PROBLEMSTATEMENT
Vietnamisoneamongthecountriesmostvulnerabletoclimatechangeandthemangrovesar eoneeffectiveprotectionagainstsealevelrise.Mangrovesalsoprovidem a n y other servicesincludingsupportforfisheryandaquaculture,provision offooda n d r awmaterial,carbonsequestration,watersupply andregulationandrecreationalactivities.H owever,themangrovesarereportedtohavedeclinedrapidlyduetod e f o r e s t a t i o n , fr om408,500hectaresin1943to155,290hectaresin2000ofwhichonlya b o u t 21%isofhigh- quality naturalforest(Sam,D.D.,N.NBinh,N.N.Que,andV.TPhuong,2005)
Fundingisnecessarytoprotectthemangroves,yetitisoftenlacking.Drawingonthec o n c e p t ofpaymentsforenvironmentalservices,asolutiontogenerateanddistributec as h forconservingecosystems,thegovernmenthasdevelopedthenationalprogramofPaymentfor ForestEnvironmentalServices(PFES)
(Hawkin,2010).Specifically,thePrimeM i n i s t e r h a s i s s u e d d e c r e e 9 9 / 2 0 1 0 t o g u i d e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f P F E S t o f i v e groupsofservicesprovidedbyf o r e s t s : soil related,water supplyr e l a t e d , c a r b o n sequestration,recreationbasedonnaturallandscapeandfinally,aquaculture-related.
Inordertodecidethelevelsofpaymentandalsotomakeinformeddecisionsofsocio- economicsp l a n n i n g , iti s importantt h a t p o l i c y m a k e r s k n o w o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e servicesprovidedbymangroveforest.Thisstudyispartofanassignmentthatarises f r o m thatne ed, se e k i n g to ga u g e t he economicv a l u e of t h e mangroveecos yst e minB e n Treprovince.
EverydayhundredsoftouristsgotothebeachesinthecoastaldistrictofThanhPhu,B e n T r e ( Q u o c V i n h , 2 0 1 5 ) A m o n g t h e a t t r a c t i o n s a r e t h e c l e a n b e a c h e s , cheap seafooda n d l e a r n i n g tod o t h e w o r k o n shrimpfarms( L e L u o n g , 2 0 1 5 ) T h e s e a r e supportedbyt h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e m a n g r o v e s b e s i d e s i t s o w n g r e e n l u s h , w h i c h c a n interesttouriststopaytospendtimein,learnfromandsupport.Thatway,ThanhPhu c o u l d followCanGioandcapitalizeonthecurrentcrowdsoftouriststodevelopeco- tourismcenteringonthemangroves.
Also,t h e mangrovee c o s y s t e m i n T h a n h P h u i s o f f i c i a l l y r e c o g n i z e d a s a n a t u r a l r e s e r v e a n d p u t u n d e r c a r e o f t h e a u t h o r i t y T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f mangrovef o r e s t p r e s en c e , stewardshipandavailablecrowdoftourists makesThanhPhuNaturalReserv e a n i d e a l p l a c e f o r carryingo u t e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l s e r v i c e u s i n g ContingentValuationMethod
RESEARCHOBJECTIVES
RESEARCHQUESTIONS
SCOPEOFSTUDY
P h u District,BenTreProvince,SouthVietnam.Thesamplepopulationcomprises ofindividualsamongbeachgoersinThanhHaicommune.
Theservicesprovidedbythemangrovestohumana r e manyandc a n becategorized u n d e r themainfourgroupsofprovisioning, regulating, supporting and cultu ral.T h e s t u d y onlys e t o u t t o measuret h e c a t e g o r y o f t o u r i s m s e r v i c e , w h i c h b e l o n g tot h e c u l t u r a l group.
Willingnesstopayiscalculatedfor2014andusedforthenextseveralyearsasreportsho wsthatthenumberoftouristscomingtoThanhPhukeepsincreasingwithimprovem entsininfrastructureandunfoldingservices(QuocVinh,2015)
THESISSTRUCTURE
Thethesisremainsinfourchapters.Chapter2reviewsliteratureabouthowtourismfitsi n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f e c o s y s t e m s e r v i c e s v a l u e s , h o w e c o n o m i s t s measure w e l f a r e b r o u g h t about byenvironmentalgoodsandprevious r e l a t e d studies Chapter3d i s c u s s e s themethodologyemployedinthestudy:thestepsofcontingentvaluati onandelicitationf o r m a t , h y p o t h e t i c a l s c e n a r i o a n d p a y m e n t m e t h o d s , c o n s t r u c t i o n o f w i l l i n g n e s s topayfunction,nonparametricandparametricme thodsforestimationofw i l l i n g n e s s t o paya n d finally,e l e m e n t s o f d a t a collection C h a p t e r 4 d i s c u s s e s thef i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y f r o m k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e s i t u a t i o n o f mangrovesa s t o u r i s t attractiontothestatisticsof datatoresultsofnonparametricandparametricestimation.C h a p t e r 5presentstheconclusio nsofthestudy,commentsaboutthemethodologyusedinthestudy,suggestionstopolicymakersa ndpossibledirectionsforfuturestudy.
CHAPTERSUMMARY
Thec h a p t e r f i r s t d i s c u s s t h e b e n e f i t s o f a n d t h r e a t s t o mangrovee c o s y s t e m s a n d c o u n t e r a c t i o n byt h e government,w h i c h e v e n t u a l l y l e a d s t o t h e study.R e a s o n f o r choosingthesitewerealsodiscussed.Afterthat,theresearc hobjectivesandresearchq u e st i o n s areoutlined.Nextthescopeofthestudyisspecified.Finally,part5laysoutthestructureofthethesis.
ECOSYSTEMSERVICESVALUES
Ecosystemsa r e “dynamicc o m p l e x e s o f c o m m u n i t i e s o f animals,p l a n t s a n d micr oo rg an i sm s an dt h e i n o r g a n i c e n v i r o n m e n t in te rac ti ng as a f u n c t i o n a l u ni t, w i t h humanbeinganintegralpart”(UN EP,n.d.)
Amongt h e M i l l e n n i u m E c o s y s t e m A s s e s s m e n t c a t e g o r i e s , t h e mangrovesb e l o n g t o t h e CoastalEcosystemsgroup,beingwithinan“areabetween50metersbel owmeans e a leveland50metersabovethehightidelevelorextendinglandwardtoad istance100kilometersfromshore”(UNEP,n.d.)
Accordingtot h e U K N E A ( n d ) , e c o s y s t e m s e r v i c e s a r e “ theb e n e f i t s p r o v i d e d byecosystemst h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o m a k i n g h u m a n l i f e b o t h p o s s i b l e a n d w o r t h living”.Examplesincludes benefitssuchasprovision ofmaterialandfood,regulation ofwater,shorelineprotectionandcarbonsequestration,andnon- materialonessuchasculturalh e r i t a g e andaestheticexperience Theterm‘ser vices’isoftenmeanttoincludeboththetangibleandintangiblebenefitsthathumansobtainf romecosystems.
Theseservicearecategorizedintofourgroups:provisioningservices,regulatingserv ices,culturalservicesandsupportingservices.Tourism a n d recreation, which inthiscas earethesame,areculturalservices(UKNEA,n.d.)
Thisstudyisinterestedinmeasuringvalueofoneformoftourism,ecotourism.Thisist h e s e r v i c e thatthe localgovernmentintendstoextractfromthemangrovesandcanbed e f i n e d as"responsibletr aveltonaturalareasthatconservestheenvironment,sustainsthewell- beingof t h e l o c a l peopleand i n v o l v es i nt er pr et at io n a n d e d u c a t i o n " ( T I E S ,2015)
Figure1.SchematicrepresentationoftheecosystemservicesS ou rce: http://www.unep.org/
MEASUREMENTOFWELFARECHANGES
Thiss t u d y u s e s c o n t i n g e n t v a l u a t i o n m e t h o d t o e s t i m a t e t h e e c o n o m i c v a l u e o f a n e co s y st e m service.AccordingtoBockstaelandFreeman(2005),CVM hastheoreticalf o u n d a t i o n intheneo- classicalwelfareeconomics.Itpresumesthateconomicactivityi s topromotethewe lfareoftheindividuals,and eachindividual isthe bestjudgeoftheiro w n w e l l - b e i n g T h e r e f o r e , economicv a l u e s o f g o o d s a n d s e r v i c e s , w h e t h e r marketornonmarket,shouldbebasedontheireffectonhumanwelfare.
Thetheoryhasbeendevelopedtomeasurechangeinindividual’swellbeingtoestimatet h e welf areeffectofchangeofgoodsandservices,beitachangeofpriceorquantity.
Indoingso,theassumptionsaremadethatindividualshavewell- definedpreferencesa m o n g alternativebundlesofgoodsandtheirpreferencesh avetheattributeofsubstitutability,t h a t i s , peoplecanmaket r a d e - o f f s b e t w e e n b u n d l e s o f g o o d s a n d servicestokeeptheirutilityunchanged.
Withm o n e y ast h e commonu n i t o f e x c h a n g e , t h a t s u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y meanst h e c o m p e n s a t i n g increaseanddecrease ingoodsandservices whilemakingtrade- offscanb e statedaschangestoexogenousincome.
Inordertoillustratetheevaluationofchangeinlevelsofenvironmentalgoods,co n si der as implecaseofabstraction.LetDbeavectorofhuman- inducedimpactsont h e e n v i r o n m e n t , Q b e t h e v e c t o r o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l o u t c o m e s t h a t a f f e c t humans.Q maydirectlyenterindividual’sutilityfunctionorindir ectlythroughfunctionZ(Q)ofh o u s e h o l d o r firmp r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s T h e a r t i f i c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n D a n d Q servestodistinguishbetweentherelatio nships describedphysicallyorbiologicallyandthosethatarefundamentallyeconomicinnature.
