Estimating the eco-environmental value of damages caused by groundwater over drafting

  • S. A. MortazaviEmail author
  • H. Najafi Alamdarlo
  • M. Zaghi Bijarbas
Original Paper


Groundwater provides a lot of services to the environment as one of the components of the ecosystem, but its over drafting has led to a lot of environmental damage. Estimating the economic value of these damages is one of the important issues in the environmental economics. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic value of environmental damages to the landscape, nature, biodiversity and habitat of wildlife (natural ecosystem) in Qazvin plain. Given the lack of real market for environmental goods and services, the stated preference method and choice experiment was used to determine the value of the external effects of groundwater shortage. The conditional and nested logic model has been used to achieve the research objectives. The results showed that the income, educational level, environmental ethics and household size have a positive and significant effect on the level of willingness to pay for groundwater ecosystem services. Attaining the optimal level of biodiversity conservation, wildlife habitat and landscape were in the next places of households willing to pay. The protective value of groundwater was estimated at 879.18 Rials per cubic meter.


Groundwater protection Eco-environmental value Ecosystem services Choice experiment 



The authors wish to thank all who supported this work.


  1. Alamdarlo HN, Ahmadian M, Khalilian S (2014) Application of stochastic dynamic programming in water allocation, case study: Latian dam. World Appl Sci J 30(7):838–843Google Scholar
  2. Asadfasfizadeh N, MosanenMozafari M, SabouhiSaboni M (2014) Determine the contribution of factors affecting the over drafting of groundwater resources (case study: Marvdasht County). Agric Econ 8(3):101–114 (In Persian) Google Scholar
  3. Azamzadeh Shouraki M, Khalilian S, Mortazavi SA (2013) Effects of declining energy subsidies on value added in agricultural sector. J Agric Sci Technol 15:423–433Google Scholar
  4. Baghestani M, Zibaei M (2010) Measuring the willingness of farmers to pay for groundwater in Ramjerd; CVM approach. Agric Econ 4(3):41–64 (In Persian) Google Scholar
  5. Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Birol E, Karousakis K, Koundouri P (2006) Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida in Greece. Ecol Econ 60:145–156Google Scholar
  7. Blamey R, Rolfe J, Bennett J, Morrison M (2000) Valuing remnant vegetation in central Queensland using choice modeling. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 44(3):439–456Google Scholar
  8. Chaikaew P, Hodges AW, Grunwald S (2017) Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: a choice experiment approach. Ecosyst Serv 23:228–237Google Scholar
  9. Costanza R, d’Arge R, Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260Google Scholar
  10. Fattahi Ardakani A, Yazdani S, Hosseini S, Sadr K (2010) Economic valuation of groundwater in Yazd-Ardekan Plain. Res Agric Econ Dev 42(2):153–162 (In Persian) Google Scholar
  11. Fattahi Ardakani A, Alavi C, Arab M (2017) The comparison of discrete payment vehicle methods (dichotomous choice) in improving the quality of the environment. Int J Environ Sci Technol 14(7):1409–1418Google Scholar
  12. Green WH (2010) Econometric analysis, 7th edn. New York University: Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Griebler C, Avramov M (2015) Groundwater ecosystem services: a review. Freshw Sci 34(1):355–367Google Scholar
  14. Han S, Yong S, Kwak J, Yoo SH (2008) Valuing environmental impacts of large dam construction in Korea: an application of choice experiments. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28(1):256–266Google Scholar
  15. Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright R (2001) Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? J Econ Surv 15(3):435–462Google Scholar
  16. HashemiBonab S, Rafiee H (2012) The value of reducing environmental pollution from Ajichay. Agric Econ 6(4):75–90 (In Persian) Google Scholar
  17. Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Hausman J, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52(5):1219–1240Google Scholar
