IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v23y2021i12d10.1007_s10668-021-01398-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystems, livelihood assets and willingness to pay for wetland conservation in Bangladesh

Author

Listed:
  • A. K. M. Abdullah Al-Amin

    (Bangladesh Agricultural University)

  • Khorshed Alam

    (University of Southern Queensland)

  • Uttam Babu Shrestha

    (University of Southern Queensland)

  • Masudul Haque Prodhan

    (Bangladesh Agricultural University)

  • Mostafa A. R. Hossain

    (Bangladesh Agricultural University)

  • Nahid Sattar

    (Bangladesh Agricultural University)

  • M. J. Hossain

    (Bangladesh Agricultural University)

  • Tahmina Akhter

    (Bangladesh Agricultural University)

Abstract

Wetland ecosystem services have come under severe threat globally due to environmental changes and anthropogenic impacts. Understanding the trend and usages of the ecosystem services with associated reasons, conservation attitude and determinants of payment responses of local inhabitants based on wetland proximity can benefit the adjacent communities and policy makers. The major contribution of the present study is that the study investigated the patterns of use and livelihood significance of wetland ecosystem services in data-deficit regions of north-eastern Bangladesh through evaluating the perceptions of local experts and community people. In addition, we examined the willingness to pay (WTP) attitudes using two payment vehicles and three payment versions as well as examined the effect of livelihood assets on their WTP. Results showed that the ecosystem services satisfy the subsistence, semi-commercial, commercial and beneficial requirements of the adjacent communities. Amongst the twenty-nine identified species, a few were locally extinct, and the availability of a number of other species decreased substantially. Conservation attitudes revealed that 25% of the respondents were interested in cash payment of which 16% expressed exact amount, whilst 9% mentioned interval values. However, 45% respondents were willing to volunteer a given number of days per annum of which 27% and 18% elicited exact and interval values, respectively. Interval regression results showed that WTP for conservation of the ecosystem services was sensitive to livelihood capitals. The study suggests proximity-based policies, declaring the wetland as an ecologically critical area, and utilising volunteering efforts by local inhabitants for conservation. Graphic abstract

Suggested Citation

  • A. K. M. Abdullah Al-Amin & Khorshed Alam & Uttam Babu Shrestha & Masudul Haque Prodhan & Mostafa A. R. Hossain & Nahid Sattar & M. J. Hossain & Tahmina Akhter, 2021. "Ecosystems, livelihood assets and willingness to pay for wetland conservation in Bangladesh," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(12), pages 17503-17534, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:12:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01398-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01398-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-021-01398-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-021-01398-w?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. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2016. "Local consequences of national policies - A spatial analysis of preferences for forest access reduction," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 68-77.
    2. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    3. Ahmed, Irina & Deaton, B. James & Sarker, Rakhal & Virani, Tasneem, 2008. "Wetland ownership and management in a common property resource setting: A case study of Hakaluki Haor in Bangladesh," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 429-436, December.
    4. Andreas Pondorfer & Katrin Rehdanz, 2018. "Eliciting Preferences for Public Goods in Nonmonetized Communities: Accounting for Preference Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 73-86.
    5. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    6. Vella, Francis & Verbeek, Marno, 1999. "Estimating and Interpreting Models with Endogenous Treatment Effects," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 17(4), pages 473-478, October.
    7. Sinare, Hanna & Gordon, Line J. & Enfors Kautsky, Elin, 2016. "Assessment of ecosystem services and benefits in village landscapes – A case study from Burkina Faso," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 141-152.
    8. Le Trong Hung & John B. Loomis & Vu Tien Thinh, 2007. "Comparing money and labour payment in contingent valuation: the case of forest fire prevention in Vietnamese context," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 173-185.
    9. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    10. Sharma, Bikash & Rasul, Golam & Chettri, Nakul, 2015. "The economic value of wetland ecosystem services: Evidence from the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 84-93.
    11. Jones, Nikoleta & Clark, Julian R.A. & Malesios, Chrisovaladis, 2015. "Social capital and willingness-to-pay for coastal defences in south-east England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 74-82.
    12. M. J. Hossain & A. K. M. Abdullah Al-Amin, 2019. "Non-farm Income and Consumption Expenditures in Rural Bangladesh: Empirical Evidence from Multilevel Regression Modelling," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 17(2), pages 377-396, June.
    13. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    14. Kadykalo, Andrew N. & Findlay, C. Scott, 2016. "The flow regulation services of wetlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 91-103.
    15. Hung Vo Trung & Thanh Viet Nguyen & Michel Simioni, 2020. "Willingness to pay for mangrove preservation in Xuan Thuy National Park, Vietnam: do household knowledge and interest play a role?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 402-420, October.
    16. Quoc Vo, Tuan & Kuenzer, C. & Oppelt, N., 2015. "How remote sensing supports mangrove ecosystem service valuation: A case study in Ca Mau province, Vietnam," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 67-75.
    17. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    18. Voltaire, Louinord & Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Pirrone, Claudio & Larzillière, Agathe, 2017. "Respondent Uncertainty and Ordering Effect on Willingness to Pay for Salt Marsh Conservation in the Brest Roadstead (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 47-55.
    19. Al-Amin, A.K.M. Abdullah & Hossain, M.J., 2019. "Impact of non-farm income on welfare in rural Bangladesh: Multilevel mixed-effects regression approach," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 95-102.
    20. Paul Missios & Ida Ferrara, 2011. "A Cross-Country Study of Waste Prevention and Recycling," Working Papers 028, Ryerson University, Department of Economics.
    21. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2015. "Control Function Methods in Applied Econometrics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 420-445.
    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. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    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. Yongzheng Cui & Wenxiong Wang & Lihong Yu & Wei Zhou & Zitong Fu, 2022. "Influence of Livelihood Capital Level and Structure on Rural Households’ Payment Willingness for Rural Human Settlement Improvement: Evidence from Hubei Province, China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-22, October.

