IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i7p709-d588780.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To What Extent Are Cattle Ranching Landholders Willing to Restore Ecosystem Services? Constructing a Micro-Scale PES Scheme in Southern Costa Rica

Author

Listed:
  • Iván Pérez-Rubio

    (Natural Management Resources, Universidad Estatal a Distancia (UNED), San José 474-2050, Costa Rica)

  • Daniel Flores

    (Consultant in Technology, Strategy and Neuro-Innovation, San José 474-2050, Costa Rica)

  • Christian Vargas

    (Centro Nacional de Alta Tecnología (CeNAT)-Laboratorio PRIAS, San José 1174-1200, Costa Rica)

  • Francisco Jiménez

    (Gestión de Cuencas Hidrográficas, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE), Turrialba 30501, Costa Rica)

  • Iker Etxano

    (Department of Applied Economics I, Faculty of Social Sciences and Communication, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Sarriena s/n, 48949 Leioa, Spain
    HEGOA, Institute for International Cooperation and Development Studies, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Avda. Lehendakari Agirre, 81, 48015 Bilbao, Spain
    EKOPOL Research Group, Faculty of Social Sciences and Communication, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Sarriena s/n, 48940 Leioa, Spain)

Abstract

Deforestation and the unsustainable management of agricultural and livestock production systems in tropical mountain areas have caused fragmented and degraded landscapes. Payment for ecosystem services (PES) could be an effective policy instrument with which to reduce deforestation and restore disturbed ecosystems. The national-scale PES program in Costa Rica is recognized as being successful; however, its financial resources have been mostly dedicated to forest protection, and much less to reforestation projects. This paper aims to construct a micro-scale PES scheme by using primary data generated through spatial modeling and socio-economic and stated preference surveys (choice experiment) in southern Costa Rica. The results suggest that, on average, landholders would agree to implement restoration projects on their own private pasturelands if an appropriate holistic place-based approach was applied encompassing biophysical, social, economic, and institutional aspects. Willingness-to-accept values allow payments to be linked to cattle farmers’ estimates of specific ecosystem services (ES) and land opportunity costs. The economic valuation of three ESs (erosion control, water availability, and biodiversity) allows construction of a layered payment scheme, which could encourage the development of a potential partnership between national and local institutions and NGOs as alternative buyers of ESs, reduce transaction costs, and improve household well-being.

