<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Choice-based valuation of natural resources in the protected area of the Evros Delta</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Emmanouilides C.J.</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Tsiantikoudis S.</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Arabatzis G.</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Department of Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki</institution>
          ,
          <country country="GR">Greece</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, Democritus University of Thrace</institution>
          ,
          <country country="GR">Greece</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>835</fpage>
      <lpage>849</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>The paper investigates the economic valuations individuals make about natural resources in the protected area of the Evros river delta in NorthEast Greece. A choice experiment is conducted to quantify in monetary terms the value of natural resources, focusing on four key aspects associated with a healthy local ecosystem, (a) the withdrawal of saline soils, (b) the decrease in the use of nitrates and phosphates, (c) the protection of habitats, and (d) transfer of labor to eco-friendly human activities. We apply choice models to analyze the preference structure of residents for alternative scenarios of ecosystem's evolution in a ten years horizon. The main focus of the modeling approach is inference about welfare valuations and their relationship with the characteristics of the participants to the choice experiment and their perceptions about the importance of ecosystem services. We derive welfare estimates and detect a number of significant linear and non-linear effects that may inform environmental protection and regional development policies.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>choice modeling</kwd>
        <kwd>choice experiment</kwd>
        <kwd>protected areas</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>1. Introduction</p>
      <p>Healthy ecosystems play a vital role in maintaining high levels of human
wellbeing through the provision of a variety of benefits or services to people (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment - MEA 2005). These services include the provision of food,
freshwater, energy and raw materials; regulation of climate conditions and of water
quality, control of waste and extreme events such as flooding and diseases;
recreation, educational, aesthetic and other cultural benefits (MEA 2005).
Ecosystems in protected areas located in the vicinity of residential sites are routinely
deteriorating due to human activities. Intensive farming near the limits of protected
areas in river deltas may severely affect ecosystem health. The usually saline
cultivated soils are not productive, thus inducing intensive use of pesticides and
fertilizers by local farmers, and waste of freshwater for irrigation. This results to
contamination, loss of precious natural resources, and a consequent degradation of
the ecosystem. Saline soils are poor providers of income to farmers and of food for
animal and plant species. A solution to the problem is the flooding of soils with
freshwater that under effective management is expected to reduce pollution by
agro______________________________
Copyright ©by the paper’s authors. Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes.
chemicals, increase biodiversity, facilitate livestock farming, and provide sustainable
income to local inhabitants by eco-friendly economic activities, such as eco-tourism,
organic farming, etc.</p>
      <p>In this paper we employ stated choice methods (e.g. Louviere et al. 2000) to
assess the economic value of natural resources associated with ecosystem health in
the protected area of the Evros River Delta, in North-East Greece. This particular
study area suffers from inefficiencies in natural resources’ use, associated ecosystem
degradation and economic losses for the local society that are typical to many other
sites in the Mediterranean. Such a choice-based valuation can be informative to the
design of policies that aim to achieve environmental sustainability and improve
social welfare. In the following section we describe the methodology, then we
present the choice modeling results, assess the impact of measured variables on
welfare estimates, and finally conclude with a discussion of the findings.
