Author
Listed:
- Seyfe, Fikre Hailu
- Stanley, Osezua Ehiane
Abstract
The value of forests encompasses both direct market benefits and non-market advantages related to nature conservation. The value of forests, including timber, lumber, pulp, and paper, is exchanged through markets. However, many of the benefits of forests do not pass through the market. The study was carried out to estimate the non-market economic value of forest resources in the Keffa Zone, Ethiopia. To address the objective, a cross-sectional research survey was conducted among 343 households, with face-to-face interviews serving as the primary data collection method. The study was conducted on five forest attributes: harvested forest products, rainfall attraction, soil conservation, tourism-generated employment, and the use of the forest for future generations, representing the non-market value of the forest. The discrete choice experiment estimate, based on multinominal logistic regression, was used to analyse the data and estimate the economic value of the forest. The study estimates that households would pay an average of $7.71/year/hectare for forest conservation to achieve 20% more additional rainfall and water availability. The households are also willing to pay an average of $2.32/year/hectare for the forest’s conservation to avoid 20% soil loss. The households in Keffa would annually pay an average of $9.10/year/hectare and $ 1.31/year/hectare for the forest’s conservation, receiving 10% and 20%, respectively, more tourism-generated income and employment. The estimated results suggest that the local community supports the conservation of the forest, and households are willing to contribute considerable resources for the proposed conservation programme in the study area.
Suggested Citation
Seyfe, Fikre Hailu & Stanley, Osezua Ehiane, 2025.
"The Economic Value of Forest Services in the Keffa Zone, Ethiopia: Discrete Choice Experiment Approach,"
Research on World Agricultural Economy, Nan Yang Academy of Sciences Pte Ltd (NASS), vol. 6(4), September.
Handle:
RePEc:ags:reowae:412802
DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.412802
Download full text from publisher
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:reowae:412802. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: http://www.nassg.org/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.