Theben ef it s o r c o s ts o f a r e g u l a t i o n i se s t i m a t e d byfirstp r e d ic t i n g thevec to rD o f impactsontheenvironment,thentracingthrough(1)to(3)tocalculatetheresultingw e l f a r e change.
Goingintodetails of(3),to defineameasureofthewelfare changeboughtaboutbyanenvironmentalchange,wefirstconsiderthestandardcasewhereindi vidual’sutilityisa functionofonlyprivate purchased goods with nouncertainty The individual issubjectt o incomeconstraintandseektomaximizeutility:
WethenintroduceenvironmentalqualityQtotheproblem.Therearisethreecases.Q maye n t e r t h e u t i l i t y f u n c t i o n d i r e c t l y o r t h r o u g h t h e p r o d u c t i o n f u n c t i o n Z f o r a h o u s e h o l d p r o d u c e d g o o d O r Q c a n e n t e r f i r m ’ s p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s es,a l t e r i n g t h e price ofgoodsand/orindividuals’incomes.
Them e a s u r e s o f w e l f a r e c h a n g e b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d h e r e a r e b a s e d o n c o m p e n s a t i o n pr in ci ple Uti l it y changeperseisknown tobeneithermeasurablenoradditiveforeachindividualandsocannoth a v e u n i q u e m o n e y m e a s u r e s H o w e v e r , w e l f a r e measuresc a n b e d e f i n e d byt h e m o n e t a r y a m o u n t n e e d e d t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r t h e c h a n g e i n question,holdingutility constantatthelevelofthestatusquo.
Tomeasuret h e w e l f a r e e f f e c t s , economistsu s e t h e c o n c e p t s o f c o m p e n s a t i n g a n d equivalentvariation.Compensatingvariation(CV)istheamountofmone yneededtob e takenawaytoincometoleaveindividualswiththesamebaseutilityafterach angei n price,qualityorquantityofgoods.Equivalentvariation(EV)isthemoneyneededto addtoincometogiveindividualthesameutilityasafterthechangewithoutmakingth echange.
IndevelopingmechanismformeasuringCVandEVincaseofchangeinPorQ,wese e k t o e x p r e s s t h e s e m e a s u r e s i n t e r m s o f t h e e x p e n d i t u r e m i n i m i z a t i o n f u n c t i o n , whichisthedualof(4).Inthecaseasinthisstudy,Qentertheutilityfunctiondirect ly:
𝑒=𝑒( ,� �,� 0 )( 1 0 ) whereeistheminimumamountofmoneyneededtoachieveutility� 0given priceP andenvironmentalqualityand/orquantityQ.
Int h e c a s e o f a n i m p r o v e m e n t i n w e l f a r e asi n t h i s study,E V i s t h e WTPf o r t h e hypothetical increaseintheenvironmentalservice.From(15)and(16),wecanderiv eWTPasafunctionofP,Q,andM.
Themodelforutilityusedinthisstudyistherandomutilitymodel(RUM)suggestedby Hanemann(1984)whereuncertaintyandindividual’scharacteristicsaretakenintoc o n si d e r a t i o n ApplyingRUMinthecaseofimproved mangroveecosystemse rvice,theutilityofstakeholderiforanimprovedecosystemserviceis:
� �( � � ,� � ,𝜀 ��) isafunctionof� � ,� � ,𝜀 ��w ith� �b e i n g stakeholder’sd i s c r e t i o n a r y income,��v e c t o rofstakeholdercharacteristicsanda t t r i b u t e s oftheresourceand𝜀 �
TheC V b i d d i n g q u e s t i o n w i l l f o r c e t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o chooseb e t w e e n i m p r o v e d ecosystems e r v i c e a t b i d amountt a n d t h e s t a t u s q u o T h e d a t a w i l l b e analyzedtod e r i v e parametersfortheWTPfunction.
REVIEWOFEMPIRICALSTUDIES
Strictlys i m i l a r s t u d i e s u s i n g C V M t o s t u d y r e c r e a t i o n a l v a l u e o f mang rovesw e r e h a r d l y available.Relatedstudiesisfoundinfourstrands:overallvaluatio nsof mangroveecosystemservices,valuationsofrecreationalvalueforestuarineandmarineecosyste m,a p p l i c a t i o n s o f C V M i n v a l u a t i o n o f r e c r e a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s a n d f i n a l l y , estimatesofrecreationalservicesofmangrovesinVietnama n d inothercountries. a Overallvaluationsofmangroveecosystemservices
Overallvaluations of mangroveecosystemservicesusea d i v e r s e collectionofmet hods.Theseinclude,butnotlimitto,obtaininginformationofeconomicbenefitsr a t h e r t h a n e c o n o m i c v a l u e ( p r o v i s i o n a n d c u l t u r a l s e r v i c e s )
( U d d i n , d e Ruyterv a n S t e v e n i n c k , St ui p andShah, 20 13 ); marketedsubstitutes/ alternativesupplies( f i r e w o o d ) , v a l u i n g themarginalp r o d u c t i v i t y o f t h e r e s o u r c e n e t a n y humane f f o r t ( f i s h e r i e s ) , p r e v e n t i v e e x p e n d i t u r e s o r d a m a g e c o s ts a v o i d e d ( s h o r e l i n e s t a b i l i z a t i o n , er o si o n c o n t r o l , a n d c o n t r o l o f s t o r m s u r g e s ) , C V M ( e x i s t e n c e , b e q u e s t , a n d o p t i o n v a l u e s )
(GunawardenaandRowan,2005);combinationofearth-observation- andhousehold-survey- basedanalyses( K u e n z e r a n d T u a n , 2 0 1 3 ; Q u o c V o , K u e n z e r a n d Opp el t , 201 5)andvaluetransfer(Malik,FensholtandMertz,2015)
The valuation of ecosystem services varies significantly across studies Timber provision is consistently estimated by all reviewed studies (Gunawardena and Rowan, 2005; Ud din et al., 2013; Kuenzer and Tuan, 2013; Quoc Vo et al., 2015; Malik et al., 2015) In contrast, more complex services are assessed differently among researchers For instance, Gunawardena and Rowan (2005) and Kuenzer and Tuan (2013) highlight the value of fishery services both within forests and in adjacent coastal areas, where fish are integral to the ecosystem Conversely, Ud din et al (2013) and Quoc Vo et al approach these services from distinct perspectives, illustrating the diversity in ecosystem service valuation.
(2015)valuefisheryinsidemangrovesonly.Thee s t i m a t i o n s o f t e n i n c l u d e c o a s t a l p r o t e c t i o n a n d r e c e n t l y c a r b o n s e q u e s t r a t i o n w h i l e leavingoutrecreationandbio diversitybenefits(Gunawardenaand Rowan, 2005;K u e n z e r and T u a n, 2 0 1 3 ; Q uoc Vo eta l , 2 0 1 5, Maliket a l , 2 0 1 5 ) I n d e e d , Gunawardena andRowan(2005)acknowledgetheneedforinsightsintotheinteraction betweenecologicalandsocio- economiclinksinordertoobtainafairlyaccuratevalueo fthemangroves.
Besidess t u d i e s v a l u i n g i n d i v i d u a l m a n g r o v e s i t e s , t h e r e a r e m e t a - a n a l y s i s s t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d tofindwaytoapplyvaluetransferonmangroveecosys tems(Branderetal.,2 0 1 2 ; SalemandMercer,2012).OneoftheseisthepaperbyBranderet al.
(2012)formangroveecosystemsvaluesinSoutheastAsia.Theauthorsstudy130valueestimate s,m o s t l y f o r mangroveinS o u t h e a s t A s i a T h e s e r v i c e s v a l u e d a r e m a t e r i a l e x t r a c t i o n ( f u e l w o o d , f o o d o r t h a t c h ) , w a t e r q u a l i t y maintenanceo r i m p r o v e m e n t , s u p p o r t t o commercialf i s h e r i e s ands h o r e l i n e p r o t e c t i o n O t h e r s e r v i c e s s u c h a s r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s , biodiversitybenefit sandcarbonsequestrationwerenotincludedduetos c a r c i t y ofstudiesestimatingth em.Themeanandmedianvaluesfoundare4185and2 3 9 U S $ / h a / y e a r T h e s e v a l u e s varyg r e a t l y d u e tof a c t o r s i n c l u d i n g t h e s i t e bio- physicalc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d t h e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s t a k e h o l d e r s Finally,onefactorpositi velyinfluencingthevalueofamangroveforestisadjacencytoo t h e r mangroveforests. b Valuationsofrecreationalserviceforestuarineandmarineecosystems
Brander,VanBeukeringandCesar(2007)usemeta- analysistostudytherecreationalv a l u e ofcoralreefs.166studieswerecollectedan d52werestatisticallyadequateform e t a- an a l y s i s yielding100valueobservations.Theresultsshowthatlargerdivesitesand smallernumberof visitors makesitesmore attractivetorecreationists Differe ntmethodsgivesverydifferentestimatedvalueswithcontingentvaluationproduces i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r r e s u l t s A l s o , q u a l i t y o f a l a r g e p a r t s t u d i e s a r e l o w w h i c h maya c c o u n t f o r thevariationinvalueestimations.Whenapplyingvalue- transfer,thea v e r a g e transfererroris186%whichisnotsufficientlyreliableforthe methodtobeused. c ValuationsofrecreationalservicesasenvironmentalgoodsusingCVM
H u h t a l a , 2 0 0 4 ; J i m a n d C h e n , 2006;Lee,Lee,Mjelde,ScottandKim,2009;Dong, Zhang,Zhi,ZhongandLi,2 0 1 1 ; Yamazaki,Rust,Jennings,LyleandFrijlink,2013),C VMincombinationwithexpendituredata(Bergstrom,Stoll,TitreandWright,1990)orC VMseparatelyandincomparisonw i t h t r a ve l c o s t method( N a v r u d a n d Mungatana,19
Research conducted in both developing and developed countries highlights significant factors influencing willingness to pay for recreational services For instance, Navrud and Mungatana (1994) found that international visitors to Lake Nakuru National Park in Kenya exhibit price inelastic demand for specialized, high-quality wildlife viewing, while local residents demonstrate elastic demand, viewing it as a luxury This disparity underscores the varying valuation of recreational services in different contexts, reflecting the unique circumstances of each case.