2. Methodology</p>
      <p>Valuation of the natural resources in the protected area of the Evros Delta is
conducted using a discrete choice experiment (CE). CE is a well known stated
preference method (e.g. Louviere et al. 2000) used for the study of individual
preferences that cannot be revealed through direct observation of actual choice
behavior in an existing market process. Such experiments have been widely used in
marketing, transportation research, and more recently in environmental and
ecological economics. Among others, Louviere et al. (2000), Hensher et al. (2005),
and Train (2009) provide extensive reviews of the CE methodology.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2.1 Design and data collection</title>
      <p>The study focuses on four key issues pertaining to the sustainable management
of Evros Delta natural resources; (a) the withdrawal of saline soils through
freshwater flooding, (b) the decrease in the use of nitrates and phosphates via more
efficient regulation, (c) the protection of natural habitats, and (d) transfer of labor to
eco-friendly human activities. These are represented in the CE as the attributes of a
hypothetic good that reflects the health status of the Evros Delta ecosystem. These
attributes were determined through review of the relevant literature, extensive
consultation and interviewing of domain experts, scientists and local people. Their
measurement levels were decided via thorough pilot testing. Table 1 presents the
attributes and their levels. The first attribute, SALT, is the covered area of the Evros
Delta by saline soils, with baseline the current value (“status quo” - SQ). The second
attribute is the usage level of agro-chemicals, the third is the protection level of the
flora and fauna habitats, and the fourth is the degree of human labour transfer to
ecosystem-sustaining activities. Finally there is a cost attribute that is the amount to
be paid in ten annual instalments as part of the municipal tax by residents for
improving the state of the ecosystem.</p>
      <p>To reduce the large number (324) of possible choice alternatives for the given
number of attributes and their measurement levels we used a factorial design that
allows estimation of two-way attribute-attribute interactions. The number of profiles
in the design is 32. They are orthogonally split into 4 blocks of 8 profiles. In each
profile, individuals were asked to choose one among three alternative scenarios for
the state of the Evros Delta ecosystem in a 10 years horizon. Two of them are
“management” scenarios (MSs) that represent an improved future state of the
ecosystem with respect to the third scenario, that of “unmanaged” situation or “status
quo” (SQ).</p>
      <p>The survey was carried out in the area of the Evros Delta in North-East Greece,
during April-September 2008. The sampling unit of the survey is households. Data
are collected with interviews with an adult household member. The total sample size
is 388.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>2.1.1 Sample characteristics – Measured variables</title>
      <p>The key individual specific variables (ISVs) that were measured and used in the
choice modeling task are classified for descriptive purposes into two broad
categories: (a) Socio-demographic variables, such as age, gender, marital status,
education level and occupation of the respondent, household size, presence of kids in
the household, membership to environmental groups and annual net household
income, and (b) Perceptions regarding the importance of ecosystem services.
Definitions of the corresponding variables, their measurement scales and descriptive
sample statistics are shown in Tables 2a and 2b, respectively.</p>
      <p>Variables measuring respondents’ perceptions about the importance of
ecosystem services where grouped into three classes (i.e. regulating, provisioning,
and cultural) following the classification of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment
work programme initiated by the U.N. in 2001 (e.g. see MEA, 2005; Boyd and
Banzhaf, 2007). Then, for each respondent, total class scores were derived by
summing the values of the corresponding services variables. The relevant definitions
and statistics are shown in Table 2b.</p>
      <p>Protest bidders pose a well known problem in discrete choice analysis (e.g.
Meyerhoff, J. and Liebe, L., 2008). Using a set of appropriate questions asking zero
bidders to provide reasons for choosing the status quo scenario, we classified 5.4 %
of the respondents as protest bidders. These were excluded from further analyses,
reducing thus, the effective sample size to N=367.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>2.2 Choice modeling methodology</title>
      <p>Modeling of individual choices proceeds with a random utility model (RUM)
specification; Assume a stochastic indirect utility function for the choice of
individual i, i=1,…,N (N=367) among three alternatives jÎ {0,1,2} (0 for the SQ
scenario, 1 and 2 for the MSs) at choice instance t=1,…,T (T=4)</p>
      <p>
        Uijt = Vijt (xijt , wi , βi , β) + eijt
(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ),
where Vijt (.) is the deterministic utility and eijt the random utility component
associated with choice j. xijt = {xi(jkt)}kK=1 is a vector of K choice attributes (here, K=5),
wi = {wi(l)}lL=1 is a vector of L individual characteristics that are invariant across
choices and choice occasions, βi = {b i(k )}K is a vector of individual specific random
k=1
preference parameters, and β a vector of fixed parameters capturing the effects of
individual characteristics and of interactions between attributes on choice. Then,
setting the choice outcome yit Î{ j = 0,1, 2} , under the common assumption of iid
extreme value type I distributed random utilities, the conditional probability of
choosing alternative j has the mixed logit model form (e.g. Longford 1993, Train
2009)
p ijt = Pr ( yit = j xijt , wi , βi , β) = 3
å exp (Vimt )
m=1
exp (Vijt )
(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ).
