Assessment of the Economic Value of Ecological Conservation of the Kenting Coral Reef
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Evaluation Models
2.2. Choice Experiment Design
2.2.1. Introduction to Attributes and Levels of Kenting Coral Conservation
Living Coral Coverage
Biodiversity
Marine Protected Area
Seawater Quality
Number of Visitors
Coral Reefs Conservation Fund
2.2.2. Introduction to the Preference Choice Sets of Kenting Coral Ecology Conservation
2.3. Data
2.3.1. Sampling Method
2.3.2. Descriptive Statistics
3. Results
3.1. Study of the Factors Influencing the Utility of Kenting Coral Conservation Attributes
3.2. Study of the Willingness-To-Pay Values and Market Segments of the Coral Reef Ecosystem Attributes
3.3. Study of the Heterogeneity of Respondents’ Preferences for the Coral Reef Ecosystem
3.4. Hypothetical Management Scenarios
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Suggestions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cesae, H.S.J. Collected Essays on the Economics of Coral Reefs; CORDIO, Kalmar University: Kalmar, Sweden, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Tseng, W.W.C.; Hsu, S.H.; Chen, C.C. Estimating the willingness to pay to protect coral reefs from potential damage caused by climate change—The evidence from Taiwan. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 101, 556–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, P.J.; Meng, P.J.; Liu, L.L.; Wang, J.T.; Leu, M.Y. Impacts of human activities on coral reef ecosystems of southern Taiwan: A long-term study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012, 64, 1129–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meng, P.J.; Lee, H.J.; Wang, J.T.; Chen, C.C.; Lin, H.J.; Tew, K.S.; Hsieh, W.J. A long-term survey on anthropogenic impacts to the water quality of coral reefs, southern Taiwan. Environ. Pollut. 2008, 156, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Burke, L.; Reytar, K.; Spalding, M.; Perry, A. Reefs at Risk Revisited; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Wattage, P.; Glenn, H.; Mardle, S.; Van Rensburg, T.; Grehan, A.; Foley, N. Economic value of conserving deep-sea corals in Irish waters: A choice experiment study on marine protected areas. Fish. Res. 2011, 107, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolfe, J.; Windle, J. Testing benefit transfer of reef protection values between local case studies: The Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 81, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jobstvogt, N.; Hanley, N.; Hynes, S.; Kenter, J.; Witte, U. Twenty thousand sterling under the sea: Estimating the value of protecting deep-sea biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 97, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Can, Ö.; Alp, E. Valuation of environmental improvements in a specially protected marine area: A choice experiment approach in Göcek Bay, Turkey. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 439, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marre, J.B.; Brander, L.; Thebaud, O.; Boncoeur, J.; Pascoe, S.; Coglan, L.; Pascal, N. Non-market use and non-use values for preserving ecosystem services over time: A choice experiment application to coral reef ecosystems in New Caledonia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2015, 105, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boxall, P.C.; Adamowicz, W.L.; Olar, M.; West, G.E.; Cantin, G. Analysis of the economic benefits associated with the recovery of threatened marine mammal species in the Canadian St. Lawrence Estuary. Mar. Policy 2012, 36, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- McFadden, D.; Zarembka, P. Frontiers in econometrics. In Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior; University of Berkley: Berkley, CA, USA, 1974; pp. 105–142. [Google Scholar]