I n G u a n g z h o u , C h i n a w h e r e p e o p l e a r e accustomedt o p a y i n g f o r a c c e s s t o g r e e n s p a c e s a n d s e e i n g o u t d o o r recreationingreenspacesasimportantleisurepursui t,onlyincomesi g n if i can t ly a f f e c t w i l l i n g n e s s t o pay( J i m a n d C h e n , 2 0 0 6 ) H o w e v e r , i n F i n l a n d w h e r e accesstoparks isfreeandincomeishighimplyingamplesupplyofrecreationalactivities,60%oftheresponde ntsindicatedculturalandecologicalconservationasthemotivationforwillingnesstopaywhil elessthan20%stateopportunitytousetheparksa s theirreasonforpaymentandincomeisnots tatisticallysignificantasanimpactonw i l l i n g n e s s topay(Huhtala,2004)
Issuesof the CVMmethodsare discussedand sometimesaddressed.Although CVMisd e s ig n e d tocapturebothuseandnon- usevalue,NavrudandMungatana(1994)foundestimationr e s u l t o f C V M l o w e r t h a n t h a t o f T r a v e l C o s t D o n g e t a l ( 2 0 1 1 ) a l s o commentthattheirresultusing CVMislowcomparedtootherstudies.Oneearlystudy(Shultze t a l
( 1 9 9 8 ) a c k n o w l e d g e t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f n o t i n c l u d i n g p o t e n t i a l v i s i t o r s ; la ckingdetailedscenariosandinformationframing;andcultural- strategicbiaseswhenconductingsurveysi n a d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r y O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a r e c e n t studybyYamazakietal.(2013) hastestedandcontrolledforresponsebiases, namelyanchoringb i a s andstructuralshift. d EstimatesofrecreationalservicesofmangrovesinVietnamandinothercountries
Afewstudies estimating recreationalservices ofmangrovesi ndevelopingcou ntries h a s b e e n p u b l i s h e d S p e c i f i c a l l y , B e n n e t t a n d R e y n o l d s ( 1 9 9
3 ) d o r e s e a r c h f o r t h e mangrovesinSarawak,Malaysia;Ahmad(2009)forthema ngrovesinLarutMatang,Malaysia;Uddineta l
( 2 0 1 3 ) f o r t h e SundarbanR e s e r v e F o r e s t , Bangladesh;a n d K u e n z e r a n d T u a n ( 2 0 1 3 ) f o r t h e C a n G i o M a n g r o v e B i o s p h e r e R e s e r v e , Vietnam.Met hodsusedincludeobtainingsecondaryinformationofincomecollectedfromtourists(Uddinet al,2013;BennettandReynolds,1993),travelcostmethod(Kuenzera n d Tuan,2013)andco ntingentvaluationmethod(Ahmad,2009).
US$4992( 2 0 1 3 ) r e s p e c t i v e l y T h e f i r s t a n d f o u r t h n u m b e r s , b e i n g h i g h i n t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s c o m p a r e d t o t h e o t h e r t w o numbers,ist h e i n c o m e o f a l r e a d y q u i t e d e v e l o p e d t o u r i s m d e p e n d e n t o n m a n g r o v e s i n M a l a y s i a a n d V i e t n a m T h e s e c o n d numberi s t h e WTPforhypotheticale c o t o u r i s m s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d w i t h i n a n o t h e r mangroveforestalsoinMalaysiaandthethird,lowestestimationisforofficialrevenuec o l l e c t e d onlybyt h e F o r e s t D e p a r t m e n t ofS u n d a r b a n R e s e r v e F o r e s t w h e r e r e a l marketvaluesdonotexist.AddingtothattheconclusionthatvaluesusingCVMofte nyieldlowerresultsasdiscussedinearliersection,itseemsthatthevalueestimatedbycon tingentv a l u a t i o n methodi s a c o n s e r v a t i v e n u m b e r t h a t onlyi n f o r m a b o u t t h e initiatedinterestofthepopulationintheenvironmentalservice.Duetoresourceconst raints,othersignificant economicbenefits areoverlookedwhichwillarise with properinvestmentanddevelopmentfromgovernment.
CHAPTERSUMMARY
Thec h a p t e r b e g i n s byp r o v i d i n g d e f i n i t i o n s o f keyc o n c e p t s i n c l u d i n g e c o s y s t e m s , mangroves,environmentalserviceandecotourism.Afterthat,thetheoretic alf o u n d a t i o n ofwelfareeconomicsispresentedwhich trace theconnectionfromchangest o e n v i r o n m e n t a l g o o d s t o WTPm e a s u r e m e n t i n r a n d o m u t i l i t y m o d e l G o i n g o n , e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e i s r e v i e w e d a l o n g f o u r s t r a n d s : o v e r a l l v a l u a t i o n s o f mangroveecosystems e r v i c e s , v a l u a t i o n s o f r e c r e a t i o n a l v a l u e f o r e s t u a r i n e a n d m a r i n e ecosyste m,a p p l i c a t i o n s o f C V M i n v a l u a t i o n o f r e c r e a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s a n d finally,estimatesofrecreationalservicesofmangrovesinVietnamandinothercountries.
CONTINGENTVALUATIONMETHOD
CVMisasurveybasedevaluationmethodwhererespondentsareaskedtostatetheir w i l l i n g n e s s topay(WTP,orwillingnessto accept,WTA)fortheconservation (orloss)o f someenvironmentalservices.Thename“contingent”indicatesthattherespon dentsareb e i n g p r e s e n t e d w i t h a h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l g o o d s b e i n g evaluated.CVMbelongstothecategoryofstatedpreferencemetho dsasitisbasedonp eo pl e tellingwhattheywouldpayandnotwhatisobservedfromwhat theyactuallyd o
Wantrup( 1 9 4 7 ) a n d f i r s t a p p l i e d i n a n e m p i r i c a l studybyDavis(1963)toest imatevalueofawildernessareatohuntersandtourists.In1998,therew a s a n o t o r i o u s a c c i d e n t t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t i n t h e U S , t h e E x x o n Valdezoilspill.CVMwasthe nusetoquantifythedamagesbyaskingWTPtoprev en tasimilaraccident.Thenumberish ugeandsparkedcontroversy.LaterArrowe t a l ( 1 9 9 3 ) w a s c o m m i s s i o n e d toi n v e s t i g a t e w h e t h e r C V M i s a v a l i d methodo f evaluation.Theyconcluded t h a t t h e methodc a n p r o d u c e r e l i a b l e estimatesw i t h t h e conditionthatsurveysarecaref ullydesignedandimplemented.Themethodthengainb r e a k t h r o u g h inpopularity andatthistimethereisalreadyasignificantbodyofworksapplyingCVM. a StepsinimplementingCVM
Accordingt o Hanley(1990),t h e ge ne ra l p r o c es s i n conducting aCVM studycomp risesofthefollowingsteps:
- Decideonthesamplesize,modeofsurvey,whowill besurveyed,whowill payf o r thegood,whowillusethegoodandotherrelatedissues
- Conductinterviewsandfocusgroupstoexplorethesituationandhowtodesignq u e s t i o n n a i r e , whichgenerally comprisesof:Introduction, socio- economic qu estio ns,Scenario,WTP/WTAelicitationformat,paymentvehicles
- Enterdata:identifyresponsesthatmaynotexpressrespondent’svaluefor thesite,dealwithpossiblenon-responsebias
- e n d e d , Single-boundedDichotomouschoice(Take-it-or-leave- it),Doubleb o u n d e d dichotomouschoice,Modifieddichotomous,Paymentcardm ethod,Iterativebiddingg a m e s … I n theirb o o k C a r s o n andHanemann( 2 0 0 5 ) r e c a p p e d t h e developmentofelicitationmethodsasfollow:
Thef i r s t s u r v e y us e t h e " b i d d i n g g a m e " formatw h e r e r e s p o n d e n t s r e c e i v e s e r i e s o f q u e s t i o n s withincreasingordecreasing amountofpaymentuntiltherespondentswitcht h ei r answerfrom"yes"to"no"orviceversa ThismethodleadstoconcernabouttheinfluenceofstartingbidsonthefinalestimatedWT P
Latertheopen- endedquestionwasusedwhererespondentsgettodecidetheirm axi mu m paymen t,butthisapproachproducedalotof"don'tknow"question.
Tofixthat,MitchellandCarson(1981)usecardswithdifferentpaymentamountsfromw h i c h res pondentscanchoose.
ToallowforthevariationinWTP,BishopandHeberlein(1980)seektoboundWTPrat herthantryingtogetouttheexactWTPamount.Themethodinvolvesaskingyes/ nov o t e toalternativeamountsrandomlyassignedtorespondents.Thisisknownasthesingle- boundeddichotomouschoicequestion.
Thesingle- boundeddichotomousquestion,however,provideslittleinformationaboutt h e WTPo feachrespondentandrequireslargesampleto obtainexpectedprecision.Toovercomet h i s l i m i t a t i o n , C a r s o n ( 1 9 8 5 ) , H a n e m a n n ( 1 9 8 5 ) , C a r s o n a n d S t e i n b e r g (1990)andHanemann,LoomisandKann inen(1991)havedevelopedthedoubleboundeda p p r o a c h w h i c h c a n g e n e r a t e b o t h a l o w e r a n d a n u p p e r b o u n d o n e a c h r e s p o n d e n t ' s WTP.Itisdonebyas kingbinaryquestionconditionalonthefirstWTPq u e st i o n Ifthefirstisansweredw itha"yes",thesecondwillincreasetheamountand viceversa.Thisistheapproachthattheauthorplanstouseforthisresearchandthe correspondingresponseprobabilitymodels.