      </p>
      <p>Assuming linearity in the parameters of the deterministic utilities and allowing for
two-way interactions between attributes and between attributes and individual
observed characteristics, as well as for higher order polynomials of quantitative
characteristics, deterministic utility is specified as</p>
      <p>
        K K K K L R(k,l)
Vijt = b 0( j) + åb i(k ) xi(jkt) + å å b (kk¢) xi(jkt ) xi(jkt¢) + å å å b (rkl) xi(jkt ) ( wi(l) )r
k=1 k=1 kk¢¢=¹1k k=1 l=1 r=1
(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ),
where R(k,l) is the maximum order of polynomial interactions of the attribute k with
individual-specific variable w(l).
      </p>
      <p>
        Under specification (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ), the vector of fixed parameters is β = {b 0( j) ,b (kk ') ,b (rkl)} ,
where b 0( j) is an alternative specific constant capturing the average effects of omitted
variables, k, k ' = 1,..., K (k ¹ k ') and l = 1,..., L . Random parameters b i(k ) follow
some specific, usually continuous, probability distribution, say fk (b (k) ) , with mean
b (k) and variance s k2 . For simplicity, random parameters are assumed uncorrelated
with each other. Simpler model forms employed in the analysis are derived from
expression (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ) through constraints imposed on the parameters.
      </p>
      <p>Mixed logit model estimation is performed with maximum likelihood (ML)
methods. Likelihood is maximized with numerical integration over the random
coefficients’ distributions using a variety of available methods, including: (a) discrete
approximations of the hypothesized parametric continuous distributions fk (b (k) )
(e.g. as a finite mixture of normals – Train (2008), mass point methods such as
Gaussian quadrature for the normal – e.g. Longford (1993), Emmanouilides and
Davies (2007), etc.), and (b) simulation methods (e.g. Train 2009), that are most
commonly used in recent years. Here, we adopt the latter approach.</p>
      <p>
        In contrast to a fixed parameter specification of the random utility model, i.e.
same across individuals preferences for choice attributes, bi (k) º b (k) , the random
coefficient specification (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ) handles heteroscedasticity and serial correlation in
repeated choices made by individuals, and allows for non-proportional substitution
patterns across alternatives (e.g. Train, 2009). Notice also that the specified random
coefficients model allows for two additive sources of possible correlations between
choices of the same individual; (a) correlations due to observed effects, introduced in
the model through the interactions between attributes and individual characteristics,
and (b) correlations due to unobserved preference heterogeneity, accounted for by the
individual-specific random parameters. Both are assumed time-invariant (i.e.
constant across choices of the same individual), implying a temporally stable
structure of individual preferences.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>2.3 Estimation of the monetary value of attributes</title>
      <p>
        Given estimates of parameters in the utility function (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ), marginal willingness to
pay (WTP) for a unit improvement of a non-cost attribute k can be computed as
ae L R(k,l) ö
çb (k) + åK-1b (kk¢)xi(jkt¢) + b (kC)Cijt + å å b (rkl) (wi(l) )r ÷
WTP(k) (wi ,b i(k),b i(C) ) = ëêé ¶¶VV ¶¶xC(k) ûúùi = - èçç i kk¢¢¹=1k l=1 r=1 ø÷÷
çèaeb i(C) + åkK'=-11b (k'C)xi(jkt') + ål=1 år=1 b (rCl) (wi(l) )r ø÷ö
      </p>
      <p>
        L R(C,l)
(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ).
      </p>
      <p>
        Equation (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ) is derived by decomposing (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ) into terms that involve cost (C) and
noncost attributes (x(k) , k=1,...,K-1), and computing the derivatives involved in (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ).
