IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v138y2022ics1389934122000338.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forest benefits and willingness to pay for sustainable forest management

Author

Listed:
  • Tadesse, Tewodros
  • Teklay, Gebreegziabher
  • Mulatu, Dawit W.
  • Rannestad, Meley Mekonen
  • Meresa, Tigabu Molla
  • Woldelibanos, Dawit

Abstract

The Desa'a forest in Tigray is a national forest priority area managed by the government. Government authorities grant access to local communities as the forest is the source of income for many households. To allow the forest provide such economic needs and ecological functions, its sustainability needs to be ensured. We studied the effect of a demand-relevant economic attribute and two policy–relevant ecological attributes to examine preference for alternative forest management mechanisms. We find positive preference for the supply of forest products and soil and water conservation. Marginal WTP is higher for the most sustainable levels, indicating households' preference to forest management mechanisms that ensure supply of forest products for longer periods and significantly reduce soil erosion and water loss. On the other hand, observed heterogeneity implies differences in preferences and tradeoffs between economic benefits (forest products) and ecological improvements (soil and water conservation). Overall, the positive preference for these important attributes emanates both from realizations of economic benefits and ecological services from the forest, suggesting the importance of incorporating such competing preferences (interests and needs) in forest management plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Tadesse, Tewodros & Teklay, Gebreegziabher & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen & Meresa, Tigabu Molla & Woldelibanos, Dawit, 2022. "Forest benefits and willingness to pay for sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:138:y:2022:i:c:s1389934122000338
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102721
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934122000338
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102721?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kazungu, Moses & Zhunusova, Eliza & Yang, Anastasia Lucy & Kabwe, Gillian & Gumbo, Davison J. & Günter, Sven, 2020. "Forest use strategies and their determinants among rural households in the Miombo woodlands of the Copperbelt Province, Zambia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Dokken, Therese & Angelsen, Arild, 2015. "Forest reliance across poverty groups in Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 203-211.
    3. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    4. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    5. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    6. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    7. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    8. Giergiczny, Marek & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Żylicz, Tomasz & Angelstam, Per, 2015. "Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 8-23.
    9. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    10. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh & Mulley, Corinne, 2015. "Identifying preferences for public transport investments under a constrained budget," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-46.
    11. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    12. Nguyen, Hanh Tien & Ariyawardana, Anoma & Ratnasiri, Shyama, 2020. "Forest plantation owners' willingness to pay for hybrid nursery stock: The case of Acacia hybrids in Central Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    13. Stephen Hynes & Danny Campbell & Peter Howley, 2011. "A Holistic vs. an Attribute‐based Approach to Agri‐Environmental Policy Valuation: Do Welfare Estimates Differ?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 305-329, June.
    14. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    15. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    16. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    17. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    18. Boscow Okumu & Edwin Muchapondwa, 2017. "Economic valuation of forest ecosystem services in Kenya: Implication for design of PES Schemes and Participatory Forest Management," Working Papers 693, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    19. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    20. Dastan Bamwesigye & Petra Hlavackova & Andrea Sujova & Jitka Fialova & Petr Kupec, 2020. "Willingness to Pay for Forest Existence Value and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, January.
    21. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    22. Belcher, Brian & Achdiawan, Ramadhani & Dewi, Sonya, 2015. "Forest-Based Livelihoods Strategies Conditioned by Market Remoteness and Forest Proximity in Jharkhand, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 269-279.
    23. Pouliot, Mariève & Treue, Thorsten, 2013. "Rural People’s Reliance on Forests and the Non-Forest Environment in West Africa: Evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-193.
    24. Tesfaye, Yemiru & Roos, Anders & Campbell, Bruce M. & Bohlin, Folke, 2011. "Livelihood strategies and the role of forest income in participatory-managed forests of Dodola area in the bale highlands, southern Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 258-265, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Quan-Jing & Peng, Xin-Yu & Wang, Hai-Jie & Chang, Chun-Ping, 2023. "The diversity impact of democracy on forest protection: Global evidence," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    2. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Artell, Janne & Forsman, Jukka T. & Juutinen, Artti, 2023. "Is it more important to increase carbon sequestration, biodiversity, or jobs? A case study of citizens' preferences for forest policy in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    2. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Julia Martin-Ortega & Giacomo Giannoccaro & Julio Berbel, 2011. "Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1615-1633, April.
    5. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    6. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    7. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    8. Mat Alipiah, Roseliza & Anang, Zuraini & Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub & Smart, James C. R. & Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie, 2018. "Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(2), pages 253-266.
    9. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    10. Sclen, Håkon & Kallbekken, Steffen, 2011. "A choice experiment on fuel taxation and earmarking in Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2181-2190, September.
    11. Fruth, Erik & Kvistad, Michele & Marshall, Joe & Pfeifer, Lena & Rau, Luisa & Sagebiel, Julian & Soto, Daniel & Tarpey, John & Weir, Jessica & Winiarski, Bradyn, 2019. "Economic valuation of street-level urban greening: A case study from an evolving mixed-use area in Berlin," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    12. Filyushkina, Anna & Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2017. "Preferences for variation in forest characteristics: Does diversity between stands matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 22-29.
    13. Ridier, Aude & Roussy, Caroline & Chaib, Karim, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(1), April.
    14. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    15. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    16. Yosr Abid Fourati & Cathal O'Donoghue, 2009. "Eliciting Individual Preferences for Pension Reform," Working Papers 0150, National University of Ireland Galway, Department of Economics, revised 2009.
    17. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    18. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    19. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:138:y:2022:i:c:s1389934122000338. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.