SCENARIOANDPAYMENTVEHICLE
Theb a s e scenarioisoftouristsarrivinga t t h e b e a c h , d o i n g t y p i c a l a c t i v i t i e s l i k e swi mmi n g , p l a y i n g s p o r t s , t a k i n g p i c t u r e a n d h a v i n g s e a f o o d t h e n g o h o m e ort o a n ear b y attraction.Thebeachisnottoomagnificentbutratherunspoi led.Thisisverycommonexperienceexceptthattheseafoodisfreshandpricedinexpensively.
Sometourists arethenapproachedand requested tohelp answera questionnaire.Intheq u e s t i o n n a i r e , the touristswill beintroducedwithascenario.Thescenariostartswithab r i e f aboutthesituationandvalueo fthemangroveforest.Ahypotheticalecotourismt r i p i n t o t h e m a n g r o v e f o r e s t i s t h e n p r e s e n t e d T h e t r i p i n c l u d e s c r u i s i n g i n t o a n d learningfromatourgu idethefeaturesofthemangroveforest.The Mangrove ForestM a n a g e m e n t Boa rdwillplantheroute,provideboatandtrainedtourguideforthetrip.
8 Ifthefeeis,wouldyoupayittohavethat trip?Yes
9 Ifthefeeis ,wouldyoupayit to havethat trip?
Todeterminethebidlevels,agroupofenumeratorsweresenttointerviewtouristsforp o s s i b l e l e v e l s o f b i d A l a t e r f o c u s g r o u p b e t w e e n e n u m e r a t o r s a n d e x p e r i e n c e d practitioners ofenvironmentalvaluationgenerate7bidlevels:50 ,000;100,000;150,000;2 0 0 , 0 0 0 ; 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 ; 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 ; 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 F r o m t h e s e b i d l e v e l s , 1 8 s e t s o f b i d questionswereconstructedasfollow:
Group No.of tourists 1 st bid
Group No.of tourists 1 st bid
MODELOFWILLINGNESSTOPAY
Therespondents areasked whethertheyarewillingtopaya bidamountt 1a n d t h e nbidam ount t 2i n theelicitationquestions.Theassumptionisthattheywillansweryeswhenth eirrealwillingnesstopayishigherthanthatamount:WTP>t
Where� �is thevectorofexplanatoryvariables,𝛽isthevectorofcoefficientsand� �is theerrorterm.
Theexplanatoryvariablesarecollectedbyquestionsinthequestionnaireandwill ber e s t r i c t e d byo m i t t i n g v a r i a b l e s w i t h i n s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i o n v a l u e a b o u t WTP.T h e u nr est r ict ed functionofWTPisassumedtobe:
ENVISSUE: whether respondentthinkthat environmentalissuesarenottreateda d e q u a t e l y inVietnam ECOEXP: whetherrespondenthasgoneonaneco-tourismtripKNOW LEDGE: whetherrespondentiscorrectaboutthesituationofmangrovesin Vietnam
GENDER: whetherrespondentismaleorfemaleMARISTAT : whetherrespondentismarriedornotEDUC: respondent’shighesteducationattainment HHSIZE: respondent’shouseholdsize
TRANSMEANS: whetherrespondenttraveltositebymotorbikeorcarD IST AN C E : distancerespondenthastravelledtovisitthesite
ESTIMATIONOFWILLINGNESSTOPAY
TheWTPamountin(17)isnotdirectlyaskedoftherespondent,butratherextractedbyp r e s e n t i n g b i d l e v e l s f o r h i m o r h e r t o c h o o s e Bymodelingt h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e d i c h o t o m o u s answersandusingmaximumlikelihoodtofitthedata,wecanestimateβan d co mputemeanWTP(Jeanty,2007).
Inthiscase,thechoicevariableANSWERisregressedonvariablesBID,ENVISSUE,ECOE XP,K N O W L E D G E , A G E , G E N D E R , M A R I S T A T , E D U C , H H S I Z E , INCO ME,TRANSMEANsandDISTANCE(18)
Followingequation(16),thisstudysettheassumptionsthattheerrortermuifollowst h e norma ld i s t r i b u t i o n a n d p r o c e e d t o e s t i m a t e t h e b i v a r i a t e p r o b i t f u n c t i o n a s t w o separateprobitfunctions,assumingthattheWTPfunctionsofthefirstandtheseconda n s w e r aredifferent.
Afterthat,observationismadeonwhetherthetwoprobitfunctionsarecorrelatedandth e hypothesisthattheseprobitfunctionsarethesameistested.Ifitcannotberejected,constraintswi llbesettohavebivariateprobitregressionresultsintwosimilarprobitf u n c t i o n Ifi tisrejected,theprobitfunctionofthefirstanswerwillbeusedforanalysisasthesecondanswerisli kelytobesubjectedtoresponsebiasessuchasanchoringandstructuralshift(Whitehead,2000)
Continuingwith(18),fortheprobitmodels,theprobabilityofansweringyesgiventhe respondentwithvectorofexplanatoryvariables�′ �is
𝛽′isthevectorofestimatedcoefficientsof(18),whichisalsotheestimateo f v ectorβof(17)addingcoefficientforbid Φisthecumulativenormaldistribution.
Z̅istherowvectorofsamplemean,including1fortheconstantandexcludingbid βist h e columnv e c t o r o f estimatedc o e f f i c i e n t s𝛽
′excludingt h e c o e f f i c i e n t o f b i d , whichisalsothevectorinofcoefficientsin(16) β 0is thecoefficientof‘bid’variable b Nonparametricestimation
ItisknownthatestimateofmeanWTPisverysensitivetothedistributionassumptiono f WT P,particularlyifthepatternofresponsesisnotwell- behaved(HaabandMcConnell,2002).Therefore,itisusefultodevelopa leastr e s t r i c t e d e s t i m a t i o n o f WTP.WithonlytheassumptionthatWTPofarespondentisequalorgreater thanthebidw h i c h theya g r e e t o pay,t h e methodo f n o n p a r a m e t r i c a s s u m p t i o n m a t c h e s t h e n e e d
Consequently,m e a n WTPe s t i m a t e d by nonparametricmethodcanbetakenasthelowerboundestimateofmeanWTP(Batemanetal., 2002).
(2002)suggestsusingthemethodofTurnbullSelfConsistencyAlgorithm(TSCA).TheTSCA WTPi s c a l c u l a t e d ast h e c o m m o n K a p l a n - M e i e r -
T u r n b u l l a f t e r r e a s s i g n i n g a l l r e sp o n d en ts i n t o b a s i c WTPi n t e r v a l b o u n d e d byt w o a d j a c e n t b i d l e v e l s Iti s a n iterativeprocessasdescribedbelow.
� 0= 0and� �+1= infinity.Otherwise��correspondstothebidlevelsandthere areJbidlevelsinthesurvey.
MeanWTPestimateisgivenbytheareaunderthesurvivorgraph(withx-axisbeing� �and y- axisbeing�̂(� �) )
Then,theconditionalprobabilityofrespondentswhohaveWTPboundedby��a n d� � tohaveWTPlyinginbasicintervalj(boundedby� �−1and � �) is:
Whereℎ ��i s thenumber ofrespondentswithWTPwith overlappingintervalb o u n d e d by� �and � �
In orderto checkthe accuracyoftheestimates, confidenceintervalsareconstructedbycalculatingWTPfordifferentsetsofdatawithobser vationsrandomlydrawnfromtheo r i g i n a l dataset.ThetaskiscarriedoutusingCrystalBallso ftwareforExcel.
DATA
Thesurveywas conductedusingface-to-face interviewmethod,which ismorereliablet h a n mailing,drop-offortelephoneinterview.Thereare198questionnaires.
ThegroupschosenforsamplingarebeachgoerscomingtoConBungbeachinThanhH a i , t h e mostv i s i t e d b e a c h i n T h a n h P h u T o u r i s t s c o m i n g t h e r e t e n d t o r e s t a t t h e tablesprovidedforfreeandtalkorenjoyseafoodbetweensessionofmovingactivitiess u c h astransportingorswimming.Theenumeratorswouldcontactseveralvisitorsi ne ach group,statethepurposeofthesurveyandaskforconsenttoconductaninterview.Focusg r o u p s a r e c a r r i e d o u t onF r i d a y an d f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v i e w s f o r f i l l i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e arecarriedoutonSaturdayandSundaywh enthere are agreatnumberoftourists.T h e e x a c t d a t e i s f r o m 2 1 stAugust 2 0 1 4 , e l e v e n daysb e f o r e N a t i o n a l DayHoliday.
Therearefiveenumeratorswithtwomalesandthreefemales.Beforegoingouttodof i e l d w o r k , theya r e t r a i n e d t o c o n d u c t t h e i n t e r v i e w i n a n a p p r o p r i a t e mann er.T h e trainingisdonewith:a)distributingquestionnaireandlistofrulesforgoodintervie w, b) answeringquestionsfrom enumeratorsaboutthequestionnairesandtherulesandc)h o l d i n g interviewexamplewithco mmentfromtrainerandotherenumerators.
- Read the questionsclearlyand exactlyas printedto haveallrespondents answertothesamequestions
Thischapterpresentsthemethodologyofthestudyinfiveparts.Part1discussesthe adoptionofCVMbyresearchersandpolicymakers,therequiredstepsinconductingas t u d y u singCVMandthedecisionofelicitationformatforthisstudy.Part2detailsthescenarioandpay mentmethodwhichareimportantpartsofthequestionnaire.Part3isa b o u t h ow w i l l i n g n es s t o paycanbe m o d e l l e d , w h i c h h e l ps t ou n d e r s t a n d h ow i t i s estimatedbyparame tricandnon- parametric methodsasexplainedinpart4 Finally,p a r t 5informsaboutdatacollectionf orthestudy.