- Hanley, N.; Colombo, S.; Tinch, D.; Black, A.; Aftab, A. Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements under the Water Framework Directive: Are benefits transferable? Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2006, 33, 391–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shoji, Y.; Tsuge, T. Heterogeneous preferences for winter nature-based tours in sub-frigid climate zones: A latent class approach. Tour. Econ. 2015, 21, 387–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Revelt, D.; Train, K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1998, 80, 647–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D.A.; Rose, J.M.; Greene, W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Birol, E.; Koundouri, P. (Eds.) Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy: A European Perspective; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Brander, L.; Van Breukering, P. The Total Economic Value of US Coral Reefs: A Review of the Literature; NOAA: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Gomez, E.D.; Alcala, A.C. San Diego AC. Status of Philippine coral reefs–1981. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Coral Reef Symposium, Manila, Philippines, 18–22 May 1981; pp. 275–282. [Google Scholar]
- Spalding, M.; Spalding, M.D.; Ravilious, C.; Green, E.P. World Atlas of Coral Reefs; University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2001; p. 416. [Google Scholar]
- Knowlton, N.; Brainard, R.E.; Fisher, R.; Moews, M.; Plaisance, L.; Caley, M.J. Life in the World’s Oceans: Diversity, Distribution, and Abundance; Blackwell Publ.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 10, pp. 65–78. ISBN 9781444325508. [Google Scholar]
- Bianchi, C.N.; Morri, C. Marine biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: Situation, problems and prospects for future research. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2000, 40, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, F.; Frykblom, P.; Liljenstolpe, C. Valuing wetland attributes: An application of choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 47, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juutinen, A.; Mitani, Y.; Mäntymaa, E.; Shoji, Y.; Siikamäki, P.; Svento, R. Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1231–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toropova, C.; Meliane, I.; Laffoley, D.; Matthews, E.; Spalding, M. Global Ocean Protection; IUCN WCPA: Gland, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Mccay, B.J.; Jones, P.J.S. Marine protected areas and the governance of marine ecosystems and fisheries. Conserv. Biol. 2011, 25, 1130–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batisse, M. Developing and focusing the biosphere reserve concept. In Perspectives in Resource Management in Developing Countries; Concept Publishing: New Delhi, India, 2003; Volume 5, p. 160. [Google Scholar]
- Sale, P.F.; Cowen, R.K.; Danilowicz, B.S.; Jones, G.P.; Kritzer, J.P.; Lindeman, K.C.; Planes, S.; Polunin, N.V.C.; Russ, G.R.; Sadovy, Y.J.; et al. Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Archer, D.E. An atlas of the distribution of calcium carbonate in sediments of the deep sea. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1996, 10, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleypas, J.A.; McManus, J.W.; Menez, L.A.B. Environmental limits to coral reef development: Where do we draw the line? Am. Zool. 1999, 39, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castellani, V.; Sala, S.; Pitea, D. A new method for tourism carrying capacity assessment. In Ecosystems and Sustainable Development VI; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2007; pp. 365–374. [Google Scholar]
- Ríos-Jara, E.; Galván-Villa, C.M.; Rodríguez-Zaragoza, F.A.; López-Uriarte, E.; Munoz-Fernández, V.T. The tourism carrying capacity of underwater trails in Isabel Island National Park, Mexico. Environ. Manag. 2013, 52, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thur, S.M. User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine protected areas: An application to the Bonaire National Marine Park. Mar. Policy 2010, 34, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Depondt, F.; Green, E. Diving user fees and the financial sustainability of marine protected areas: Opportunities and impediments. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2006, 49, 188–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Llorente, M.; Martín-López, B.