was done on about 57 published articles for total of 116 observations. The data synthesis was done from published articles include coefficients of explanatory variable and standard error, model used, value measured, study region, sample size and publication from the year of 2002 up to 2019 year. The data analyzed in excel sheet and SPSS software. The study countries were Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Guinea, Nigeria, Malaysia, USA, Iraq, China and India. The result confirmed that measurement errors and heterogeneity of case studies, interviewed resulted difference in willingness to pay estimate. The result implied inverse relationship between willingness estimate and environmental resource valued and study destination [Eat Africa]. The meta-analysis indicated mean size effect of willingness to pay defined as function of income, age, bid value, occupation, sex, knowledge, and education level of respondents. The empirical analysis result showed that increasing awareness, enabling to expand income earning believed to increase the willingness to pay value. VL - 9 IS - 3 ER -