AQUAMONEY CASE STUDY REPORT - VU University, Institute for ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

+---------------------------------------------+ | Discrete choice (multinomial logit) model | | Maximum Likelihood Estimates | | Dependent variable Choice | | Weighting variable ONE | | Number of observations 2076 | | Iterations completed 4 | | Log likelihood function -2253.812 | | Log-L for Choice model = -2253.8119 | | R2=1-LogL/LogL* Log-L fncn R-sqrd RsqAdj | | No coefficients -2280.7191 .01180 .01013 | | Constants only. Must be computed directly. | | Use NLOGIT ;...; RHS=ONE $ | | Response data are given as ind. choice. | | Number of obs.= 2076, skipped 0 bad obs. | +---------------------------------------------+ +---------+--------------+----------------+--------+---------+--------- -+ |Variable | Coefficient | Standard Error |b/St.Er.|P[|Z|>z] | Mean of X| +---------+--------------+----------------+--------+---------+--------- -+ ASC .6615037582E-02 .97892972E-01 .068 .9461 PR -.5721932418E-02 .28482023E-02 -2.009 .0445 FLOW100 -.1601268706 .12510458 -1.280 .2006 FMED50 -.1284072460 .97298083E-01 -1.320 .1869 FHIGH25 -.3960500109E-01 .90066659E-01 -.440 .6601 QGOOD .3089792650 .95069101E-01 3.250 .0012 QVERGOD .4989618767 .91652918E-01 5.444 .0000 Table 3: Discrete choice (multinomial logit) model Maximum Likelihood Estimates Marginal change in: Braila Islands Flood frequency 0 (not significant) Water quality conditions moderate good 50.7 (23.6) moderate very good 81.2 (31.1) Note: standard errors between brackets. Table 4: Attribute implicit prices (€/household/year) The values presented in Table 4 represent marginal WTP: what a household is willing to pay, for a reduction of the flood return period with one year and for a change in water quality from moderate to good and very good conditions. In the case of floods, the WTP seems to be zero, while for the water quality improvements the sums are extremely large, but holding huge standard errors. 22
4.4. Factors explaining economic values for water resource management Variable Mean fixed effects Estimate s.e. p< ASC 0.325 0.119 0.006 Flood frequency -0.004 0.002 0.029 Water Q Good 0.174 0.151 0.248 Water Q Very Good 0.455 0.134 0.001 Water QG x Perception -0.003 0.003 0.233 Water QVG x Perception -0.007 0.002 0.001 Water QG x Future visit 0.463 0.168 0.006 Water QVG x Future visit 0.447 0.136 0.001 Mean random effects Cost price -0.042 0.007 0.001 Cost price x income 0.014 0.002 0.001 Standard deviation Cost price 0.016 0.013 0.198 Cost price x income 0.006 0.003 0.030 Model fit Log Likelihood -1805.617 Adjusted R square 0.056 N 1996 Table 4: Estimated mixed logit choice models According with the very low R square values, the model does not succeed to explain the choice of one of the two restoration alternatives proposed by the study. Still, what seems to have an influence on people’s choices are the higher expectations of people related to the water quality level, and the intention of future visits in the area. Even though the flood frequency estimate is negative, contrary to what it was expected, its value is very close to zero, which means that it has no influence on people’s choices. Still the negative sign is a surprise that can be explained by the fact that despite the effort put into the wording of the survey, still it was not clear enough for the respondents the difference between the floods as an attribute, which was described as a negative event causing economic damage, and the natural floods that will reside from a natural configuration and functionality of a river systems. Probably by perceiving floods as a beneficial natural process that creates habitats for fish and birds spawning, favors the regeneration of fertile soils for agriculture and other resources, etc. respondents felt that a decline in flood frequency to be a negative result that will diminished all the benefits generated by flooding and therefore as a decrease in welfare. Another possible explanation can reside from people’s lack of understanding on how ecological restoration and therefore flooding of some areas can solve the catastrophic flood problems. Maybe asking people for their willingness to pay for restoration projects sounded more like asking someone to “fight fire with fire”, or in our case to “fight floods with floodings”. 23
Page 1 and 2: Tel UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST DEPARTA
Page 3 and 4: 1. Introduction As part of the Aqua
Page 5 and 6: Natural Park (SIBr) with a total su
Page 7 and 8: 3. Set up of the survey 3.1. Questi
Page 9 and 10: each other by natural or man made c
Page 11 and 12: One-Sample Test Test Value = 0.4831
Page 13 and 14: With a Sig. value of 0.829 the samp
Page 15 and 16: Table 1. Education structure of the
Page 17 and 18: The most unpopular activity seems t
Page 19 and 20: Evolution of the water quality 11%
Page 21: 4.3.1.2. Results from Choice Experi
Page 25 and 26: 5. Conclusions The study carry in t
Page 27: The time required to fill in a ques

AQUAMONEY CASE STUDY REPORT - VU University, Institute for ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?