IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/earnsa/404223.html

Paying for Nature-based Solutions: Do Valencians prefer voluntary or mandatory contributions for forest restoration in Spain?

Author

Listed:
  • Missaoui, Sameh
  • Kallas, Zein
  • del Campo, Antonio
  • Pérez, Javier

Abstract

[EN] The Mediterranean Forest faces increasing pressures from climate change, including wildfires, land abandonment, and biodiversity loss. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are sustainable strategies that address these challenges. This study examines how voluntary and mandatory payment mechanisms affect citizens’ willingness to pay (WTP) for forest restoration through NbS in Valencia, Spain. A discrete-choice experiment evaluated 603 respondents’ preferences for ecosystem services’ improvement. Results show stronger support for voluntary payments (WTP values of €58.96 for moderate improvements and €113.07 for substantial ones) compared to mandatory payments (€32.48 and €71.97). These findings provide insights for designing socially acceptable and effective forest restoration policies. [ES] El bosque mediterráneo enfrenta presiones del cambio climático, incendios forestales, abandono del territorio y pérdida de biodiversidad. Las Soluciones Basadas en la Naturaleza (SbN) son estrategias sostenibles que abordan desafíos. Este estudio examina mecanismos de pago voluntarios y obligatorios afectan la disposición a pagar (DAP) por la restauración forestal mediante SbN en Valencia, España. Un experimento de elección discreta evaluó preferencias de 603 participantes mejora de servicios ecosistémicos. Resultados muestran apoyo a pagos voluntarios (58,96 € y 113,07 €) frente a obligatorios (32,48 € y 71,97 €). Estos hallazgos aportan información para políticas de restauración forestal eficaces y socialmente aceptadas.

Suggested Citation

  • Missaoui, Sameh & Kallas, Zein & del Campo, Antonio & Pérez, Javier, 2026. "Paying for Nature-based Solutions: Do Valencians prefer voluntary or mandatory contributions for forest restoration in Spain?," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 26(01), June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:earnsa:404223
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.404223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/404223/files/EARN_2026_01-260104.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.404223?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. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    2. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    3. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    4. Croitoru, Lelia, 2007. "Valuing the non-timber forest products in the Mediterranean region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 768-775, September.
    5. Akcura, Elcin, 2015. "Mandatory versus voluntary payment for green electricity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 84-94.
    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. Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija & Zawadzki, Wojciech & Tienhaara, Annika, 2023. "Cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments with positive status quo cost," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    2. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Gallardo, R. Karina & Wang, Qianqian, 2013. "Willingness to Pay for Pesticides' Environmental Features and Social Desirability Bias: The Case of Apple and Pear Growers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(01), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Petrolia, Daniel & Interis, Matthew & Hwang, Joonghyun, 2015. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Working Papers 212479, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    5. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    6. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    7. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, "undated". "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    9. Mohammed Saleh Al.Ansari, 2015. "Effective Governance Policies for Water and Sanitation," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(6), pages 326-326, June.
    10. Lineback, Caitlinn & Caputo, Vincenzina & McKendree, Melissa G. S., 2021. "Do additional health and origin claims affect U.S. consumer preferences and willingness to pay for nutritional and origin labels? The case of Tart Cherry Juice," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313997, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Thang Nam Do & Jeff Bennett, 2010. "Using Choice Experiments to Estimate Wetland Values in Viet Nam: Implementation and Practical Issues," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    14. Herbes, Carsten & Friege, Christian & Baldo, Davide & Mueller, Kai-Markus, 2015. "Willingness to pay lip service? Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 562-572.
    15. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    16. Robert Johnston, 2007. "Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(3), pages 331-351, November.
    17. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1140-1148, February.
    18. Luke, Jaime R. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Brown, D. Scott, 2024. "Wholesale pork demand: Understanding primal-level heterogeneity," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    19. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    20. Cheng, Haotian & Zhang, Tong & Lambert, Dayton M. & Feuz, Ryan, 2023. "An empirical comparison of conjoint and best-worst scaling case III methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:earnsa:404223. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeeaaea.html .

    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.