R(k,l) denotes the maximum order of polynomial interactions of the non-cost
attribute k with individual-specific variable w(l) and R(C,l) the maximum order of
polynomial interactions of variable w(l) with the cost attribute. Note that the presence
of interactions between the cost and other attributes renders willingness to pay for
attribute k dependent on the levels of other attributes, k΄, and cost, C. Interactions of
attributes with individual characteristics (observed heterogeneity) and the random
coefficients of the choice attributes (unobserved heterogeneity) both render
willingness to pay individual-specific. Estimates of the individual random parameters
are computed during the simulated likelihood estimation procedure, and then are
used to derive individual WTP values. Finally, the estimated expected willingness to
pay for attribute k is
      </p>
      <p>
        E (WTP(k) ) = ò ¥ò ¥ò WTP(k) (wi ,b i(k) ,b i(C) ) f (wi ) fk (b i(k) ) fC (b i(C) ) db i(k )db i(C)dwi
wiÎW -¥ -¥
(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ),
where W denotes the multidimensional space of observed individual characteristics
and f (wi ) the corresponding distribution function. Note that random coefficients are
assumed independent from observed characteristics. WTP(k) (wi ,b i(k ) ,b i(C) ) is given
by (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ). Integral (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ) is analytically intractable and is evaluated numerically.
Asymptotic confidence intervals for the expected WTP can be derived with Monte
Carlo simulations using the estimated variance-covariance matrix of model
coefficients under the assumption of asymptotic multivariate normality (MVN) of
maximum likelihood estimates. Alternatively, at the expense of computational cost
(that is considerable for the random coefficient models) non-parametric confidence
intervals can be derived using resampling methods such as the bootstrap (e.g. Efron
and Tibshirani, 1998). The delta method (e.g. Greene 2003) is another option, based
again on asymptotic normality of ML estimators. As expected, it provides similar
results to the MVN Monte Carlo approach.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>2.4 Effects of individual characteristics on WTP</title>
      <p>
        Given a non-trivial functional form for the WTP, such as (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ), we are interested to
assess the effects of individual characteristics on the WTP for choice attributes.
Conditional on parameter estimates of the choice model, these effects can be
estimated using the first order partial derivative of the WTP function for an attribute
k with respect to the characteristic of interest, while keeping all other characteristics
constant. A reasonable representative evaluation point for these effects in the
multivariate space of individual characteristics and random coefficients is the point
defined by the mean sample values; Denote w(l ') the average sample value of
characteristic
      </p>
      <p>
        w(l') , l ' ¹ l , b (k ) the mean of the kth non-cost attribute random
coefficient b i(k ) , and b (C) the mean of the cost random coefficient, b i(C) . Then,
willingness to pay for attribute k, as a function of w(l), evaluated at the mean of other
individual characteristics w(l’) and of random coefficients, can be written (using (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ))
as
      </p>
      <p>
        aeçb (k) + åK-1 b (kk¢) x(k¢) + b (kC)C + Rå(k,l)b (rkl) (w(l) )r + åL Rå(k,l')b (rkl') w(l') r ÷ö
WTP(k) (w(l) ) = - èçç kk¢¢¹=1k r=1 L l'R=1(,Cl',¹ll') r=1 ÷ø÷
çaeb (C) + åK-1b (k'C) x(k') + Rå(C,l)b (Cl) (w(l) )r + å å b (rCl') w(l') r ÷ö
è k '=1 r=1 l'=1,l'¹l r=1 ø
(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ),
Of course, in the absence of random coefficients and of interactions between attribute
and individual specific characteristics, (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ) reduces to the most common and simplest
form for WTP, i.e. WTP(k) = -b (k) b (C) . Denote the maximum polynomial order as
R(l) = max{ R(k,l), R(C,l) }, and
      </p>
      <p>L R(k,l')
a0 = b (k) + åK-1b (kk¢)x(k¢) + b (kC)C + å å b (rkl') w(l') r , ar = b (rkl), r = 1,..., R(l), l = 1,..., L ,"r &gt; R(k,l), ar º 0,
kk¢¢=¹1k l'=1,l'¹l r=1</p>
      <p>L R(C,l')
b0 = b (C) + åK-1b (k¢C)x(k¢) + b (kC)C + å å b (rCl') w(l') r , br = b (rCl), r = 1,..., R(l), l = 1,..., L ,"r &gt; R(C,l), br º 0,
kk¢¢=¹1k l'=1,l'¹l r=1
Then, after some algebra, the first derivative of WTP(k) ( w(l) )
with respect to w(l) can
be written as</p>
      <p>
        R(l) R(l)
¶ å å ( s - r +1) (ar-1bs - asbr-1 ) ( w(l) )r-1 ( w(l) )s-1
¶w(l) WTP(k) ( w(l) ) = - r=1 s=r
ae R(l)
ç b0 + å br ( w(l) )r ÷ö
è r=1 ø
(
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ).