OVERVIEWOFTHANHPHUANDTHENATURALRESERVE
ThanhP h u i s o n e o f t h r e e c o a s t a l d i s t r i c t s o f B e n T r e , w h i c h i s a p r o v i n c e i n t h e M e k o n g Delta.ThanhPhuhasseventeencommunesandonetownofthesam ename.Asof2013,thedistrict hasanareaof425.7km²andpopulationof130,820(TiềmnăngvàcơhộiđầutưcủahuyệnThạnhP hú,2014).ItscapitalliesinThanhPhutown.
ThanhP h u h a s g r e a t p o t e n t i a l f o r t o u r i s m d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h numeroust o u r i s t attractions.T h e s e i n c l u d e t h e HoC h i M i n h T r a i l byS e a , 1 0 0 - y e a r - o l d H u y n h P h u mansion,manytradevillages,pristinealluvialbeaches inThanh Haiandthe mangroveecosystem.However, with poorinfrastructureand underdeveloped ho spi ta li ty sector,thepotentialisstilltoberealized.
2 0 1 5 ) , t h e governmenth a s madem a n y e f f o r t s t o a d d r e s s theseissues.Manyh istorical- culturalrelicssuchastheHuynhPhumansion,OngTomb(LangOng),AnLinhPago dahasbeenrenovated.Thelongtimeprojecttor e n o v a t e t h e H o C h i M i n h T r a i l bySe a i s h a l f w a y toward f i n i s h i n g t h e f i r s t p h a s e (2013-
2017).T r a f f i c infrastructureh a s b e e n improvedbytarringt h e roadf r o m CauV a n toC onChimT-junctionandbuildingCauVanBridgeinplaceoftheoldferry- b o at whichconnectuppercommunestothethreecoastalcommunesthroughCauVan( Q u o c Vinh,2015)
Also,manyinvestmentpromotionactivitiesandtrainingsessionshavebeencarriedouttoestabli shagoodhospitalitysector.TheprovincialInformationCenterforTourismPromo tionworkswiththe mediatodisseminate information about natural resources, t ouristattractionsandprojectstoattractinvestments.Somegovernmentbodiesworktogethert oorganizeexperimentalcommunity-,eco- tourstopersuadetravelcompaniestobringtouriststoThanhPhu.Trainingontourismforad ministrators,foodsforsmallb u s i n e s s e s , f i r s t a i d , r e s c u i n g a n d w a v e i n t e n s i t y o b s e r v a t i o n w e r e g i v e n T o u r i s m a d v i s o r y t e a m , f i r s t a i d t e a m , w a s t e c o l l e c t i o n team;a s s e m b l i e s i n s p e c t i n g s e r v i c e pricea n d f o o d safetyw e r e f o r m e d t o e n s u r e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t o u r i s t s c o m i n g t o t h e d i s t r i c t (QuocVinh,2015) b ThanhPhuNaturalReserve
106 0 41'Eandissituatedonthecoastalareab e t w e e n HamLuongandCoChienestuaries. Thetotalareais2,584hawhichcompriseso f a s t r i c t p r o t e c t i o n s e c t i o n , e c o l o g y r e st o r a t i o n s e c t i o n I , ecologyr e s t o r a t i o n sectionIIandanadministration– servicesection.
Beingl o c a t e d b e t w e e n e s t u a r i e s a n d t h e s e a , t h e a r e a i s s t r o n g l y a f f e c t e d byb o t h accr eti on anderosion.Themajortypeofsoilaresalinetidalandsandyon es.Thereisanintensivewebofstreamswhichservetrafficintheregion.However,duetoall uvialaccretionraisingthebottomofstreams,waterwaytrafficdependsonthetid eswhicho c c u r twicedaily.Thequickpaceofthetidemaketransportationdifficult.
A p r i l t h e n e x t year.A v e r a g e t e m p e r a t u r e i s 2 6 6 0 C,f l u c t u a t i n g b e t w e e n p e a k o f 2 8 4 0 CinAprilandtroughof24.3 0 CinDecember.Averagehumidityis83%, beinghighesti n A u g u s t t i l l O c t o b e r ( 8 4 % -
8 0 % ) Averagerainfallis1454mm,withabout126daysrainydaysyearly.Rainfallisd i s t r i b u t e d unevenlyandconcentratesinrainyseason,beinghighestinOctober.
Asof2000,thereare1,470peoplelivinginthenaturalreserveandmorethan6,935 peoplelivinginthebufferzone.Maineconomicactivitiesareagriculture,fishingan dforestry.
+ Grasses: 39 species + Climbers: 15 species + Crawling plants: 5 species
Rừngt á i s i n h : P l a n t e d f o r e s t ; R ừ ngb ần:S o n n e r a t i c a c a e f o r e s t ; R ừn gđ ư ớ c:Rhizophoracaeforest;R ừngMấm:Avicenniaforest;R ừnglá:Shading p lants f o r e s t ; R ừng+ Tôm:F o r e s t + Shrimp;Đấtt r ồngc â y n ô n g n g h i ệ p:L a n d f o r a g r i c u l t u r e ; V u ô n g Tôm:Shrimpfarms;Bãicát:Sandysites,Bãitriềuthấp:Lowtidesi tes
Themanagementboardkeepsalistof119speciesbelongingto45families:T a b l e 2.Classi ficationoffloraspeciesinThanhPhuNaturalReserve:
Importantf a m i l i e s a r e R h i z o p h o r a c a e ( Đước),V e r b e n a c a e (Cỏr o i n g ựa),S onnerati cacae ( B ần)a n d C o m b r e t a c a c a e ( Bàng).Among1 1 9 p l a n t s p e c i e s , 1 0a r e p l a n t e d Theremaindersarenaturallyoccurring.Dominantnaturallyoccu rringplantsa r e theB.caseolaris(Bầnchua),B.ovata(Bầnổi),R.mucronataandth eA.alba(mấmtrắng).ThemostwidelygrownplantedspeciesisR.apiculta(Đước)
Elementsof tide,river flowandsalinitystronglyinfluencethedistributionof dominantp l a n t s inthesub- regions.SpeciessuchasA.marina(Mắmlưỡiđồng)andE.agallocha( Giá)a r e a b l e t o growi n r e g i o n s w i t h 8 5 % salinity.A o f f i c i n a l i s ( M ắmĐ e n )c a n growsinregionsthatdonotexceed63%salinitywhileR.apiculata(Đước)growsine nvironmentsw i t h m a x i m u m 6 5 % s a l i n i t y a n d w i t h i n t i d a l f l o o d i n g f o r 10- 19dayse v e r y month.Sonneratiaspecies(Bần)liveinregionswith10–
Thesalinitychangesinwater(duetotheconfluenceofMekongRiverandEastSea),t hevarietyoflandtypes(sandybeachesandtidalmudflats)andhumanactivitieshaveb r o u g h t abouttherichnessofplanlivesinthearea.
Beachess u b m e r g e d byt h e t i d e a n d t h e s t r e a m s o f t h e n a t u r a l r e s e r v e becomei d e a l huntingg r o u n d s f o r m a n y bi rd s p e c i e s A t i g h t p o p u l a t i o n o f A v i c e n n i a a l b a (MắmT r ắng)i n t h e T r ảngL ầys u b - r e g i o n i s t h e h a b i t a t f o r m a n y r e p t i l e a n d a m p h i b i a n speciesandsmallani mals.Examinationresultsinalistof27reptilespecies,8amphibianspecies,16mammalsan d60birdspecies.Belowaresomerareandthreatenedspecies
Scientificname Threatened Vulnerable Endangered Rare
+ Ophiophagus hannah (Rắn hổ mangchúa) +
Scientificname Threatened Vulnerable Endangered Rare
PRELIMINARYSTATISTICS
Table4showsthesummaryofrespondents’socio- economicinformation.Theaverager e s p o n d e n t i s 3 3 yearso l d , sc h o o l e d f o r n e a r l y13years,livingi n a h o u s e h o l d o f 4 members.Heorshehasanincomeof5 2millionan dhastravelled86.49kmtothesite.51%ofrespondentsaremale,52%aremarriedand56%t ravelledtothesitebycar( i n c l u d i n g privateandpublic)
Characteristics Description Mean SD Mean Max
Dummyvariable=1ifrespo ndentismale,=0iffemale Dummyvariable=1if
Meansof measureinmillionVNDDu mmy variable=0if 0.56 0.04 0 1 transportation
Distance respondenttravelledtositeb ycar,ymotorbike Distancefrom
86.49 3.16 0 264 respondent’shousetosite Source:Survey data
Lookinga t t h e rankingo f o c c u p a t i o n g r o u p sizei n figure5 , itc a n b e seent h a t a disproportionatelylargenumberofrespondents aregovernment workers.Nextist henumberofstudents.Thismaybebecauseofthemorefreetimethesetwogroupshavea n d a l s o t h e steadyi n c o m e o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s T h e n e x t t w o g r o u p s , self- employedandprivatefirmemployee,arenearlythesameinsize.Othersmallgroupsa r e f i s h e r m a n / f a r m e r , r e t i r e e , manuall a b o r / m e c h a n i c t a i l o r / s k i l l e d w o r k m a n , un empl oy ed andforeignworker.
24 Manual labor/mechanic/tailor/skilled workman
Figure5.SharesofoccupationalgroupsinthesampleS o u rc e: Sur veydata
Respondentsa r e a s k e d t o r a n k t h r e e c o n c e r n s t h a t theyt h i n k a r e mosti m p o r t a n t toVietnamese.Aggregatescoreiscalculatedbytakingthesumofweightsgivento:
1sti s s u e = 3 ,2ndi s s u e = 2and3rdiss u e=1 Table5showstheresultedrankingsofissues.
Theratedt w o mosti m p o r t a n t i s s u e s a r e byf ar e d u c a t i o n a n d h e a l t h , w i t h h e a l t h s c o r e s seconda n d i s l a r g e r t h a n t h e t h i r d i m p o r t a n t i s s u e , e c o n o m i c , b y a w i d e margin.Environmentisthefourthconcern.
Whenb e i n g a s k e d w h e t h e r environmental andr e s o u r c e issuesi n V i e t n a m a r e n properlytakencareof,only51peopledisagree,whichmeans73,85%ofrespondentsto t hinktheseissuesarenotappropriatelyaddressed.
