IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zib/zbmjsa/v7y2023i1p25-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Labor As A Payment Vehicle For The Rangeland Improvement: An Application Of Contingent Valuation Method In Yabello District, Southern Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Deginet Berhanu

    (Ethiopian Forestry Development, P.O. Box: 24536 (Code 1000), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia)

Abstract

Studies conducted regarding goods and services exhibit a low willingness to pay (WTP) in developing countries. However, many scholars found that this may not be the preference for the good but the result of the choice of payment vehicle. Thus, low WTP for ecosystem conservation may not indicate a low welfare for the ecosystem service. There’s the argument that the choice of the payment vehicles may be needed to obtain exact welfare estimates where there is imperfect substitutability between money and labor. Otherwise, there might occur underestimating of the welfare benefit of ecosystem services. Thus, the ultimate objective of this study is to investigate the labor-as a payment-vehicle by using a CV method and estimating the factors influencing pastoralists’ decision to contribute labor for the rangeland improvement. This study demonstrates it through a rural pastoralists’ choice to elicit their willingness to contribute a labor for the rangeland improvement in Yabello District, southern Ethiopia. A total of 228 sample respondents were selected randomly from the two adjacent Kebeles. Logit model was used to identify the factors that influence pastoralists’ willingness to contribute the labor for the rangeland improvement. The result shows that the endowment of household’s active labor highly influence respondents’ willingness to contribute. In addition to that, variables like sex, age, dominant livelihood activities, livestock holding, perception towards the rangeland improvement, dependency ratio, and initial bid value were significantly influence pastoralists’ willingness to contribute the labor for the rangeland improvement. To sum up, the findings of this study suggest that, just like the monetary value, the labor value can also be used to evaluate the demand of community for the ecosystem services improvement. Thus, employing the labor as a means of payment vehicle for accurate welfare estimations might be a practical alternative, and also giving a chance for the respondents to indicate their willingness to contribute for rehabilitation of degraded ecosystem in developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Deginet Berhanu, 2023. "Labor As A Payment Vehicle For The Rangeland Improvement: An Application Of Contingent Valuation Method In Yabello District, Southern Ethiopia," Malaysian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture (MJSA), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 7(1), pages 25-31, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:zib:zbmjsa:v:7:y:2023:i:1:p:25-31
    DOI: 10.26480/mjsa.01.2023.25.31
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://myjsustainagri.com/archives/1mjsa2023/1mjsa2023-25-31.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26480/mjsa.01.2023.25.31?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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).
    2. Dale Whittington, 2010. "What Have We Learned from 20 Years of Stated Preference Research in Less-Developed Countries?," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 209-236, October.
    3. David Hoyos & Petr Mariel, 2010. "Contingent Valuation: Past, Present and Future," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2010(4), pages 329-343.
    4. Oh, Hyungna & Hong, Jong Ho, 2012. "Citizens’ trust in government and their willingness-to-pay," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 345-347.
    5. Getachew Belay & Mengistu Ketema & Musa Hasen, 2020. "Households’ willingness to pay for soil conservation on communal lands: application of the contingent valuation method in north eastern Ethiopia," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(12), pages 2227-2245, October.
    6. Suziana Hassan & Søren Bøye Olsen & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2018. "Appropriate Payment Vehicles in Stated Preference Studies in Developing Economies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 1053-1075, December.
    7. Carlsson, Fredrik & Köhlin, Gunnar & Mekonnen, Alemu, 2004. "Contingent valuation of community plantations in Ethiopia: a look into value elicitation formats and intra-household preference variations," Working Papers in Economics 151, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, July.
    9. Neupane, Ramji P. & Sharma, Khem R. & Thapa, Gopal B., 2002. "Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 177-196, June.
    10. Mekonnen, Alemu, 2000. "Valuation of community forestry in Ethiopia: a contingent valuation study of rural households," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 289-308, July.
    11. Meginnis, Keila & Hanley, Nick & Mujumbusi, Lazaaro & Lamberton, Poppy H.L., 2020. "Non-monetary numeraires: Varying the payment vehicle in a choice experiment for health interventions in Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    12. M. Morrison & R. Blamey & J. Bennett, 2000. "Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 407-422, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Gebremariam, Gebrelibanos Gebremedhin, 2012. "Households’ Willingness To Pay For Soil Conservation Practices In Adwa Woreda, Ethiopia: A Contingent Valuation Study," Research Theses 157507, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    15. Swallow, B. M. & Woudyalew, M., 1994. "Evaluating willingness to contribute to a local public good: Application of contingent valuation to tsetse control in Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 153-161, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    2. Manhique, Henrique & Wätzold, Frank, 2023. "Effects of Institutional Setting on Value Estimates of Stated Preference Surveys in Developing Economies: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Conserving Biodiversity in The Cape Floristic Region," MPRA Paper 118750, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. 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.
    4. Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Swait, Joffre & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2021. "Distortions in willingness-to-pay for public goods induced by endemic distrust in institutions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Lokina, Razack & Mtenga, Erica Louis & Tibanywana, Julieth Julius, 2023. "Stated preferences with survey consequentiality and outcome uncertainty: A split sample discrete choice experiment," EfD Discussion Paper 23-16, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    8. Tensay Hadush Meles & Razack Lokina & Erica Louis Mtenga & Julieth Julius Tibanywana, 2023. "Stated Preferences with Survey Consequentiality and Outcome Uncertainty: A Split Sample Discrete Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(4), pages 717-754, December.
    9. Suziana Hassan & Søren Bøye Olsen & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2018. "Appropriate Payment Vehicles in Stated Preference Studies in Developing Economies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 1053-1075, December.
    10. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    11. Hagedoorn, L.C. & Bubeck, P. & Hudson, P. & Brander, L.M. & Pham, M. & Lasage, R., 2021. "Preferences of vulnerable social groups for ecosystem-based adaptation to flood risk in Central Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    12. Li, Liqing & Long, Dede, 2024. "Who values urban community gardens and how much?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    13. Li, Liqing & Long, Dede, 2022. "Household Preference for Impure Public Goods - an Application of Community Gardens," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322142, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. repec:ehu:biltok:5583 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Elisabetta Pietrostefani, 2022. "Urban Transformations and Complex Values: Insights From Beirut," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 142-154.
    16. Habtamu Tilahun Kassahun & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen & Joffre Swait & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2020. "Social Cooperation in the Context of Integrated Private and Common Land Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(1), pages 105-136, January.
    17. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Pascual, Unai & Etxano, Iker, 2012. "Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344.
    19. Malte Oehlmann & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2017. "Stated preferences towards renewable energy alternatives in Germany – do the consequentiality of the survey and trust in institutions matter?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, January.
    20. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    21. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.

    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:zib:zbmjsa:v:7:y:2023:i:1:p:25-31. 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: Zibeline International Publishing The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Zibeline International Publishing to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://myjsustainagri.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.