Examining Demand for Urban River Rehabilitation in Indonesia: Insights from a Spatially Explicit Discrete Choice Experiment

The demand for urban river rehabilitation can be measured through stated preference surveys such as choice experiments, providing information on the welfare estimates of a particular approach. We deploy such a technique in the context of plans to rehabilitate a major river in Jakarta, Indonesia. The current plan focuses on widening and canalizing the downstream segment of the river within Jakarta’s administrative boundary. We hypothesize that residents would demand (and thus be willing to pay for) additional components of an ecological rehabilitation program in the form of riverside park space and upstream forest conservation outside of Jakarta’s jurisdiction. We develop a spatially-explicit discrete choice experiment in which households register their preferences for channel widening, park space, forest conservation, and a monthly fee to fund the rehabilitation. Using mixed logit models we find significant and substantial demand for both park space and forest conservation, with a lower bound on the total willingness to pay (WTP) of greater than US $4 million per year for park space and nearly US $6 million per year to support reforestation in the upper catchment. These estimates are based on households within the catchment, but we find that demand did not seem to decay with distance so the upper bound on total WTP could be substantially higher. We also find that household income level has a strong effect on marginal WTP for forest conservation, minimal effect on marginal WTP for park space, and that location along the river influenced WTP for park space and channel widening. This provides further evidence that there is substantial demand for river rehabilitation in developing world cities, and that choice experiments can provide information relevant to land use planning.

[1]  Adrienne Grêt-Regamey,et al.  Understanding the value of urban riparian corridors: Considerations in planning for cultural services along an Indonesian river , 2015 .

[2]  Andrea Ryffel,et al.  Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations , 2014 .

[3]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Modeling Spatial Patchiness and Hot Spots in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay , 2014 .

[4]  R. Pirard,et al.  Do PES Improve the Governance of Forest Restoration , 2014 .

[5]  Elena Y. Besedin,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Hedonic Studies to Assess the Property Value Effects of Low Impact Development , 2014 .

[6]  K. Zander,et al.  Wild and valuable? Tourist values for orang-utan conservation in Sarawak. , 2014 .

[7]  Hua Wang,et al.  Willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements in Chinese rivers: an empirical test on the ordering effects of multiple-bounded discrete choices. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[8]  Adrienne Grêt-Regamey,et al.  Rivers as Municipal Infrastructure: Demand for Environmental Services in Informal Settlements Along an Indonesian River , 2013 .

[9]  Johannes Urpelainen,et al.  Understanding environmental policy preferences: New evidence from Brazil , 2013 .

[10]  Shunsuke Managi,et al.  Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and climate-change mitigation: A choice experiment using ecosystem services indicators , 2013 .

[11]  K. Zander,et al.  Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy , 2013 .

[12]  M. Shamsudin,et al.  We are willing to pay to support wetland conservation: local users’ perspective , 2013 .

[13]  E. Mungatana,et al.  Evaluating the welfare effects of improved wastewater treatment using a discrete choice experiment. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[14]  J. C. van den Bergh,et al.  Estimation of Distance-Decay Functions to Account for Substitution and Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Research , 2013, Land Economics.

[15]  Daniel Vecchiato,et al.  Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments , 2013 .

[16]  Jin Jianjun,et al.  Public preferences for cultivated land protection in Wenling City, China: A choice experiment study , 2013 .

[17]  Tutuk Lufitayanti Analisis Inkonsistensi Penggunaan Lahan terhadap Rencana Tata Ruang Kawasan dan Kemampuan Lahan (Studi Kasus Jabodetabek) , 2013 .

[18]  Jakub Kronenberg,et al.  Synthesizing different perspectives on the value of urban ecosystem services , 2013 .

[19]  I. Fazey,et al.  An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies , 2012 .

[20]  C. Bullock,et al.  Preferences and values for afforestation: The effects of location and respondent understanding on forest attributes in a labelled choice experiment , 2012 .

[21]  Marcela Brugnach,et al.  Shifting to ecological engineering in flood management: Introducing new uncertainties in the development of a Building with Nature pilot project , 2012 .

[22]  John M. Rose,et al.  Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation , 2012 .

[23]  R. Pirard Payments for Environmental Services (PES) in the public policy landscape: “Mandatory” spices in the Indonesian recipe , 2012 .

[24]  B Hasler,et al.  Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments--a non-market valuation study on the European water framework directive. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[25]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Design effects in a meta-analysis of river health choice experiments in Australia , 2012 .

