IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i8p4177-d532744.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Paying for Aquatic Resources Matter? A Case of an African Riverine Ecosystem

Author

Listed:
  • Gladys Chigamba

    (AquaFish Centre of Excellency, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), Lilongwe 265, Malawi)

  • Moses Limuwa

    (AquaFish Centre of Excellency, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), Lilongwe 265, Malawi)

  • Emmanuel Kaunda

    (NEPAD Fish Node, AquaFish Centre of Excellency, LUANAR, Lilongwe 265, Malawi)

Abstract

Valuation of environmental goods and services has an important role to play in the protection and conservation of riverine resources. However, the literature shows a dearth of information regarding factors that influence people’s willingness to pay (WTP) for riverine resources. This research study was undertaken to find out key factors that affect the willingness of people to pay for the conservation of aquatic resources in the lower section of the Linthipe River in Malawi. Data was collected through household interviews, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and contingent valuation (CV) surveys. The study noted that communities were willing to offer $3.51 per year for the conservation of aquatic resources in the river. This study established that the people’s WTP is a function of education level, household usage of the goods and services, community support in the management of the resources, household income, and distance of the household from the river ecosystem. The study further discovered that the pay-out level of the users along the Linthipe River was driven by household usage of resources from the river, period of stay in the area, and level of household income. Our recommendation is that government and development partners should popularize the important role played by rivers and streams to surrounding communities and beyond to appeal for more support from users. The authorities must further empower the communities along the rivers and streams to sustainably manage the aquatic resources for the continued appreciation of aquatic resources by future generations.

Suggested Citation

  • Gladys Chigamba & Moses Limuwa & Emmanuel Kaunda, 2021. "Does Paying for Aquatic Resources Matter? A Case of an African Riverine Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4177-:d:532744
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4177/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4177/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. O. Adekola & Sylvie Morardet & R. de Groot & F. Grelot, 2008. "The economic and livelihood value of provisioning services of the Ga-Mampa wetland, South Africa," Post-Print hal-00468552, HAL.
    2. Rong Liu & Xiaojun Liu & Bingbing Pan & Hui Zhu & Zhaokang Yuan & Yuanan Lu, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Improved Air Quality and Influencing Factors among Manufacturing Workers in Nanchang, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    3. Do, Thang Nam & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2007. "Willingness to pay for wetland improvement in Vietnam's Mekong River Delta," 2007 Conference (51st), February 13-16, 2007, Queenstown, New Zealand 10431, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Karira, Wanderi J. & Mburu, John I. & Guthiga, Paul M., 2013. "Empirical Analysis of the Environmental Benefits of Compliance with GLOBALGAP Standards Among Smallholder Farmers in Eastern and Central Kenya: An Environmental Valuation Approach," 2013 Fourth International Conference, September 22-25, 2013, Hammamet, Tunisia 161484, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    5. Rodgers Makwinja & Ishmael Bobby Mphangwe Kosamu & Chikumbusko Chiziwa Kaonga, 2019. "Determinants and Values of Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvement: Insights from Chia Lagoon, Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-26, August.
    6. Birdir, Sevda & Ünal, Özlem & Birdir, Kemal & Williams, Allan T., 2013. "Willingness to pay as an economic instrument for coastal tourism management: Cases from Mersin, Turkey," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 279-283.
    7. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark & Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(2), pages 1-18.
    8. Kai Xiong & Fanbin Kong & Ning Zhang & Ni Lei & Chuanwang Sun, 2018. "Analysis of the Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay and Payout Level for Ecological Environment Improvement of the Ganjiang River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, June.
    9. 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.
    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. Khumbanyiwa, DD & Kaunda, E & Singini, W & Jere, WL & Limuwa, M, 2024. "Morphometric Variations Among Opsaridium Microlepis (Günther, 1864) From Lake Malaŵi Migrating To Different Rivers For Breeding," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 24(1), January.

    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. Uttam Paudel & Shiva Raj Adhikari & Krishna Prasad Pant, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Environmental Quality Improvement Programs and Its Determinants: Empirical Analysis in Western Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Rodgers Makwinja & Ishmael Bobby Mphangwe Kosamu & Chikumbusko Chiziwa Kaonga, 2019. "Determinants and Values of Willingness to Pay for Water Quality Improvement: Insights from Chia Lagoon, Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-26, August.
    3. Tibesigwa, Byela & Ntuli, Herbert & Muta, Telvin, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Nature Restoration and Conservation in Sub-Saharan African Cities: The Case of Forests, Rivers and Coasts in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania," EfD Discussion Paper 23-7, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    4. 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.
    5. Martin Van Bueren & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-32, March.
    6. Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: two stated preferences approaches," NIMA Working Papers 64, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    7. 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.
    8. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    9. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    10. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    11. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    12. Waranan Tantiwat & Christopher Gan & Wei Yang, 2021. "The Estimation of the Willingness to Pay for Air-Quality Improvement in Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.
    13. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Ready, Richard & Stewart, Mairi & Watson, Fiona, 2008. "The impacts of knowledge of the past on preferences for future landscape change," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-05, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    14. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. 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.
    16. Roussy, Caroline & Ridier, Aude & Chaib, Karim, 2014. "A methodological proposal to approach farmers’ adoption behavior: stated preferences and perceptions of the innovation," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182983, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Catherine M.H. Keske & Greta Lohman & John B. Loomis, 2013. "Do Respondents Report Willingness-to-Pay on a per Person or per Group Basis? A High Mountain Recreation Example," Tourism Economics, , vol. 19(1), pages 133-145, February.
    18. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
    19. Maksym Polyakov & Morteza Chalak & Md. Sayed Iftekhar & Ram Pandit & Sorada Tapsuwan & Fan Zhang & Chunbo Ma, 2018. "Authorship, Collaboration, Topics, and Research Gaps in Environmental and Resource Economics 1991–2015," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 217-239, September.
    20. So-Yeon Park & Ju-Hee Kim & Jungkwan Seo & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2022. "Evaluating the Economic Benefits of Tightening Regulations on the Use of Toluene, a Hazardous Chemical, in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-15, May.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4177-:d:532744. 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.