IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/roaaec/316623.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Households Willingness To Pay For The Conservation Of Noug: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • ORDOFA JARA, Gemechu
  • TESHOME GEBRETSADIK, Wubishet
  • TEMAM HAJIFATO, Nesru

Abstract

Research background: Crop genetic resource conservation and management requires farmers’ financial and labour contribution. Guizotia abyssinica (locally named as ‘Noug’) is among the oil crops originated from Ethiopia, but currently neglected and poorly managed resource. Purpose of the article: The purpose of this research to understand farmers’ behaviour for conservation program and identify better policy, by examining factors affecting households’ willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation Guizotia abyssinica, and by estimating the aggregate welfare contribution of household for the proposed conservation program in West Shewa, Ethiopia. Methods: A contingent valuation survey, double bound with an open-ended follow-up question was directed on 160 selected rural households using multi-stage sampling method. Probit model is employed to achieve the purpose of this study. Findings & Value added: The probit model result showed that factors, such as the amount of credit received, perception of conservation problem, education, frequency of extension contact, proportion of land allocated to Guizotia abyssinica, income from Guizotia abyssinica and income from farm activity have a positive and statistically significant effect on households’ WTP. On the other hand, total livestock holding, age of households, and initial bid have a negative and significant effect WTP. The aggregate welfare contribution household was estimated to be 1,718,059 man-days and 23,260,839 Ethiopian Birr per year. Improving farmer’s extension contact, training farmers, education and solving financial constraints can increase the farmers Guizotia abyssinica conservation in the study area.

Suggested Citation

  • ORDOFA JARA, Gemechu & TESHOME GEBRETSADIK, Wubishet & TEMAM HAJIFATO, Nesru, 2021. "Households Willingness To Pay For The Conservation Of Noug: A Case Study," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 24(2), October.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:roaaec:316623
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.316623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/316623/files/RAAE_2_2021_OrdofaJara_et_al.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.316623?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. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    2. 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.
    3. Kim, Hong Jin & Cho, Yongsung, 2002. "Estimating Willingness To Pay For Reduced Copper Contamination In Southwestern Minnesota," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-14, December.
    4. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    5. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    6. Asrat, Sinafikeh & Yesuf, Mahmud & Carlsson, Fredrik & Wale, Edilegnaw, 2010. "Farmers' preferences for crop variety traits: Lessons for on-farm conservation and technology adoption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2394-2401, October.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    8. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    9. Cawley, John, 2008. "Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 281-292, July.
    10. Bateman, Ian J. & Willis, Kenneth G. (ed.), 2001. "Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU , and developing Countries," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199248919.
    11. Nicholas Tyack & Milan Ščasný, 2018. "Social Valuation of Genebank Activities: Assessing Public Demand for Genetic Resource Conservation in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, 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. Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch, 2011. "Contingent Valuation of Community Forestry Programs in Ethiopia: Observing Preference Anomalies in Double-Bounded CVM," Working Papers 201124, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    2. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2015. "Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 79-89.
    3. Leslie Richardson & Lynne Lewis, 2022. "Getting to know you: individual animals, wildlife webcams, and willingness to pay for brown bear preservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 673-692, March.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    5. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    6. Ghosh, Ranjan & Goyal, Yugank & Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian, 2017. "Are small firms willing to pay for improved power supply? Evidence from a contingent valuation study in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 659-665.
    7. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Liu, Xuemin, 2008. "Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: A policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 328-335, December.
    8. Tienhaara, Annika & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2015. "Consumer and citizen roles and motives in the valuation of agricultural genetic resources in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-10.
    9. Nikita Lyssenko & Roberto Mart󹑺-Espiñeira, 2012. "Respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and Labrador," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(15), pages 1911-1930, May.
    10. Guo, Xiurui & Liu, Haifeng & Mao, Xianqiang & Jin, Jianjun & Chen, Dongsheng & Cheng, Shuiyuan, 2014. "Willingness to pay for renewable electricity: A contingent valuation study in Beijing, China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 340-347.
    11. Marija Opačak & Erda Wang, 2019. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for a Future Recreational Park Atop the Current Jakuševec Landfill in Zagreb, Croatia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-16, October.
    12. Corsi, Alessandro & Frontuto, Vito & Novelli, Silvia, 2022. "Relational goods and direct purchase from farmers: estimating the value of the relationship between consumers and producers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 25(2), March.
    13. Agha Akram & Sheila Olmstead, 2011. "The Value of Household Water Service Quality in Lahore, Pakistan," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 173-198, June.
    14. Justin Visagie & Dorrit Posel, 2013. "A reconsideration of what and who is middle class in South Africa," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 149-167, June.
    15. Henry-Osorio, Miguel & Mittelhammer, Ronald C., 2012. "An Information-Theoretic Approach to Modeling Binary Choices: Estimating Willingness to Pay for Recreation Site Attributes," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 123432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Eugenio Figueroa & Roberto Pasten, 2014. "Economically valuing nature resources to promote conservation: An empirical application to Chile's national system of protected areas," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(4), pages 865-888, November.
    17. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2012. "Does one size fit all? Heterogeneity in the valuation of community forestry programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 85-94.
    18. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2018. "Willingness to pay for the preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland – The contingent valuation studies of Eldvörp and Hverahlíð," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(PA), pages 97-108.
    19. Mvangeli Dlamini, Nqobizwe, 2015. "Households' Water Use Demand and Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Services: A Case Study of Semi-Urban Areas in the Lubombo and Lowveld Regions of Swaziland," Research Theses 243464, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    20. Sardana, Kavita, 2019. "Tourists' Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Traditional Agro-forest Ecosystems Providing Biodiversity: Evidence from India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 362-372.

    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:roaaec:316623. 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/feuagsk.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.