[26]  J. Bennett,et al.  Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Implementation, Challenges and Policy Implications , 2011 .

[27]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Maturing the New Water Management Paradigm: Progressing from Aspiration to Practice , 2011 .

[28]  Georgina M. Mace,et al.  Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments , 2011 .

[29]  A. Straton,et al.  Trade-offs between development, culture and conservation--willingness to pay for tropical river management among urban Australians. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[30]  I. Gren Pricing Nature, Cost--Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy , 2010 .

[31]  M. Noordwijk,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Compensation and Reward for Environmental Services in the Tropics Principles for Fairness and Efficiency in Enhancing Environmental Services in Asia: Payments, Compensation, or Co-Investment? , 2010 .

[32]  E. Birol,et al.  Estimating the value of improved wastewater treatment: the case of River Ganga, India. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[33]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[34]  J. Spangenberg,et al.  Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services § , 2010 .

[35]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment , 2010, Land Economics.

[36]  Andrew J. Dougill,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Resilience and Vulnerability of Arid and Semi-Arid Social Ecological Systems Anticipating Vulnerability to Climate Change in Dryland Pastoral Systems: Using Dynamic Systems Models for the Kalahari , 2010 .

[37]  David Hoyos,et al.  The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments , 2010 .

[38]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[39]  B. Khan,et al.  Non-use Values of Ecosystems Dependent on the Indus River, Pakistan: A Spatially Explicit, Multi-ecosystem Choice Experiment , 2010 .

[40]  Dorte Gyrd-Hansen,et al.  Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[41]  S. Hess Conditional parameter estimates from Mixed Logit models: distributional assumptions and a free software tool , 2010 .

[42]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Using Conditioning on Observed Choices to Retrieve Individual-Specific Attribute Processing Strategies , 2010 .

[43]  David J. Lohman,et al.  Local people value environmental services provided by forested parks , 2010, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[44]  Donald G. Hodges,et al.  A hedonic analysis of the demand for and benefits of urban recreation parks , 2009 .

[45]  J. Bennett,et al.  Estimating wetland biodiversity values: a choice modelling application in Vietnam's Mekong River Delta , 2009, Environment and Development Economics.

[46]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change , 2009 .

[47]  John M. Rose,et al.  Efficient stated choice experiments for estimating nested logit models , 2009 .

[48]  John M. Rose,et al.  Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives , 2008 .

[49]  Carlos Montes,et al.  Influence of user characteristics on valuation of ecosystem services in Doñana Natural Protected Area (south-west Spain) , 2007, Environmental Conservation.

[50]  W. Haider,et al.  Urban Flood Problems in Dhaka, Bangladesh: Slum Residents’ Choices for Relocation to Flood-Free Areas , 2007, Environmental management.

[51]  S. D. S. Salazar,et al.  Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: Does proximity matter? , 2007 .

[52]  D. O’Reilly,et al.  Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements , 2007 .

[53]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP , 2006 .

[54]  Phoebe Koundouri,et al.  Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece , 2006 .

[55]  I. Hodge,et al.  Are stated preferences convergent with revealed preferences? Empirical evidence from Nigeria , 2006 .

[56]  Larry MacDonnell,et al.  River restoration , 2005 .

[57]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

[58]  D. Hensher,et al.  Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates , 2005 .

[59]  J. Ortúzar,et al.  Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice estimates , 2005 .

[60]  Juan de Dios Ortúzar,et al.  Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence , 2005 .

[61]  James J. Murphy,et al.  Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Hypothetical Bias in a Provision Point Mechanism? , 2004 .

[62]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. , 2003, Journal of environmental management.

[63]  Michel Bierlaire,et al.  BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models , 2003 .

[64]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The Mixed Logit Model: the State of Practice and Warnings for the Unwary , 2001 .

[65]  N. Hanley,et al.  Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? , 2002 .

[66]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Applying Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to Environmental and Resource Economics , 2002 .

[67]  C. Bhat Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model , 2001 .

[68]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[69]  S. Farber,et al.  Using Conjoint Analysis To Value Ecosystem Change , 2000 .

[70]  N. Hanley,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment , 1998 .

[71]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[72]  W. Cleveland,et al.  Locally Weighted Regression: An Approach to Regression Analysis by Local Fitting , 1988 .

[73]  D. McFadden Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice Among Products , 1980 .

[74]  K. Lancaster A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.