      </p>
      <p>
        Replacing population parameters in (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ) with their sample estimates from the choice
model one can derive estimates for the marginal effects of individual specific
variables on WTP for attribute k. Note that in the absence of interactions between
choice attributes (cost and non-cost), parameters b (kk ') , b (kC) and b (k 'C) equal to zero,
simplifying the above relationships for α0 and b0. Asymptotic confidence intervals for
the marginal effects can be derived using one of the available methods briefly
discussed in section 2.3.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>3. Choice modeling results</title>
      <p>
        We model the CE data using a sequence of increasingly complex logit model
specifications. We start with a fixed parameter specification of an additively
separable indirect utility function (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ) that is assumed to include only main choice
attribute effects (model termed FPL1). Then we add interactions between choice
attributes and interactions between individual characteristics and choice attributes,
allowing for higher order polynomials of quantitative variables (model termed
FPL2). All possible two-way interactions are considered, and selection of effects to
include in each specification is based on standard AIC (Akaike Information
Criterion) minimizing stepwise variable selection procedures. For both fixed
parameter logit models we estimate its random coefficient (i.e. mixed logit) version
by allowing the main effects of choice attributes to vary randomly across individuals
assuming independent normal or log-normal distributions. These parametric
distributions, despite their drawbacks that are extensively discussed in the literature
(e.g. see Train, 2009), is the common choice for the modeler.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>3.1. Model estimation</title>
      <p>
        To estimate the FPL and RPL models, we employed the publicly available
maximum simulated likelihood GAUSS code of Kenneth Train
(http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~train), modified for use in the R statistical computing
environment (http://cran.r-project.org/). For RPL model estimation we tried
sequentially several starting values, intermediate optimization solutions, number of
points for the simulation of random coefficient distributions, and alternative
optimization algorithms to reach a final solution. Note that LIMDEP, a more
standard software for the estimation of RPL models, failed to estimate the more
complex RPL2 model. Finally, for each estimated model, marginal WTP for the
noncost choice attributes are computed using the methodology of the previous section.
The covariates we used to specify the indirect utility function (
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ) are defined in
section 2.1.1.
      </p>
      <p>The variable selection procedure suggests a final model specification without
attribute-attribute interactions. Testing all alternative combinations of independent
normal and log-normal distributions for the random coefficients, and employing the
minimum AIC as the selection rule, we reached the conclusion that for both models
with (RPL1) and without ISVs (RPL2) - the data support log-normally distributed
main effects for the COST attribute, normally distributed main effects for the EMP
attribute, and fixed main effects for the BIO, SALT and NIT attributes. That is,
unobserved preference heterogeneity in the target population is empirically supported
for both employment and cost, but not for the biodiversity, saline soils and nitrate use
reduction attributes. The results show that any heterogeneity in preferences for the
BIO, SALT, and NIT attributes is fully captured by the modeled covariates.</p>
      <p>McFadden’s R2 ranges from 0.27 for the FPL1 model to 0.43 for the RPL2
model, indicating good model fit for the choice models employed. Likelihood ratio
(LR) tests are clearly in favor of the more complex RPL model specifications.
Overall, the more complex RPL2 model is statistically superior as it achieves
significantly better values of both the likelihood function and the AIC. Note also that
the estimated standard errors of the random coefficients are statistically significant,
justifying the conclusion of random unobserved preferences for the EMP and COST
attributes. Estimation results for the RPL2 model are shown in Table 3.</p>
      <p>In all four models, the estimated main effects of the attributes are statistically
significant and have the correct signs; Biodiversity protection (BIO), decrease of
saline lands coverage (SALT), reduced usage of agro-chemicals (NIT), and
employment in eco-friendly activities (EMP), are positively related to the probability
of selecting a choice scenario with ecosystem improvements. Also, in the main
effects models (FPL1 and RPL1), after appropriate measurement scale adjustments
that allow for direct comparisons, the estimated attribute coefficients have the
ordering b EMP &gt; b BIO &gt; b NIT &gt; b SALT . This indicates a higher average preference level
for the EMP attribute, followed in turn by the BIO, NIT and SALT attributes.
