Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T18:45:55.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Payments for environmental services to strengthen ecosystem connectivity in an agricultural landscape

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2018

Laura Bateman ,
Dale Yi ,
Oscar J Cacho  and
Randy Stringer
Laura Bateman*
Affiliation:
Centre for Global Food and Resources, University of Adelaide, Australia
Dale Yi
Affiliation:
Centre for Global Food and Resources, University of Adelaide, Australia
Oscar J Cacho
Affiliation:
UNE Business School, University of New England, Australia
Randy Stringer
Affiliation:
Centre for Global Food and Resources, University of Adelaide, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the use of payments for environmental services to support a wildlife corridor between two Priority Tiger Conservation Landscapes in central Sumatra, Indonesia. Several hundred smallholders operate within a Protection Forest linking the Tiger Conservation Landscapes. This study explores the willingness of these smallholders to accept a payment requiring them to forgo access to their land for five years. In addition to asking households directly what they would be willing to accept (WTA), we also ask them to infer what their neighbour would accept. The study finds evidence of hypothetical bias in the conventional WTA values, with a statistically significant difference between what people say they would be willing to accept when surveyed, compared to what they say would actually be willing to accept in a ‘real life’ situation. We show how inferred valuation techniques can mitigate against this.

Keywords

Conservationdeforestationinferred valuationpayments for environmental servicessmallholderswillingness to accept
Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 23 , Issue 6 , December 2018 , pp. 635 - 654
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, W, Aveling, R, Brockington, D, Dickson, B, Elliott, J, Hutton, J, Roe, D, Vira, B and Wolmer, W (2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306, 1146–1149.Google Scholar
Ardiansyah, F, Marthen, AA and Amalia, N (2015) Forest and land-use governance in a decentralized Indonesia: a legal and policy review. Occasional Paper 132. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
Arrow, K and Solow, R (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation to the General Council of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Bennett, J and Blamey, R (2001) The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Borner, M (1978) Status and conservation of Sumatran tiger. Carnivore 1, 97–102.Google Scholar
Brown, T and Gregory, R (1999) Why the WTA–WTP disparity matters. Ecological Economics 28, 323–335.Google Scholar
Brun, C, Cook, A, Lee, J, Wich, S, Koh, L and Carrasco, L (2015) Analysis of deforestation and protected area effectiveness in Indonesia: a comparison of Bayesian spatial models. Global Environmental Change, 31, 285–295.Google Scholar
Bulte, E, Boone, RB, Stringer, R and Thornton, PK (2008) Elephants or onions? Paying for nature in Amboseli, Kenya. Environment and Development Economics 13, 395–414.Google Scholar
Bush, G, Hanley, N, Moro, M and Rondeau, D (2013) Measuring the local costs of conservation: a provision point mechanism for eliciting willingness to accept compensation. Land Economics 89, 490–513.Google Scholar
Cacho, OJ, Lipper, L and Moss, J (2013) Transaction costs of carbon offset projects: a comparative study. Ecological Economics 88, 232–243.Google Scholar
Cacho, OJ, Marshall, GR and Milne, M (2005) Transaction and abatement costs of carbon-sink projects in developing countries. Environment and Development Economics 10, 597–614.Google Scholar
Cacho, OJ, Milne, S, Gonzalez, R and Tacconi, L (2014) Benefits and costs of deforestation by smallholders: implications for forest conservation and climate policy. Ecological Economics 107, 321–332.Google Scholar
Carlsson, F, Daruvala, D and Jaldell, H (2010) Do you do what you say or do you do what you say others do? Journal of Choice Modelling 3, 113–133.Google Scholar
Carson, RT and Groves, T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 37, 181–210.Google Scholar
Cummings, R and Taylor, LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review 89, 649–665.Google Scholar