    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. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Nguyen Minh Duc & Rehl, Antonia & Siepmann, Ute & Pham Van Dinh, 2017. "Labour as a utility measure reconsidered," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 03-2017, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    2. Diriba Abdeta, 2022. "Households' willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ethiopia: A review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(11), pages 437-451.
    3. Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Nicholson, Charles F., 2020. "Revisiting money and labor for valuing environmental goods and services in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    4. Hagedoorn, Liselotte C. & Koetse, Mark J. & van Beukering, Pieter J.H. & Brander, Luke M., 2021. "Reducing the finance gap for nature-based solutions with time contributions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    5. Vondolia, Godwin K. & Navrud, Ståle, 2019. "Are non-monetary payment modes more uncertain for stated preference elicitation in developing countries?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 73-87.
    6. J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Andreas Pondorfer & Katrin Rehdanz, 2018. "Eliciting Preferences for Public Goods in Nonmonetized Communities: Accounting for Preference Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 73-86.
    9. 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.
    10. Kocsis, Tamás & Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna, 2018. "Gazdag szegények. Időráfordítási hajlandóság a környezeti javak értékelésében [The wealthy poor - "willingness to spend time" in evaluating environmental benefits]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1154-1171.
    11. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato.
    12. Michael Ahlheim & Oliver Frör & Antonia Heinke & Alwin Keil & Nguyen Minh Duc & Pham Van Dinh & Camille Saint-Macary & Manfred Zeller, 2008. "Landslides in mountainous regions of Northern Vietnam: Causes, protection strategies and the assessment of economic losses," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 298/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    13. Stenger, Anne & Harou, Patrice & Navrud, Ståle, 2009. "Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 1-14, January.
    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. Bui Thi Hoang Lan & Tran Thi Lan Phuong & Tran Tho Dat & Dinh Duc Truong, 2023. "Payment for Urban Mangrove Forest Conservation in Vietnam: A Community Case Study of Can Gio Biosphere Reserve, Ho Chi Minh City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-15, June.
    16. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    17. Henderson, James E. & Dunn, Michael A., 2007. "Investigating the Potential of Fee-Based Recreation on Private Lands in the Lower Mississippi River Delta," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34822, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    19. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    20. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.

    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:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:12:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01398-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.