119respondents,or61%ofthesamplereporthavingparticipatedinecotourismtrips. Aftert h a t , r e s p o n d e n t s a r e a s k e d t o c h o o s e 3 b e n e f i t s o f e c o t o u r i s m t h a t a r e mostp e r s o n a l l y i m p o r t a n t T h e r a n k i n g i n t e r m s o f timesc h o s e n i s a s s h o w n i n t a b l e 6.Somecareaboutlessthan3benefits.
Situation of mangroves in Vietnam from 2002
Contracting due to deforestation Largely unchanged
Whenaskedwhetherthemangroveareasarecontracting,expandingorlargelyu n c h a n g e d since2002,themajorityofrespondentschoosecontracting.Only9personsr e p r es en t i n g 4.6%ofthesamplegivethecorrectanswer“largelyunchanged”.
Table7 s h o w s c a l c u l a t i o n r e s u l t s o f c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n c o e f f i c i e n t s T h e r e a r e 8 r esu l t sw i t h w e a k c o r r e l a t i o n ( < 0 0 5 w i t h p - v a l u e s < 1 % ) a n d only1 r e s u l t w i t h correlationo v e r 0 5 T h e w e a k c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e b e t w e e n : yearsi n s c h o o l a n d a g e o f r e s p o n d e n t s (-
0.18),incomeandage(0.24),incomea n d maritals t a t u s ( 0 2 2 ) , meanso f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d a g e ( 0 4 2 ) , m e a n s o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d maritals t a t u s ( 0 4 1 ) , d i s t a n c e f r o m hometos i t e a n d e d u c a t i o n ( 0 2 8 ) anddistancetositeandmean softransportation(0.31).Thestrongercorrelation(0.63)isbetweenmaritalstatusandage.
Correct about mangroves’ situationin Vietnam
*significantat1%level.So urce:Surveydata c Willingnesstopaybybidlevels
Generally,thepercentof‘yes’responsesdecreaseasthebidsincrease.However,therea r e an omalies.
Int h e f i r s t b i d s , p e r c e n t o f ‘yes’r e s p o n s e f o r t h e b i d o f 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 i s h i g h e r t h a n t h e p er ce ntof‘yes’responseforthepreviouslowerbidof200,000(72.73%compared to6 2 7 9 % )
Inthesecondbids,percentof‘yes’responseforthebidof200,000ishigherthanthep er cen t of‘yes’responseforthepreviouslowerbidof150,000(71.88%comparedto5 9
0 9 % ) Also,percentof‘yes’responseforthebidof500,000isslightlyhigherthanthepe rcentof‘yes’responseforthepreviouslowerbidof400,000(47.62%comparedto43.86%)
Combiningbothbids,theanomaliesarenullified,leavingonlyasmallirregularpointw h e r e p e r c e n t o f ‘ y e s ’ r e s p o n s e f o r t h e b i d o f 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 i s s l i g h t l y h i g h e r t h a n t h e percentof‘yes’responseforthepreviouslowerbidof400,000(47.62%c omparedto4 6 4 6 % )
Theseanomaliescould be becauseofn o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e data,whichm a y resul tfromthesmallsizeofthesample.
NON-PARAMETRICESTIMATION
Thef i r s t r e c a l c u l a t i o n o f meanW T P p r o d u c e t h e r e s u l t o f 2 6 8 , 8 0 1 V N D A f t e r t h e te n t h iteration,meanWTPconvergeat281,663VND.UsingCrystalBalltoboots trapp r o d u c e the95%confidenceintervalof(258,939;303,938)whichtheaforementi onedmeanWTPfallinto.MedianWTPis400,000VND.
DETERMINANTSOFWILLINGNESSTOPAY
The bivariate probit model analysis reveals that bid levels negatively and income positively influence responses to two bid questions involving eco-tourism Notably, the likelihood of agreeing to the first bid decreases when respondents perceive that environmental issues are inadequately addressed, indicating a reluctance to invest in eco-tourism under such circumstances This finding suggests that tourists are more inclined to pay for eco-tourism when they have confidence in the collective efforts to protect environmental services Additionally, tests confirm a correlation between the two probit functions.
Prob>Chi-squared 0.00 Prob>Chi-squared 0.0529
PARAMETRICESTIMATION
Testingforthehypothesisthatthetwounrestrictedprobitfunctionsarethesameshowst h a t itca nnotberejected Thetwoprobitfunctions are thenregressedon constraintst h a t theircoefficientsarethesame.UsingregressionresultsforcomputationofWTPf o l lo wi n g RobbandKrinskyprocedureyieldstheWTPamountof349,202VNDandc o n f i d e n c e interval(313,648-408,569)at95%significantlevel.
Therestrictedversionofthetwoprobitfunctionsincludeonlybid,incomeandwhetherrespond entthinksthatenvironmentalissuesarenotproperlyaddressed.Proceedingasabovey ieldsverys i m i l a r r e s u l t o f W T P amount( 3 4 9 , 3 7 6 V N D ) a n d c o n f i d e n c e interval(313,237-408,273)at95%significantlevel.
Fromthetworesult,wecanconcludethatparametricresultofWTPis349,000VND w i t h lowerboundof313,000VNDandupperboundof409,000VND
Model\Measure WTP* Lowerbound* Upperbound* CI/Mean
AGGREGATEWILLINGNESSTOPAY
0, 0 00 in 2 0 1 4 and kee p g r o w i n g Us in gt he meanWTPam ou nt e s t i m a t e d bypara metricmethodweobtain:
AverageWTPfortheforestisthereforeUS$1028/ ha,whichis43timeshigherthantheresultofUS$23.8/ haforthemangroveforestinLarutMatangbyAhmad(2009)u s i n g thesamemethod ofCVM.ThiscouldbebecausetheareaofthemangrovesinL aru tMatangis 4 0 , 7 1 1 ha, muchlargert h a n t he 2, 584haareaof t h e m a n g r o ve s inT h a n h P h u N a t u r a l
CHAPTERSUMMARY
This chapter begins by outlining key information about the study sites, focusing on tourism development in Thanh Phu and the Natural Reserve It then presents preliminary statistics that examine the socio-economic profiles, attitudes, perceptions, experiences, and concerns of respondents, along with the correlation of coefficients and willingness to pay (WTP) by bid level The following section discusses WTP results derived from non-parametric estimation Part 4 identifies the determinants of WTP based on the first bivariate probit regression results Part 5 provides WTP results from parametric estimation, while Part 6 details the calculation of aggregate WTP and compares it to a similar study.
CONCLUSIONS
Thestudiesbegin withdefining theobjectivesoffindingouttheaggregateWTP forrecreationals e r v i c e o f t h e T h a n h P h u n a t u r a l r e s e r v e a n d w h a t a f f e c t t h e i n d i v i d u a l WTP.E c o s y s t e m , e n v i r o n m e n t a l s e r v i c e s a n d r e l a t e d t e r m s w e r e d e f i n e d T h e l i n k fromwelfaretheorytorandom utilitymodelandlatertomodelofWTPinthisstudyisp r e s e n t e d Literaturereviewpro videsusefulinsightsofwhichoneisabouttheestimationresultsof
CVMstudiesbeinglowerthanthoseofothermethods.Itservestoa r g u e thattheCVMresult conservativelyreflectthepotentialofbenefitsfrome c o s y s t e m s CVMmethodi sthenexplainedtogetherwiththerationalethatthisstudyfollowforchoosingthedouble - boundeddichotomouschoiceformatinextractingWTPi n f o r m a t i o n Thequestionnair eisdesignedwithrecreationalvalueisrepresentedbyahypothetical trip that conforms to the definition ofecotourism:satisfyingthe criteriaofn o n - ex t r a ct i v e , n o n - c o n s u m p t i v e , s u s t a i n i n g t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f l o c a l p e o p l e a n d involvinginterpretingandeducatingabouttheenvironm ent.Afterthat,theproceduref o r parametricestimationusingprobitregressionand nonparametricestimationusingT u r n b u l l Self-
ConsistencyAlgorithmispresented.DatacollectioniscarriedoutinConBungBeachinThanh HaicommuneofThanhPhuprovince.Enumeratorsaretrainedtoensureintervieweesu nderstandthemattercorrectlyandgivehonestopinions.
The study highlights the potential for ecotourism development in the area, emphasizing the importance of ongoing infrastructure and service improvements by authorities The natural reserve showcases the typical biodiversity found in mangrove ecosystems, which attracts visitors interested in observation and education Analysis indicates that income is a significant factor influencing responses, while unaddressed environmental issues negatively impact perceptions Nonparametric estimation reveals a mean willingness to pay (WTP) of 282,000 VND, while parametric estimation, through bivariate probit regression, yields a mean WTP of 349,000 VND Overall, the findings demonstrate favorable determinants and reasonable WTP levels, supporting the viability of ecotourism initiatives.
POLICYIMPLICATIONS
AsT h a n h P h u N a t u r a l R e s e r v e h a s u s u a l l e v e l o f b i o d i v e r s i t y fora m a n g r o v e a r e a , e c o t o u r i s m service here couldbe expected tohavetocompetewith ecotourismat othermangroves.Thelocalauthorityshouldstrivetoattracttouristswithmorevalue- addedservices u c h asgreatinterpretationservicesupportedbyv e r y go od i n f o r m a t i o n a n d trainingfromtheforestmanagementboard.Also,culturelearningactivitiescouldbea d d e d toformcommunity-basedecotourism.
WithWTPd e p e n d s onincomea n d i n a r e l a t i v e l y q u i c k l y g r o w i n g e c o n o m y l i k e Vietnam,thelocalgovernmentcanexpecthighdemandandshouldprepareforit withsettingrulesandensuringgoodexecutionofthemtoavoidpollutionandover-extraction.