Delacote, P and Angelsen, A (2015) Reducing deforestation and forest degradation: leakage or synergy? Land Economics 91, 501–515.Google Scholar
Drichoutis, A, Lusk, JL and Pappa, V (2016) Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: a study of climate neutral foods. Food Policy 61, 141–155.Google Scholar
Dunning, D and Hayes, AF (1996) Evidence for egocentric comparison in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, 213–229.Google Scholar
Ehmke, M, Lusk, J and Tyner, W (2008) Measuring the relative importance of preferences for country of origin in China, France, Niger and the US. Agricultural Economics 38, 277–285.Google Scholar
Epley, N and Dunning, D (2000) Feeling “holier than thou”: are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self-or social prediction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79, 861–875.Google Scholar
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) (2001) Non-forest tree plantations. Unpublished report based on the work of W. Killmann. Forest Plantation Thematic Papers, Working Paper 6. Forest Resources Division, FAO, Rome. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/ac126e/ac126e03.html.Google Scholar
Ferraro, P (2001) Global habitat protection: limitations of development interventions and a role for conservation performance payments. Conservation Biology 15, 990–1000.Google Scholar
Fisher, R (1993) Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research 20, 303–315.Google Scholar
Green, D, Jacowitz, KE, Kahneman, D and McFadden, D (1998) Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics 20, 85–116.Google Scholar
Gregersen, H, El Lakany, H, Karsenty, A and White, A (2010) Does the Opportunity Cost Approach Indicate the Real Cost of REDD+? Rights and Realities of Paying for REDD+. Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.Google Scholar
Haab, T and McConnell, KE (2002) Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Heckman, J (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47, 153–163.Google Scholar
Interis, M (2014) A challenge to three widely held ideas in environmental valuation. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 46, 347–356.Google Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, O and Martinsson, P (2006) Honestly, why are you driving a BMW? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 60, 129–146.Google Scholar
Kaczan, D and Swallow, BM (2013) Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: an assessment of payment approaches. Ecological Economics 95, 20–30.Google Scholar
Knetsch, J (2005) Gains, losses, and the US-EPA economic analyses guidelines: a hazardous product? Environmental and Resource Economics 32, 91–112.Google Scholar
Krishna, V, Drucker, AG, Pascual, U, Raghu, PT and King, EIO (2013) Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries. Ecological Economics 87, 110–123.Google Scholar
Kyriazidou, E (1997) Estimation of a panel data sample selection model. Econometrica 65, 1335–1364.Google Scholar
Leimona, B, Amaruzaman, S, Arifin, B, Yasmin, F, Hasan, F, Sprang, P, Dradjat, B, Agusta, H, Jaffee, S and Frias, J (2015 a) Indonesia's ‘Green Agriculture’ Strategies and Policies: Closing the Gap Between Aspirations and Application. Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry Centre and World Bank.Google Scholar
Leimona, B, van Noordwijk, M, de Groot, R and Leemans, R (2015 b) Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia. Ecosystem Services 12, 16–28.Google Scholar
List, J and Gallet, CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20, 241–254.Google Scholar
List, J and Shogren, JF (2002) Calibration of willingness-to-accept. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43, 219–233.Google Scholar
Lizin, S, Van Passel, S and Schreurs, E (2015) Farmers’ perceived cost of land use restrictions: a simulated purchasing decision using discrete choice experiments. Land Use Policy 46, 115–124.Google Scholar
Lusk, J and Norwood, FB (2009 a) An inferred valuation method. Land Economics 85, 500–514.Google Scholar
Lusk, J and Norwood, FB (2009 b) Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: an inferred valuation method. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58, 236–250.Google Scholar
Ma, S, Swinton, SM, Lupi, F and Jolejole-Foreman, C (2012) Farmers’ willingness to participate in payment-for-environmental-services programmes. Journal of Agricultural Economics 63, 604–626.Google Scholar