Consequently, mean WTP for an attribute’s level change follows the same ordering;
it is highest on average for a level change in the EMP attribute, than for a level
change in BIO, NIT and SALT attributes. This preference ordering persists in the
FPL2 and RPL2 specifications. The cost coefficient is consistently negative in all
estimated models.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>3.1. Welfare estimates</title>
      <p>For each model, WTP estimates based on the MVN assumption and
nonparametric bootstrap estimates do not differ significantly. Point estimates range from
4.80 to 8.42€ per protection level change for the BIO attribute, from 0.79 to
1.07€/1000 acres for the SALT attribute, from 0.33 to 0.44€ per 1% change for NIT,
and from 0.36 to 0.56€/employee for the EMP attribute. From the best fitting RPL2
model, the average marginal WTP for BIO is estimated at about 7€ per level change,
1.07€/1000 acres for SALT, 0.33€ per 1% change for NIT, while for the EMP
attribute at about 0.36€/employee. Figure 1 depicts the distribution of estimated
individual WTP for each one of the four attributes from the best fitting RPL2 model,
together with projections of their bivariate joint distributions. The correlations
between them range from 0.25 (for the pair BIO-NIT) to 0.62 (for the pair
SALTNIT). These positive and statistically significant (p-value &lt; 0.001 for all six pairs)
correlations between valuations for the four attributes are due to the common effects
of individual characteristics.
1 For the RPL2 model the number of bootstrap samples was reduced to 500 due to the
computational effort</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>4. Effects of ISVs on welfare estimates</title>
      <p>The marginal effects of ISVs’ on the WTP for the four attributes, while
controlling for the effects of other variables, are computed using the estimation
results for the best fitting RPL2 model and the methodology of section 2 (eq. 7).
Each variable’s effect is evaluated at the mean values of the other covariates. The
accompanying 95% confidence intervals for the average marginal ISV effects are
based on the asymptotic MVN assumption for the ML parameter estimates. Table 5
presents the results.</p>
      <p>Figures 2a-d show (a) the estimated average (i.e. evaluated at the mean values of
other covariates and random coefficients) effects, of each quantitative ISV, together
with (b) a smooth local regression fit of each quantitative ISV on the estimated
individual-level WTP values from model RPL22. Due to space limitations, we restrict
the discussion to some selected main results.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>4.1 Perceptions of ecosystem services importance</title>
      <p>Perceived importance scores for ecosystem services have a variety of linear and
non-linear effects on individuals’ economic valuations of the four attributes; For
provisioning services (SCPR), WTP for the BIO attribute increases linearly from 3.4
(score = 0) to 8.4€ (score=6). The average derivative is 0.84€/scale unit. SCPR has
also statistically significant linear effects on the WTP for the NIT and EMP
attributes, though of small magnitudes. For cultural services (SCCU), WTP for the
EMP attribute increases almost linearly from 0.29 (score = 0) to 0.53€ (score=6),
with an average derivative of 0.01€/scale unit. SCCU does not appear to affect
significantly WTP for the other three attributes. For regulating services (SCRE),
WTP for the BIO attribute initially decreases fast from 26.3 (score = 0) to 6.5€
(score=4), and then increases slightly to 8.3€ (score=6). The average derivative is
4.1€/scale unit. We did not detect significant effects of SCCU to the WTP for the
other three attributes.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-12">
      <title>4.2 Socio-demographic variables</title>
      <p>Income has a non-linear effect on WTP for all four attributes. For biodiversity
protection improvements, WTP increases in an almost quadratic manner from about
5.6€ for low income values (2500€/year) to a maximum of 18.7€ per level change for
the highest income values (32500€/year). The average WTP derivative is 1.8€ per
5000€ of income. For reductions of saline soils coverage (SALT), expected WTP
appears to be a piecewise linearly increasing function of income, with a positive and
statistically significant average derivative value of 0.09€. WTP increases from 0.7 €
for the lowest incomes to 1.3€ for the highest ones. Also, income has a significant
positive quadratic effect on the WTP for the transfer of labor to eco-friendly
activities (EMP). The average derivative is 0.11€.</p>
      <p>Age has a non-linear negative effect on the WTP for biodiversity improvements
(BIO). Average rate of WTP change for BIO with age is -3.1€ per age band
(approximately 10 years wide). WTP for SALT is linearly increasing with age
(average derivative 0.12€), while WTP for EMP is linearly decreasing (average
derivative -0.02€). Age does not appear to affect WTP for NIT, when controlling for
the effects of other covariates.</p>
      <p>Household size (HHSIZE) is positively related with the WTP for the SALT
attribute. The average derivative value is 0.16€/person. HHSIZE has an overall
negative non-linear relationship with the WTP for the BIO attribute; WTP remains
almost constant at about 8€ for small to medium sized families (1 to 3 persons) and
then reduces fast to zero for the largest families in our sample. Education level has a
statistically significant and sizeable positive non-linear relationship with WTP for
saline soils reduction (average derivative is 0.25€ per attainment level). It is worth