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; López-Santiago, C.A.; Aguilera, P.A.; Montes, C. The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem service approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 19, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuerdo-Mir, M.; Picher, A.; Sainz, J. Determinación del precio en terrenos agrícolas en espacios protegidos. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agrícolas 2015, 6, 1403–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Y.C.; Hong, F.W.; Lee, M.T. A system dynamic based DSS for sustainable coral reef management in Kenting coastal zone, Taiwan. Ecol. Model. 2008, 211, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zielinska, A. Applying Multidimentional Comparative Analysis for the Assessment of the Concept Realization of Sustainable Development for the Protected Areas. Econ. Sociol. 2011, 4, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zielinska, A. Abilities of running an economic activity on protected areas. Econ. Sociol. 2009, 2, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tongson, E.; Dygico, M. User fee system for marine ecotourism: The Tubbataha Reef experience. Coast. Manag. 2004, 32, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, H.; Hawkins, J.P. Access to marine parks: A comparative study in willingness to pay. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2009, 52, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hynes, S.; Tinch, D.; Hanley, N. Valuing improvements to coastal waters using choice experiments: An application to revisions of the EU Bathing Waters Directive. Mar. Policy 2013, 40, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sriarkarin, S.; Lee, C.H. Integrating the multiple attributes for sustainable development in a national park. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 28, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zong, C.; Cheng, K.; Lee, C.H.; Hsu, N.L. Capturing Tourists’ Preferences for the Management of Community-Based Ecotourism in a Forest Park. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.H.; Wang, C.H. Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan. Sustainability 2017, 9, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.L.; Wang, C.H.; Lee, C.H.; Sriarkarin, S. Evaluating the public’s preferences toward sustainable planning under climate and land use change in forest parks. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attributes | Levels | Variable Name |
---|---|---|
Living coral coverage (%) | 1. 25%–50% (FAIR) | LCC ±(LCC) |
2. Increase to 50%–75% (GOOD) | LCC +(LCC1) | |
3. Increase more than 75% (EXC) | LCC ++(LCC2) | |
Biodiversity | 1. Status quo | BIO ±(BIO) |
2. Populations of species increase | BIO +(BIO1) | |
Marine protected area (%) | 1. 3.13% | MPA ±(MPA) |
2. Percent of area increases to 6% | MPA +(MPA1) | |
3. Percent of area increases to 9% | MPA ++(MPA2) | |
Seawater quality | 1. Mild to moderate pollution | WQL ±(WQL) |
2. Gets better (Clean or Excellent) | WQL +(WQL1) | |
Number of visitors | 1. No capacity control | VIS ±(VIS) |
2. Capacity control reduces number to 75% | VIS −(VIS1) | |
3. Capacity control reduces number to 50% | VIS −−(VIS2) | |
Coral reefs conservation Fund (NT$/person/trip) | 1. No pay | FUND |
2. NT$100/person/trip | ||
3. NT$200/person/trip | ||
4. NT$300/person/trip | ||
5. NT$400/person/trip |
Variables & Levels | Coeff. | t Value | Coeff. Std | t Value | WTP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ASC | −2.515 | −10.63 *** | 3.190 | 13.03 *** | |
LCC1 | 0.294 | 4.73 *** | 0.435 | 2.92 *** | 51.0 |
LCC2 | 0.099 | 1.46 | 0.495 | 2.71 *** | - |
BIO | 0.186 | 4.20 *** | 0.474 | 4.45 *** | 32.3 |
MPA1 | 0.148 | 2.33 ** | 0.595 | 5.10 *** | 25.7 |
MPA2 | 0.123 | 1.70 * | 0.341 | 1.35 | 21.3 |
WQL | 0.223 | 5.02 *** | 0.397 | 3.20 *** | 38.7 |
VIS1 | 0.190 | 2.86 *** | 0.824 | 7.39 *** | 33.0 |
VIS2 | 0.073 | 1.01 | 0.551 | 3.36 *** | - |
FUND | −0.0058 | −12.06 *** | - | - | - |
Log-likelihood Ratio | 1385.2 *** | χ2 (0.01,19) = 36.2 |
OBS | LCC1 | BIO | MPA | WQL | VIS1 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristic of Social | Mean | T or F Value | Mean | T or F Value | Mean | T or F Value | Mean | T or F Value | Mean | T or F Value | |
Divers | 743 | 51.35 | 0.784 (F value) | 32.89 | 0.495 (F value) | 24.27 | 2.336 * (F value) | 38.33 | 0.287 (F value) | 37.37 | 11.03 *** (F value) |