Asperceptiononwhetherenvironmentalissuesareproperlyaddressalsosignificantlya f f e c t WTP,policymakersshouldmakesurethatthemangrovesinthenaturalreservea r e n otclearedforshrimpfarmingorotherexploitationandkeepexpandingtheforestw h e r e n e c e s s a r y s u c h a s t o a v o i d e r o s i o n A l s o , i t i s i m p o r t a n t toc o m m u n i c a t e t o r esid en ts aswellastouristtheeffortstobemadebygovernmentandcitizens.
Finally,withtheresultofthisstudyincombinationwithresultsfromotherpartsofther e s e a r c h , thegovernmentnowhaveinformationtodeployaPFESschemeforengagingthesocialprot ectionofthelong-termbenefitsfromthenaturalreserve.
METHODOLOGICALREMARKS
Asmentionedabove,CVMisamethodthatgivesconservativeestimatesofWTPfore n v i r o n m e n t a l services.Therefore,itisdecidedthatthisstudywillreportWTPusing parametricr esu lt ast h e mainr es u l t an dWTPus i n g n o n p a r a m e t r i c r e s u l t as a l o w e r b o u n d only.
Also,someofthequestionsinthequestionnairewerenotwell- designedandcouldnotb e usedforanalysis.Theseincludequestionsabout:
The sampling strategy for the survey presents several issues Firstly, there is no assurance that the individuals approached at the beach accurately represent the broader tourist demographic visiting Con Bung Secondly, the surveys were conducted on weekends, which may lead to respondents exhibiting a higher willingness to pay compared to off-season travelers Lastly, the survey was exclusively conducted in Con Bung, where the tourist demographic may differ significantly from other locations in Thanh Phu For instance, tourists at other sites may be more inclined to pay higher prices due to their remoteness from traffic.
Additionally,a s s t a n d a r d t o a l l c o n t i n g e n t v a l u a t i o n s t u d i e s , t h e s t u d y s h o u l d h a v e consideredh o w b i a s e s o f v a r i o u s formscouldh a v e c a u s e d a n i m p e r f e c t estimation.T h e s e i n c l u d e : strategicbias,informationbias,starting pointbiasandhypotheticalbias( P e r e i r a andRui,2007).
SUGGESTIONSFORFURTHERRESEARCH
Oned i r e c t i o n f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s t o testa n d c o n t r o l f o r r e s p o n s e b i a s e s , namelyanchoringeffectandstructuralshift followingtheapproachusedbyYama zakietal.( 2 0 1 3 ) Assuch,WTPsofrespondentiforthetwoquestionsaregivenby
WTP2i=(1-γ)WTP)WTP1i+γ)WTPb1i+δ Where: γ)WTPistheanchoringparameterthatmeasurethelevelofanchoring δistheshiftparameterthatmeasurehowWTPoftherespondentisexogenouslys h i f t e d fromthetrueWTP.
Anotherdirectionistoobtainexpenditureofrespondentswhiletravellingtosite andcalculateopportunitycost,whichisthencombinedwithwillingnesstopayforthetouri n t o theforesttoobtainthetotalWTPofrespondents.Thiswouldrequireverycarefulplan ning toobtainmeaningfuldata.
CHAPTERSUMMARY
Thisc h a p t e r b e g i n s w i t h s u m m a r y o f t h e studyp r o c e d u r e a n d c o m m e n t s a b o u t t h e r e s u l t s Parts2recommendspoliciestomanagersfrominformationtheeffectofb i o d i v e r s i t y l e ve l o f t h e r e s e r v e , i n c o m e , p e r c e p t i o n o f t o u r i s t s a b o u t w h e t h e r environmental issuesareproperlyaddressedandthemonetaryresultoftheevaluatio n.P a r t s 3 d i s c u s s e s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e s i n c l u d i n g h o w t h e r e s u l t r e f l e c t t r u e WTP,q uest ion s in the que st io nna ir e tob e improved, samplingstra tegy, n on - res po nses andb i a s e s Finally,part4outlinestwopossibledirectionsforfutureresearches.
Ahmad,S.“RecreationalValuesofMangroveForestinLarutMatang,Perak.”JournalofTro picalForestScience,2009,81–87.
Arrow,Kenneth,RobertSolow,PaulR.Portney,EdwardE.Leamer,Roy
Bateman,I a n, R i c h a r d C a r s o n , B r e t t Da y, M i c h a e l Ha n e m a n n, N i c k Hanley,T an n i s H e t t , MichaelJones-
Bennett,E l i z a b e t h L , a n d C o l i n J R e y n o l d s “ T h e V a l u e o f a M a n g r o v e A r e a inSarawak.”Biodiversity&Conservation2,no.4(1993):359–75.
Bergstrom,JohnC.,JohnR.Stoll, JohnP.Titre,andVernonL.Wright.“Economic
Bishop,RichardC.,andThomasA.Heberlein.SimulatedMarkets,HypotheticalM a r k e t s , andTravelCostAnalysis:AlternativeMethodsofEstimatingOutdoorRecreat ionD e m a n d.U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin Madison,
Bockstael,N a n c y E , a n d A M y r i c k F r e e m a n I I I “ C h a p t e r 1 2 W e l f a r e T h e o r y and V a l u a t i o n ” I nH a n d b o o k o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l E c o n o m i c s,e d i t e d byK a r l - G r a n Mler andJeffreyR.Vincent,2:517–
Elsevier, 2005. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574009905020127.
Brander,LukeM.,PieterVanBeukering,andHermanS.J.Cesar.“TheRecreational
Analysis.”EcologicalEconomics63,no.1(June1 5 ,2007):209–18.doi:10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2006.11.002.
Brander,Luke, U ni te d N a t i o n s Environment Programme,D iv isi on of Environme ntalP o l i c y I m p l e m e n t a t i o n , a n d E c o s y s t e m s S e r v i c e s -
Carson,RichardT.,andW.MichaelHanemann.“Chapter17ContingentValuatio n.”InHandbookofEnvironmentalEconomics,editedbyKarl-
Carson,R i c h a r d T , a n d D a n S t e i n b e r g “ E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n forD i s c r e t e C h o i c e V o t e r PreferenceSurveys.”1989ProceedingoftheSurveyMethodolo gySectionoftheAmericanStatisticalAssociation,1990,821–22.
ConservationPractices.”JournalofF a r m Economics29,no.4(November1947):1181.d oi:10.2307/1232747.
Dong,Xuewang,JieZhang,RuizhiZhi,Shi’enZhong,andMinLi.“MeasuringRecreation alV a l u e o f WorldH e r i t a g e S i t e s B a s e d o n C o n t i n g e n t V a l u a t i o n Method:ACaseStudyofJiuzhaigou.”ChineseGeographicalScience21,no.1(Fe bruary2011):119–28.doi:10.1007/s11769-011-0445-5.
BoundedDichotomousChoiceContingentValuation.”AmericanJ o u rn al of
Hanemann,W.Michael,andothers “SomeIssuesinContinuousand DiscreteR e s p o n s e ContingentValuationStudies.”NortheasternJournalofAgricultur alE c o n o m i c s 14,no.1(1985):5–13.
Hanley,N.“ValuationofEnvironmentalEffects:FinalReport, StageOne.”Indus tryDepartmentforScotland,1990.
Hawkins,S , a n d W.F o r e s t T r e n d s “ R o o t s i n t h e W a t e r : L e g a l F r a m e w o r k s f o r MangroveP E S inVietnam.Retrievedfrom,”2 0 1 0 h t t p : / / a g r i s f a o o r g / a g r i s - search/search.do?recordID=AV2012073040.
Non-Market Benefits of Public Outdoor Recreation Areas,”
2004.http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen de/24602/.
Jeanty,P.Wilner.“ConstructingKrinskyandRobb Confidence Intervalsfor Mean andM e d i a n WillingnesstoPay(wtp)UsingStata.”InSixthNorthAmeric anStataUsers’ GroupMeeting,Boston,August,13–14,2007.http:// repec.org/n asug2007/pwj_nasug07.pdf.
Jim,C.Y.,andWendyY.Chen.“Recreation– amenityUseandContingentValuationo f UrbanGreenspacesinGuangzhou ,China.”LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75,no.1–2(February28,2006):81– 96.doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.08.008.
Kuenzer,C l a u d i a , a n d VoQ u oc T u a n “ A s s e s s i n g t h e E c o s ys t e m S e r v i c e s V a l u e o f C anGioMangroveBiosphereReserve:CombiningEarth-Observation- andH o u s e h o l d - S u r v e y -
Lee,Choong-Ki,Jin-HyungLee,JamesW.Mjelde,DavidScott,andTae-
KyunKim.“ A s s e s s i n g the EconomicValue ofaPublicBirdwatchingInterpretativeServiceU si n g aContingentValuationM ethod.”InternationalJournalofTourismR e s ea rc h 11,no.6(November2009):
Le,Luong.“TinTứcvàSựKiện-HuyệnThạnhPhúQuanTâmđếnViệcđầuTư ,”2 0 1 5 http://www.bentre.gov.vn/Pages/TinTucSuKien.aspx?ID264&CategoryId=D u
Malik,Abdul,RasmusFensholt,andOleMertz.“EconomicValuationofMangrov esf o r ComparisonwithCommercialAquacultureinSouth Sulawesi,In donesia.”F o r e s t s 6,no.9(August31,2015):3028–44.doi:10.3390/f6093028.
M.Brander,Luke,AlfredJ.Wagtendonk,SalmanS.Hussain,AlistairMcVittie,Peter
H.Verburg,RudolfS.deGroot,andSandervanderPloeg.“EcosystemServiceValu esforMangrovesinSoutheastAsia:AMeta-
Mitchell,RobertCameron,andRichardT.Carson.“UseofContingentValuationDataf o r B e n e f i t / c o s t AnalysisinWaterP o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l , ” 1 9 8 6 http://agris.fao.org/ agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201300720367.
Navrud,StÅle,andE.D.Mungatana.“EnvironmentalValuationin DevelopingC ountries:The
RecreationalValueofWildlifeViewing.”EcologicalEconomics1 1 ,no.2(November1 994):135–51.doi:10.1016/0921-8009(94)90024-8.