noting that female respondents tend to systematically be willing to pay less for all
four attributes than male respondents. Participants to environmental groups exhibit a
similar pattern of reduced WTP for all attributes studied, as compared to other
population members.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-13">
      <title>5. Concluding comments</title>
      <p>We conducted a choice experiment to value four key attributes associated with
ecosystem health in the Evros Delta protected area. Choice models were used to
obtain monetary estimates for the preferences of residents about
ecosystempreserving human activities, biotope protection, and interventions that reduce soil
salinity and concentration of agro-chemicals, and their relationship to agents’
characteristics. Methodologically, we derived non-trivial equations for the estimation
of individual characteristics’ marginal effects on welfare valuations (results of
section 2.4). These valuations were found to be strongly related to individuals’
demographics and perceptions of ecosystem services’ importance. Our empirical
results may well inform decision makers towards designing and targeting efficient
economic policies for improving the management of protected areas in river deltas at
the Mediterranean coast.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Boyd</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Banzhaf</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          ), “
          <article-title>What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units”</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Ecological Economics</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>63</volume>
          (
          <issue>2- 3</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>616</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>626</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Emmanouilides</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C. J</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Davies</surname>
            <given-names>R. B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          ),
          <article-title>"Modelling and Estimation of Social Interaction Effects in New Product Diffusion"</article-title>
          ,
          <source>European Journal of Operational Research</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>177</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>1253</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1274</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Efron</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tibshirani</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1998</year>
          ).
          <article-title>An Introduction to the Bootstrap</article-title>
          . Boca Raton, FL: Chapman &amp; Hall/CRC.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Greene</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W. H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2003</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Econometric Analysis</article-title>
          . 5th ed., pp.
          <fpage>913f</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hensher</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rose</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Greene</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W.H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2005</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Applied choice analysis: A primer</article-title>
          . Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Longford</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1993</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Random coefficient models</article-title>
          . Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Louviere</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hensher</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Swait</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2000</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Stated choice methods: analysis and applications</article-title>
          . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Meyerhoff</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Liebe</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , (
          <year>2008</year>
          ), “
          <article-title>Do Protest Responses to a Contingent Valuation Question and a Choice Experiment Differ?”</article-title>
          , Environmental Resource Economics,
          <volume>39</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>433</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>446</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Millennium</given-names>
            <surname>Ecosystem Assessment</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
          <article-title>Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis</article-title>
          . Island Press, Washington, DC.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Train</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ),
          <article-title>“EM Algorithms for nonparametric estimation of mixing distributions”</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Journal of Choice Modelling</source>
          ,
          <volume>1</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>40</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>69</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Train</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
          <source>Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2nd Edition</source>
          , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>