Suggested Citation

  • Iván Pérez-Rubio & Daniel Flores & Christian Vargas & Francisco Jiménez & Iker Etxano, 2021. "To What Extent Are Cattle Ranching Landholders Willing to Restore Ecosystem Services? Constructing a Micro-Scale PES Scheme in Southern Costa Rica," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:7:p:709-:d:588780
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/7/709/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/7/709/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    2. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    3. Vorlaufer, Tobias & Falk, Thomas & Dufhues, Thomas & Kirk, Michael, 2017. "Payments for ecosystem services and agricultural intensification: Evidence from a choice experiment on deforestation in Zambia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 95-105.
    4. Chun-Lin Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang & Chun-Hung Lee & Supasit Sriarkarin, 2019. "Evaluating the Public’s Preferences toward Sustainable Planning under Climate and Land Use Change in Forest Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, June.
    5. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Shrestha, Ram M. & Timilsina, Govinda R., 2002. "The additionality criterion for identifying clean development mechanism projects under the Kyoto Protocol," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 73-79, January.
    8. Rasch, Sebastian & Wünscher, Tobias & Casasola, Francisco & Ibrahim, Muhammad & Storm, Hugo, 2021. "Permanence of PES and the role of social context in the Regional Integrated Silvo-pastoral Ecosystem Management Project in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    9. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    10. 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.
    11. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    12. Sierra, Rodrigo & Russman, Eric, 2006. "On the efficiency of environmental service payments: A forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 131-141, August.
    13. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    14. Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
    15. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services and rural development: Landowners' preferences and potential participation in western Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 72-81.
    16. Calder, Ian R., 2002. "Forests and Hydrological Services: Reconciling public and science perceptions," Land Use and Water Resources Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research, vol. 2, pages 1-12.
    17. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    18. Brookhuis, B.J. & Hein, L.G., 2016. "The value of the flood control service of tropical forests: A case study for Trinidad," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 118-124.
    19. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    20. Wünscher, Tobias & Engel, Stefanie & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 822-833, May.
    21. Lliso, Bosco & Pascual, Unai & Engel, Stefanie & Mariel, Petr, 2020. "Payments for ecosystem services or collective stewardship of Mother Earth? Applying deliberative valuation in an indigenous community in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    22. Tarfasa, Solomon & Balana, Bedru B. & Tefera, Tewodros & Woldeamanuel, Teshale & Moges, Awdenegest & Dinato, Mengistu & Black, Helaina, 2018. "Modeling Smallholder Farmers' Preferences for Soil Management Measures: A Case Study From South Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 410-419.
    23. Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2007. "Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 420-429.
    24. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    25. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    26. Mariel, Petr & Hoyos, D. & Meyerhoff, J., 2013. "Stated or inferred attribute non-attendance? A simulation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 13(01).
    27. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    28. Hanemann, W Michael, 1984. "Discrete-Continuous Models of Consumer Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 541-561, May.
    29. Wang, Xuechao & Dong, Xiaobin & Liu, Huiming & Wei, Hejie & Fan, Weiguo & Lu, Nachuan & Xu, Zihan & Ren, Jiahui & Xing, Kaixiong, 2017. "Linking land use change, ecosystem services and human well-being: A case study of the Manas River Basin of Xinjiang, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 113-123.
    30. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    31. repec:feb:framed:0073 is not listed on IDEAS
    32. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    33. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 15-24.
    34. Pallab Mozumder & Robert P. Berrens, 2007. "Investigating hypothetical bias: induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism with uncertainty," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(10), pages 705-709.
    35. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene, 2005. "Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    36. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    37. Legrand, Thomas & Froger, Géraldine & Le Coq, Jean-François, 2013. "Institutional performance of Payments for Environmental Services: An analysis of the Costa Rican Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 115-123.
    38. Diafas, Iason & Barkmann, Jan & Mburu, John, 2017. "Measurement of Bequest Value Using a Non-monetary Payment in a Choice Experiment—The Case of Improving Forest Ecosystem Services for the Benefit of Local Communities in Rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 157-165.
    39. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    40. Rodrigo A. Arriagada, & Paul J. Ferraro & Erin O. Sills & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Silvia Cordero-Sancho, 2012. "Do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Forest Cover? A Farm-Level Evaluation from Costa Rica," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 382-399.
    41. Grieg-Gran, Maryanne & Porras, Ina & Wunder, Sven, 2005. "How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1511-1527, September.
    42. Daniels, Amy E. & Bagstad, Kenneth & Esposito, Valerie & Moulaert, Azur & Rodriguez, Carlos Manuel, 2010. "Understanding the impacts of Costa Rica's PES: Are we asking the right questions?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2116-2126, September.
    43. Pascual, Unai & Muradian, Roldan & Rodríguez, Luis C. & Duraiappah, Anantha, 2010. "Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1237-1244, April.
    44. Bienabe, Estelle & Hearne, Robert R., 2006. "Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 335-348, December.
    45. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    46. Kosoy, Nicolas & Martinez-Tuna, Miguel & Muradian, Roldan & Martinez-Alier, Joan, 2007. "Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 446-455, March.
    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. Qi Wen & Jie Fang & Xia Li & Fang Su, 2022. "Impact of Ecological Compensation on Farmers’ Livelihood Strategies in Energy Development Regions in China: A Case Study of Yulin City," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Namhee Kim & Miju Kim & Sangkwon Lee & Chi-Ok Oh, 2023. "Comparing Stakeholders’ Economic Values for the Institution of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & João C. Azevedo & Pascual Fernández, 2021. "Ecosystem Services, Sustainable Rural Development and Protected Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-3, September.

    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. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa & Benjamin, Emmanuel & Lang, Hannes, 2019. "Determinants of the environmental conservation and poverty alleviation objectives of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 52-66.
    2. Ina, Porras & Bruce, Alyward & Jeff, Dengel, 2013. "Monitoring payments for watershed services schemes in developing countries," MPRA Paper 47185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Zandersen, Marianne & Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Nainggolan, Doan & Gyldenkærne, Steen & Winding, Anne & Greve, Mogens Humlekrog & Termansen, Mette, 2016. "Potential and economic efficiency of using reduced tillage to mitigate climate effects in Danish agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 14-22.
    5. Hao Li & Michael T Bennett & Xuemei Jiang & Kebin Zhang & Xiaohui Yang, 2017. "Rural Household Preferences for Active Participation in “Payment for Ecosystem Service” Programs: A Case in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    6. 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).
    7. Maldonado, Jorge H. & Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio & Henao-Henao, Juan P. & Bruner, Aaron, 2019. "Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    8. 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.
    9. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    10. Legrand, Thomas & Froger, Géraldine & Le Coq, Jean-François, 2013. "Institutional performance of Payments for Environmental Services: An analysis of the Costa Rican Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 115-123.
    11. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    12. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    15. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    16. 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).
    17. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    18. Geussens, K. & Van den Broeck, G. & Vanderhaegen, K. & Verbist, B. & Maertens, M., 2019. "Farmers’ perspectives on payments for ecosystem services in Uganda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 316-327.
    19. Garrod, Guy & Ruto, Eric & Willis, Ken & Powe, Neil, 2012. "Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 104-111.

    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:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:7:p:709-:d:588780. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.