Margono, B, Potapov, P, Turubanova, S, Stolle, F and Hansen, M (2014) Primary forest cover loss in Indonesia over 2000-2012. Nature Climate Change 4, 730–735.Google Scholar
Margules, C and Pressey, RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–253.Google Scholar
Mekonnen, A (2000) Valuation of community forestry in Ethiopia: a contingent valuation study of rural households. Environment and Development Economics 5, 289–308.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R and Carson, RT (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Inc.Google Scholar
Murphy, J, Allen, P, Stevens, T and Weatherhead, D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30, 313–325.Google Scholar
Norwood, F and Lusk, J (2011) Social desirability bias in real, hypothetical, and inferred valuation experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93, 528–534.Google Scholar
OECD (2012) OECD Review of Agricultural Policies: Indonesia 2012. Available at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/oecd-review-of-agricultural-policies-indonesia-2012_9789264179011-en.Google Scholar
Pasha, R and Leimona, B (2011) PES and multi-strata coffee gardens in Sumberjaya, Indonesia. In Ottaviani, D and El-Hage Scialabba, N (eds). Payments for Ecosystem Services and Food Security. Rome: FAO, pp. 275–281.Google Scholar
Petrolia, D and Kim, T-G (2011) Preventing land loss in coastal Louisiana: estimates of WTP and WTA. Journal of Environmental Management 92, 859–865.Google Scholar
Pronin, E (2007) Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11, 37–43.Google Scholar
Sanderson, E, Forrest, J, Loucks, C, Ginsberg, J, Dinerstein, E, Seidensticker, J, Leimgruber, P, Songer, M, Heydlauff, A and O'Brien, T (2010) Setting priorities for tiger conservation: 2005–2015. In Tilson, R and Nyhus, PJ (eds). Tigers of the World: The Science, Politics, and Conservation of Panthera Tigris. Boston: William Andrew Publishing, pp. 143–161.Google Scholar
Shrestha, R, Alavalapati, JR, Seidl, AF, Weber, KE and Suselo, TB (2007) Estimating the local cost of protecting Koshi Tappu wildlife reserve, Nepal: a contingent valuation approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability 9, 413–426.Google Scholar
Southgate, D, Haab, T, Lundine, J and Rodríguez, F (2010) Payments for environmental services and rural livelihood strategies in Ecuador and Guatemala. Environment and Development Economics 15, 21–37.Google Scholar
Strazzera, E, Genius, M, Scarpa, R and Hutchinson, G (2003) The effect of protest votes on the estimates of WTP for use values of recreational sites. Environmental and Resource Economics 25, 461–476.Google Scholar
Suich, H, Lugina, M, Muttaqin, MZ, Alviya, I and Sari, GK (2016) Payments for ecosystem services in Indonesia. Oryx 51, 489–497.Google Scholar
Sulistyawan, B, Eichelberger, BA, Verweij, P, Boot, RGA, Hardian, O, Adzan, G and Sukmantoro, W (2017) Connecting the fragmented habitat of endangered mammals in the landscape of Riau–Jambi–Sumatera Barat (RIMBA), central Sumatra, Indonesia (connecting the fragmented habitat due to road development). Global Ecology and Conservation 9, 116–130.Google Scholar
Sunarto, S, Kelly, MJ, Parakkasi, K, Klenzendorf, S, Septayuda, E and Kurniawan, H (2012) Tigers need cover: multi-scale occupancy study of the big cat in Sumatran forest and plantation landscapes. PLoS ONE 7, e30859.Google Scholar
Whittington, D and Pagiola, S (2012) Using contingent valuation in the design of payments for environmental services mechanisms: a review and assessment. The World Bank Research Observer 27, 261–287.Google Scholar
World Bank (2015) Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services: Indonesia Country Report 2015. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Wunder, S (2009) Can payments for environmental services reduce deforestation and forest degradation? In Angelsen, A (ed), Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), pp. 213–223.Google Scholar
Wunder, S, Engel, S and Pagiola, S (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65, 834–852.Google Scholar
Yadav, L, van Rensburg, TM and Kelley, H (2013) A comparison between the conventional stated preference technique and an inferred valuation approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 64, 405–422.Google Scholar