  19. Hearne R, Slinas Z (2002) The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in costa rice. J Environ Manag 65:153–163Google Scholar
  20. Hensher D, Shore N, Train K (2005) Household’s willingness to pay for water service attributes. Environ Resour Econ 32:509–531Google Scholar
  21. Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Mark Res 33(2):307–317Google Scholar
  22. Jafari AM (2013) Evaluation the economic and environmental effects of water transformation from Ekbatan dam to Hamedan City. PhD thesis, University of Tehran (In Persian)Google Scholar
  23. Kamaludin M, Radam A, Rahim KA (2016) Household preferences for improved water services in Kelantan, Malaysia: a choice experiment approach. J Bus Soc Dev 4(1):43–54Google Scholar
  24. Kling CL, Thomson CJ (1996) The implications of model specification for welfare estimation in nested logit models. Am J Agric Econ 78:103–114Google Scholar
  25. Koundouri P, Stithou M, Kougea E, Ala-aho P, Eskelinen R, Karjalainen T, Klove B, Pulido-Velazquez M, Reinikainen K, MRossi P (2013) The contribution of non-use values to inform the management of groundwater systems: the Rokua Esker, Northern Finland. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Working Paper No: 129Google Scholar
  26. Lalehzari R, Tabatabaei SH, Kholghi M (2013) Simulation of nitrate transport and wastewater seepage in groundwater flow system. Int J Environ Sci Technol 10(6):1367–1376Google Scholar
  27. Lancaster K (1996) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74:132–157Google Scholar
  28. Landers DH, Nahlik AM (2013) Final ecosystem goods and services classification system (FEGS-CS). EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. Report number EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914Google Scholar
  29. Louviere J, Hensher DA (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Peres, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin-Ortega GG (2011) Environmental and resource costs under water scarcity conditions: an estimation in the context of the European water framework directive. Water Res Manag 25:1615–1633Google Scholar
  31. McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Mosavi SH, Alipour A, Shahvari N (2017) Liberalizing energy price and abatement cost of emissions: evidence from Iranian agro-environment. J Agric Sci Technol 19(3):511–523Google Scholar
  33. Najafi Alamdarlo H (2018) The economic impact of agricultural pollutions in Iran, spatial distance function approach. Sci Total Environ 616–617:1656–1663Google Scholar
  34. Nasrabadi T, Abbasi Maedeh P (2014) Groundwater quality degradation of urban areas (case study: Tehran city, Iran). Int J Environ Sci Technol 11(2):293–302Google Scholar
  35. Orme B (2010) Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. 2nd edn, Research Publishers LLC, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  36. Salehi S, Chizari M, Sadighi H, Bijani M (2018) Assessment of agricultural groundwater users in Iran: a cultural environmental bias. Hydrogeol J 26(1):285–295Google Scholar
  37. ShademanLahiji F (2005) Economic valuation of Amirkolayeh wetland. MSc Thesis, Azad University (In Persian)Google Scholar
  38. Shrestha RK, Alavalapati JR (2004) Valuing environmental benefits of Silvopasture Practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed in Florida. Ecol Econ 49:349–359Google Scholar
  39. Stuurman RJ, Griffioen J (2003) System based groundwater management. Three cases with groundwater management problems. Commissioned by TCB Soil Protection Technical Committee TCB Report 18 (2003)Google Scholar
  40. Tempesta T, Vecchiato D (2013) Rivers cape and groundwater preservation: a choice experiment. Environ Manag 52:1487–1502Google Scholar
  41. Tuinstra J, Wensem JA (2014) Ecosystem services in sustainable groundwater management. Sci Total Environ 485–486:798–803Google Scholar
  42. Yongping W (2007) Can contingent valuation be used to measure the in situ value of groundwater on the North China plain? Water Res Manag 21:1735–1749Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. A. Mortazavi
    • 1
    Email author
  • H. Najafi Alamdarlo
    • 1
  • M. Zaghi Bijarbas
    • 1
  1. 1.Tarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations