Türkiye’nin Güneyindeki Havza Ağaçlandırmalarına Uygulanmış Seçim Deneyleri Yönteminde Kullanılan Modellerin Karşılaştırılması

Year 2020, Volume: 20 Issue: 3, 243 - 254, 30.12.2020

Tuğba Deniz , Marek Gıergıczny Pere Rıera Kenan Ok

https://doi.org/10.17475/kastorman.849526

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı: Bu çalışmada, erozyon kontrolü çalışmalarının yarattığı dört faydanın (sellerin önlenmesi, toprak erozyonunun azaltılması, baraj ömrünün ve kaliteli kaynak suyuna erişimin artırılması) farklı modellere göre değer tahminleri ve bu modellerin açıklayıcılıkları karşılaştırılmıştır.
Çalışma alanı : Çakıt Çayı Havzası araştırma alanı olarak seçilmiştir.
Materyal ve yöntem: Bu çalışmada, Seçim Deneyleri Yöntemini uygulamak için Deniz (2012) tarafından toplanan veriler kullanılmıştır. Deniz (2012), söz konusu faydaların marjinal değerlerini Multinomial Logit Modele göre tahmin etmişken, bu çalışmada farklı değişkenlerle kurulan başka bir Multinomial Logit Model ile Karma Çok Durumlu Logit Model kullanılarak iki ayrı tahmin daha yapılmış ve bu üç modelin sonuçları karşılaştırılmıştır.
Temel sonuçlar: Karma Çok Durumlu Logit Modeli kullanılarak bulunan marjinal değer tahminleri, Multinomial Logit Modelinde bulunan tahminlerden farklı olmasına karşın değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler değişmemiştir. Karma Çok Durumlu Logit Modelin açıklayıcılığı (Pseudo-R2=0.548), Multinomial Logit Modellerden (0.251 ve 0.071) daha büyüktür.
Araştırma vurguları: Çalışmada, erozyon kontrolü hizmetinin değerini belirlemek için kullanılan modeller değiştikçe, tahmin edilen değerlerin büyüklüklerinin de değiştiği görülmüştür.

Keywords

Seçim Deneyleri Yöntemi, Çakıt Çayı Havzası, Erozyon Kontrolü, Çok Durumlu Logit Model, Karma Çok Durumlu Logit Model, Değer Belirleme

Comparison of the Models in Choice Experiments Method Application for Watershed Afforestation in Southern Turkey

Abstract

Aim of study: In this study, the value estimates of the four benefits (preventing floods, reducing soil erosion, increasing dam life and access to quality spring water) created by erosion control activities are compared according to different models and the determination of these models.
Area of study: The Çakıt Stream Watershed was selected as a study area.
Material and methods: In this study, the data collected by Deniz (2012) to apply Choice Experiments Method were used. While Deniz (2012) had estimated the marginal values of the benefits based on Multinomial Logit Model, in this study, the estimations were separately made in order to compare the results of Deniz (2012) using both another Multinomial Logit Model with different variables and Mixed Multinomial Logit Model.
Main results: Although the marginal values found by using Mixed Multinomial Logit Model are different from the estimations found with Multinomial Logit Model, the relationships among the variables did not change. Determination of Mixed Multinomial Logit Model is bigger (Pseudo-R2=0.548) than Multinomial Logit Models (0.251 and 0.071).
Highlights: In the study, it was observed that as the models used to determine the value of the erosion control service changed, the magnitude of the estimated values also changed.

Keywords

Choice Experiments Method, Çakıt Stream Watershed, Erosion Control, Multinomial Logit Model, Mixed Multinomial Logit Model, Valuation

References

• Bann, C. & Clemens, M. (2001). Turkey: forest sector review-global overlays program final report (in Turkish). Isir Publisher, Ankara.
• Brus, D. J., Slim, P.A., Gort, G., Heidema, A.H. & Van Dobben, H. (2016). Monitoring habitat types by the mixed multinomial logit model using panel data, Ecological Indicators, 67, 108-116.
• Can, Ö. & Alp, E. (2012). Valuation of environmental improvements in a specially protected marine area : A choice experiment approach in Göcek Bay Turkey. Science of Total Environment, 439, 291-298.
• Croitoru, L., Bahar-Dıvrak, B. & Xie, J. (2016). Valuing water resources in Turkey : A case study of Beyşehir Lake. Journal of Environmental Protection, 2016, 7, 1904-1922.
• Deniz, T. (2012). Valuation in erosion control activities (in Turkish), Istanbul University, Natural and Applied Science Institution, Doctorate Thesis, July 2012, Istanbul.
• Farreras, D., Riera, P. & Salvador, P. F. (2017). Environmental valuation with periodical payments in high-inflation economies. An Argentinean case study, Ecological Economics, 138, 56-63.
• GDAEC (2008). GDAEC Activities, General Directorate of Afforestation and Erosion Control, Ankara.
• GDCDE. (2017). General Directorate of Combating Desertification and Erosion Official Website, www.cem.gov.tr
• GDCDE. (2020). Documents: Erosion in Turkey, General Directorate of Combating Desertification and Erosion Official Website, www.cem.gov.tr
• GDF. (1988). Adana Çakıt stream erosion control project (in Turkish), General Directorate of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Affairs, Project No: 2, Ankara.
• GDF. (2015). Turkey Forests, General Directorate of Forestry Official Website, www.ogm.gov.tr
• Giergiczny, M., Czajkowski, M., Żylicz, T. & Angelstam, P. (2015). Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes, Ecological Economics, 119, 8-23.
• Giergiczny, M. & Kronenberg, J. (2014). From valuation to Governance: Using choice experiment to value street trees. AMBIO, 43, 492-501.
• Gürlük, S. & Ward, F. (2009). Integrated basin management: Water and food policy options for Turkey. Ecological Economics, 68, 2666-2678.
• Hensher, D., Rose, J.M. & Greene, W.H. (2005). Applied choice analysis, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610356
• Japelj, A., Mavsar, R. & Kovač, M. (2012). The economic value of selected ecosystem services in Slovenia, IUFRO 4.05.00 International Symposium - Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: Contributions of Managerial Economics and Accounting, at: Knoxville, Tennessee, USA.
• Kaya, G., Ok, K., Porsuk, T., Deniz, T. & Çetiner, M. (2018). Estimating regional recreational demand for forest recreation sites with travel cost method in Ankara province, Journal of Forestry Research 2018, 5:1, 15-30, DOI: 10.17568/ogmoad.361810.
• Kaya, G. & Özyürek, E. (2016). Economic value estimation of scenic beauty of METU Forest in the context of urban forest, Journal of Forestry Research, 2015/1, A, 1:2, 15-28, DOI: 10.17568/oad.69943.
• McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, In : Zarembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics: 105-142. Academic Press, New York, USA.
• MoAF. (2019). Strategic plan of ministry of forestry and water affairs (2019-2023) (in Turkish), Ankara.
• MoEF. (2004). National Forestry Program of Turkey (2004-2023) (in Turkish), Ministry of environment and forestry, October 2014, Ankara.
• MoFWA. (2013). Action plan of upstream flood control (2013-2017) (in Turkish), Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs, Ankara.
• Özdemir, F. Y. & Baycan-Levent, T. (2010). A Contingent valuation approach to community-based watershed management in Beyşehir Lake Basin. Conference Paper at the 50th Congress of the European Regional Science Association:Sustainable Regional Growth and Development in the Creative Knowledge Economy", 19-23 August 2010, Jönköping, Sweden.
• Özmış, M. & Tolunay, A. (2017). Determining the economic value of erosion control services and willingness to payment trends of society at Burdur region (in Turkish), Süleyman Demirel University, Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences, 21(1), 99-112,
• Pak, M. (2002). A study on the estimation of economic value of recreational benefit from forest resources and effective variables on the estimated value (East mediterranean and east black sea region forest recreation sites sample) (in Turkish). Karadeniz Technical University, Natural and Applied Science Institute, December 2002, Trabzon.
• Pak, M., Türker, M.F. & Öztürk, A. (2010). Total economic value of forest resources in Turkey, African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(15), 1908-1916.
• Pehlivanoğlu, N. (2010). Economic valuation of maintaining water quality in Bartın River Bartın University, Natural and Applied Science Institute, MSc thesis, Ağustos 2010, Bartın.
• Şahin, A., Deniz, T., Kaya, G. & Ok, K. (2018). Economic Analysis of Forest Management Regimes Using Choice Experiments Method : The Case of Pabuçdere Basin, Research Project, Project Number: 10.3301/2014-2017, İstanbul.
• Tolun, L., Ergenekon, S., Murat Hocaoglu, S., Suha Donertas, A., Cokacar, T., Husrevoglu, S., Polat Beken, C. & Baban, A. (2012). Socioeconomic response to water quality : A first experience in science and policy integration for the Izmit Bay Coastal System. Ecology and Society, 17, 40.
• Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation, Cambridge : Cambridge UP.
• Türker, M. F., Pak, M. & Öztürk, A. (2005). Valuing Mediterranean Forests : Towards total economic value; Merlo and Croitoru, L. (eds), CABI publishing Oxford.
• USDA. (2017). Global desertification vulnerability map, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey Division. World Soil Resources, U.S. Department of Agriculture official website.https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/worldsoils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054003