Fishermen | 144 | 52.32 | 30.37 | 24.14 | 36.92 | 8.33 | |||||
Visitors | 297 | 49.76 | 32.71 | 30.10 | 38.12 | 37.83 | |||||
Single | 674 | 51.71 | 1.127 | 34.56 | 2.856 *** | 26.36 | 0.623 | 38.03 | −0.154 | 38.85 | 2.76 ** |
Married | 510 | 50.22 | 29.87 | 24.88 | 38.21 | 27.48 | |||||
Senior school | 469 | 49.78 | −1.601 | 30.93 | −1.596 | 24.60 | −0.770 | 36.70 | −1.932 * | 25.15 | −3.50 *** |
University | 715 | 51.91 | 33.59 | 26.45 | 39.03 | 39.73 | |||||
No Environmental groups | 1066 | 50.81 | −1.168 | 32.69 | 0.561 | 26.38 | 1.702 * | 38.39 | 1.455 | 32.99 | −1.41 |
Environmental groups | 118 | 53.36 | 31.16 | 19.71 | 35.52 | 42.64 | |||||
Never carry eco-chopstick in outside | 619 | 50.86 | −0.327 | 31.94 | −0.767 | 26.22 | 0.449 | 37.58 | −0.922 | 31.10 | −1.46 |
Always carry eco-chopstick in outside | 565 | 51.29 | 33.19 | 25.17 | 38.68 | 37.08 | |||||
20~29 years old | 599 | 51.23 | 1.338 (F value) | 33.82 | 2.433 ** (F value) | 27.89 | 1.490 (F value) | 38.91 | 1.380 (F value) | 39.84 | 2.48 ** (F value) |
30~39 | 259 | 48.87 | 33.27 | 25.98 | 37.07 | 28.73 | |||||
40~49 | 223 | 53.50 | 31.76 | 22.81 | 37.25 | 29.42 | |||||
50~59 | 97 | 50.18 | 25.37 | 18.82 | 38.81 | 24.11 | |||||
More than 60 | 6 | 53.64 | 17.35 | 17.67 | 22.76 | −.78 | |||||
Less thanNT$20,000 | 401 | 50.68 | 1.094 (F value) | 34.51 | 2.123 * (F value) | 26.05 | 0.405 (F value) | 38.04 | 0.450 (F value) | 33.22 | 0.794 (F value) |
NT$20,000~NT$40,000 | 578 | 51.90 | 31.90 | 24.84 | 37.70 | 32.25 | |||||
NT$50,000~NT$70,000 | 152 | 50.52 | 28.47 | 28.73 | 39.85 | 38.41 | |||||
NT$80,000~NT$100,000 | 53 | 46.41 | 36.18 | 24.21 | 38.03 | 45.37 |
Attributes and Level | Coefficient | t Value | WTP |
---|---|---|---|
Group 1 | |||
ASC | −1.201 | −2.01 ** | |
LCC1 | 0.131 | 0.58 | - |
LCC2 | 0.706 | 2.84 *** | 64.1 |
BIO | 0.207 | 1.10 | - |
MPA1 | 0.055 | 0.22 | - |
MPA2 | −0.071 | −0.25 | - |
WQL | 0.397 | 2.46 ** | 36.0 |
VIS1 | −0.186 | −0.67 | - |
VIS2 | −0.254 | −0.90 | - |
−0.011 | −5.97 *** | ||
Group 2 | |||
ASC | −0.964 | −6.66 *** | |
LCC1 | 0.162 | 3.56 *** | 81.0 |
LCC2 | 0.033 | 0.58 | - |
BIO | 0.105 | 3.14 *** | 52.5 |
MPA1 | 0.084 | 1.83 * | 42.0 |
MPA2 | 0.111 | 1.90 * | 55.5 |
WQL | 0.135 | 3.98 *** | 67.5 |
VIS1 | 0.172 | 3.67 *** | 86.0 |
VIS2 | 0.103 | 1.83 * | 51.5 |
−0.002 | −7.81 *** | ||
Class membership parameters: Group 1 | |||
Constant | −0.798 | −1.61 | |
Divers | −0.235 | 0.467 | |
Fishermen | 1.872 | 4.05 *** | |
Income > NT$ thirty thousand | −1.435 | −2.80 *** | |
Married | 0.688 | 1.63 | |
University | −1.676 | −2.00 ** | |
Number of choice sets | 3515 | ||
Log-likelihood ratio | −3426.640 | ||
Chi squared | χ2 (0.01,26) = 45.6 |
Policy Attributes | Marine Conservation | Social Institution | Integrated Management for the Ecosystem |
---|---|---|---|
Living coral Coverage (%) | Increase to 50%–75% (GOOD) | Stay as in the present | Increase to 50%–75% (GOOD) |
Biodiversity | Population increase | Stay as in the present | population Increase |
Marine protected area (%) | increase to 6% | increase to 6% | increase to 6% |
Water quality Levels | Stay as in the present | Gets better (Clean or Excellent) | Gets better (Clean or Excellent) |
Number of Visitors | Stay as in the present | Set the 75% total capacity control | Set the 75% total capacity control |
Mean WTP 95% confidence level | 109 106.3~111.7 | 97.4 95.0~99.8 | 180.7 176.2~185.2 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, C.-H.; Chen, Y.-J.; Chen, C.-W. Assessment of the Economic Value of Ecological Conservation of the Kenting Coral Reef. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5869. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11205869
Lee C-H, Chen Y-J, Chen C-W. Assessment of the Economic Value of Ecological Conservation of the Kenting Coral Reef. Sustainability. 2019; 11(20):5869. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11205869
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Chun-Hung, Yun-Ju Chen, and Chu-Wei Chen. 2019. "Assessment of the Economic Value of Ecological Conservation of the Kenting Coral Reef" Sustainability 11, no. 20: 5869. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11205869