Pereira,N u n o C l í m a c o , a n d R u i P e d r o F i g u e i r e d o G o m e s “ C o n t i n g e n t E v a l u a t i o n Method,” 2007. http://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~jpais/naturalresources/
ENRE_Contingent_Valuation_Me t h od s p d f
QuocVo, Tu an, C K u e n z e r , and N O ppe lt “H ow RemoteS e n s i n g Supports Ma ngroveEcosystemServiceValuation:A CaseS t u d y inCaMauProvince,Vietnam.”E cosystemServices14(August2015):67–75.d o i : 1 0 1 0 1 6 / j e c o s e r 2 0 1 5 0 4 0 0 7
R.K.,Dav is “ Th eVa lu e o f O u t d o o r Recr eat io n: A n E co no mi cS tu dy oft h e M a i n e Woods.”Dissertation,HarvardUniversity,1963.
MarineandCoastalEngineering,”2013.http:// kythuatbien.blogspot.com/2013/09/rung-ngap-man-b ao - v e - v u n g -c h ac- t r u o c.h t m l # Vd r W C JP m Pt Q
Salem,MarwaE., andD.EvanMercer “TheEconomicValueofMangroves:AMeta-
Sam,D.D., N NB in h, N N Que, and V T Ph uo ng “VietnamReporton Review ofNationalDataandInformationonMangroveForest.”Hanoi:UNEPGEF,2005.
Sathirathai,S , a n d E b B a r b i e r “ V a l u i n g M a n g r o v e C o n s e r v a t i o n i n S o u t h e r n Th ail an d ”ContemporaryEconomicPolicy19,no.2(April1,200 1):109–22.doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2001.tb00054.x.
Shultz,Steven,JorgePinazzo,andMiguelCifuentes.“OpportunitiesandLimitationsofContingen tValuationSurveystoDetermineNationalParkEntranceFees:E v i d e n c e fromCos taRica.”EnvironmentandDevelopmentEconomicsnull,no.01(February1998):131– 49.doi:null.
QuầnThểThựcVậtVùngBưngTrũng.”AccessedAugust24, 2015. http://www.bentre.gov.vn/Pages/GioiThieu.aspx?ID8&CategoryId=%u0110i
%u1ec1u+ki%u1ec7n+T%u1ef1+nhi
%u00ean&InitialTabId=Ribbon.Read&Pag e I n d e x = 1
Thuy,TruongDang.“WillingnesstoPayforConservationoftheVietnameseRhino.”T h e EconomyandEnvironmentProgramforSoutheastAsia(EEPSEA),20 07.h t t p : // w w w e co n n i d a a c t h / at t ach m en t s / ar t i cl e / 1 9 3 2 /P ap er
“TiềmN ă n g v à C ơ H ộ i đ ầ u T ư C ủ aH u y ệnT h ạnhP h ú , ” 2 0 1 4 http:// ipabentre.gov.vn/vi/news/Huyen-Thanh-Phu/Tiem-nang-va-co-hoi- dau-tu-c u a - h u y e n - T h a n h - P h u - 3 0 3 /
TIES.“WhatIsEcotourism?,”2015.https://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism.
M o h a m m a d AminurRahmanShah.“EconomicValuationofProvisioningan dCulturalS e r v i c e s o f a P r o t e c t e d M a n g r o v e E c o s y s t e m : A C a s e St udyo n S u n d a r b a n s ReserveForest,Bangladesh.”EcosystemServices
UKNEA.“EcosystemServices,”(n.d.).http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/
UNEP.“Ecosystems and Their Services,”
(n.d.).http://www.unep.org/maweb/documents/document.300.aspx.p df.
VanTuyen,Truong.“TowardWetlandEcosystemManagement:ACaseStudyReviewi n Vietn am.”Application oftheEcosystemApproachtoWetlandsinVietnam,Ed s G Shepherd and LM Dang IUCN Vietnam, Hanoi,
2009.http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Truong_T uyen2/publicat ion/
REVIEW_IN_VIETNAM/links/53df54a90cf2cfac992970d9.pdf.
2000. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Whitehead2/publication/
Whittington,Dale.“Improving the Performancce ofContingent ValuationStu diesinDeveloping Countries,”
2002.http://www.eepsea.org/pub/sp/11889655441CV_Surveys_ERE_ 2002.pdf.
Yamazaki,S a t o s h i , S t e v e n R u s t , S a r a h J e n n i n g s , JeremyLyle,a n d S v e n F r i j l i n k “ V a l u i n g RecreationalFishinginTasmaniaandAssessmentofRes ponseBiasinContingentValuation*.”Australian Journal ofAgricultural an dResourceE c o n o m i c s 5 7 ,n o 2 ( A p r i l 1 , 2013):1 9 3 –
Wearemembers o fagroupofresearcherssponsoredfromHochiminh U n i v e r s i t y ofEcono micsconductinganevaluationof themangroveforestinBenTre.
Youarerandomlychosentobepartofthestudy.Thequestionnairecomprisesofquestionsonissueso f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , ecotourismandyourhouseholdinformation.W e w o u l d l i k e t o assurey out h a t anyinformationyoureveald u r i n g t h i s intervieww i l l onlyb e usedf o r t h i s research.Plea setake notethatthehypotheticaltripthatwillbepresentedinourexchangedoesn o t e x i s t yetand isonlydesignedtocaptureyouropinion.
Ifanythingisunclear,pleasedon’thesitateto question theenumerators.
1 Fromt h e belowl i s t , pleasep i c k t h r e e c o n c e r n s t h a t yout h i n k arem o s t importa ntt o Vietnam:
Government and governance (poor administration,corruption…) Infrastructure(roads,water…)
- Other,please specify: PART 2: AWARENESSOFECOTOURISMANDMANGROVEFORESTS
Mangroveshasveryimportantroleincoastallandexpansion,dykesprotection,erosioncontrol,prote ctionagainsts t o r m s andflyings a n d …
Economically,mangroveforestsarealsosourcesoftimber,firewood,inputsforindustriesandmedici ne.Additionally,theyarehabitatsformanyspeciesofinsects,birds,reptiles,mammals,s h r i m p s , crabs,fishes…
InVietnam,m o s t mangrovesareasa r e concentratedi n t h e S o u t h Int h e North,d u e t o coldw i n t e r andnarrowerestuaries,theareasof mangroves aresmaller.Along theMiddle’sbeachestherearefewswamps,themajorityofareaisoccupiedbysand- banks;thereareonlyspotsofmangrove forestsalongthe 1000kmlength.
MangroveforestsintheSouthhavediverseandabundantbiomass.InThanhPhualone,thereare119 ofvascularplantspeciesbelongingto45plantfamilies.Faunaintheforestincludesm a n y spe ciessuchasoysters,arkshells,shellfishes,mussels,shrimps,crabs,fishes…
Therearealsoalotofspecieslivinginthetree,onland,eatingleaves,nectar,fruitsandseedssuchasmo nkeys,squirrels,mice,wildboars,bees.Insecteating,meateating,omnivorousspeciesi n c l u d e otters,fishingcats,snakes,lizards,crocodiles,bats.Anotherpopulousgroupisthatofb i r d s ; t h e y concentratei n s p o t s o f t e n s o f thousandsw i t h s t o r k s , geese,pelicans,cranes,gulls
MangroveforestsintheSouthdevelopfromtheestuariesofDongNairivertoHaTien,butt h r i v e most in theareaofnineestuariesofDeltaand the CaMaupeninsula.
Before 1945, mangrove forests covered approximately 400,000 hectares, predominantly in the South, with over 150,000 hectares located in Ca Mau However, following two wars and factors such as overexploitation, conversion for aquaculture, and tourism activities, the area of mangroves has rapidly declined By 1982, only 252,000 hectares remained, and this figure dropped to about 200,000 hectares in 1999, further decreasing to just 155,000 hectares by 2002.
In2005,mangroveforestareawas157,500ha.Inrecentyears,thetotalmangroveforestareai s incre asinggradually,buttherestaremostlynewlyplantedforest.In2010,totallandareaofmangroveswas1 71.514hectares.
Supposeyouareofferedatourof3hoursexploringthemangroves.Apaddlingboatwilltakeyouinto theforest.Thisisanecotourismtourwhichcontributeto local economicdevelopmentw i t h o u t damagingtheenvironment.Inadditiontoatreatofcalmrelaxa tion,atourguidewillinformyouwithknowledgeaboutforest.He/shewilltellandshowyou:
- Otherfunctionsl i k e n u t r i e n t cycling,waterpurification,rawmaterialp r o v i s i o n andca rbon sequestration
- Thespeciesandtheirbiologicalfeaturesyoumayseeintheforest,includingmangrovep l a n t s , m o l l u s k , crustacean,f i s h , amphibians p e c i e s andb i r d s ( s o m e a r e illustrat edhere)
Bồ nông - Pelecanus Tắc kè - Gekko gecko
ThetourisorganizedbytheMangroveForestManagementBoard.Inordertohavethistrip,youwil lneedtopayafeewithcashbybuyingticketfromtheManagementBoard.Anyprofitw i l l b e usedtosupporttheconservationofthe forest.
8 Ifthefeeis,wouldyoupayittohavethat trip?Yes
9 Ifthefeeis ,wouldyoupayit to havethat trip?Yes
11 Whatarethereasonsyoudid not paytotakethetrip?Chooseup tothree.
Iplan to visit adifferentmangrove forest
Self-employment(ownbusiness)Fisherman/ farmerLaborer/mechanic/tailor/ skilledworkerOverseasforeignworker
Please givethehighestlevelattended(Forexample,college–3 rd year)
19 Pleasecheckthe averagemonthly HOUSEHOLDincome bracketwhere yourhouseho ldbelongsto(includethecashearningofallfamilymemberswhoareworkingorgainfully employed,includingyourself)
Lessthan2 mil.VND From16 to