IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v108y2014icp91-103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes

Author

Listed:
  • Barr, Rhona F.
  • Mourato, Susana

Abstract

We determine the effects of various management restrictions on adoption rates of marine Payments for Environmental Services (PES) schemes. Choice experiments are used in order to determine how fisher participation rates change under different marine PES programme designs. Various designs, with differing restriction rates, show different rates of adoption. However, fishers show a high utility loss associated with any move away from the current management situation, irrespective of restriction levels. This indicates that PES scheme costs may be high and creating an enabling environment could be important to reducing perceived losses, as could investment into conditional in-kind compensation mechanisms. The paper also shows choice experiments to be a useful tool in marine PES design.

Suggested Citation

  • Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:108:y:2014:i:c:p:91-103
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914002766
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.006?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. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    2. Akpalu, Wisdom, 2010. "A Dynamic Model of Mesh Size Regulatory Compliance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(1), pages 1-17.
    3. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    4. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    5. Silva, Patricia, 2006. "Exploring the linkages between poverty, marine protected area management, and the use of destructive fishing gear in Tanzania," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3831, The World Bank.
    6. Ma, Shan & Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Jolejole, Christina B., 2010. "Why Farmers Opt Not to Enroll in Payment-for-Environmental-Services Programs," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61392, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    8. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    9. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    10. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
    11. Zilberman, David & Lipper, Leslie & Mccarthy, Nancy, 2008. "When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 255-278, June.
    12. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    13. Eleni Fimereli & Susana Mourato, 2013. "Assessing the effect of energy technology labels on preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(3), pages 245-265, November.
    14. Wattage, Premachandra & Mardle, Simon & Pascoe, Sean, 2005. "Evaluation of the importance of fisheries management objectives using choice-experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 85-95, October.
    15. Pomeroy, Robert S. & Katon, Brenda M. & Harkes, Ingvild, 2001. "Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co-management: lessons from Asia," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 197-208, May.
    16. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    17. Gong, Yazhen & Bull, Gary & Baylis, Kathy, 2010. "Participation in the world's first clean development mechanism forest project: The role of property rights, social capital and contractual rules," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1292-1302, April.
    18. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    19. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    20. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    21. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    22. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    23. Nicholas A J Graham & Tim R McClanahan & M Aaron MacNeil & Shaun K Wilson & Nicholas V C Polunin & Simon Jennings & Pascale Chabanet & Susan Clark & Mark D Spalding & Yves Letourneur & Lionel Bigot & , 2008. "Climate Warming, Marine Protected Areas and the Ocean-Scale Integrity of Coral Reef Ecosystems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-9, August.
    24. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    25. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    26. Louise Teh & William W.L. Cheung & Andy Cornish & Clarus Chu & U. Rashid Sumaila, 2008. "A survey of alternative livelihood options for Hong Kong's fishers," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(5), pages 380-395, April.
    27. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    28. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    29. Florian Heiss, 2002. "Structural choice analysis with nested logit models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(3), pages 227-252, August.
    30. Dobbs, Thomas L. & Pretty, Jules, 2008. "Case study of agri-environmental payments: The United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 765-775, May.
    31. Pradhan, Naresh C. & Leung, PingSun, 2004. "Modeling entry, stay, and exit decisions of the longline fishers in Hawaii," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 311-324, July.
    32. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    33. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    34. Blamey, R. K. & Bennett, J. W. & Louviere, J. J. & Morrison, M. D. & Rolfe, J., 2000. "A test of policy labels in environmental choice modelling studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 269-286, February.
    35. Zbinden, Simon & Lee, David R., 2005. "Paying for Environmental Services: An Analysis of Participation in Costa Rica's PSA Program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 255-272, February.
    36. Robinson, Elizabeth J.Z. & Albers, Heidi J. & Kirama, Stephen L., 2012. "The Role of Incentives for Sustainable Implementation of Marine Protected Areas: An Example from Tanzania," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-03-efd, Resources for the Future.
    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. Namhee Kim & Miju Kim & Sangkwon Lee & Chi-Ok Oh, 2023. "Comparing Stakeholders’ Economic Values for the Institution of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Bing Yu & Yuying Cai & Laiqun Jin & Bisheng Du, 2018. "Effects on Willingness to Pay for Marine Conservation: Evidence from Zhejiang Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    4. Maldonado, Jorge H. & Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio & Henao-Henao, Juan P. & Bruner, Aaron, 2019. "Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Glenk, Klaus & Rodriguez-Entrena, M., 2016. "Serial non-participation and ecosystem services providers’ preferences towards incentive-based schemes," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236348, Agricultural Economics Society.

    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. Rhona Barr & Susana Mourato, 2012. "Investigating fishers� preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," GRI Working Papers 101, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    2. Seroa da Motta, Ronaldo & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2018. "Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 333-342.
    3. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    4. Murwirapachena, Genius & Dikgang, Johane, 2018. "An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector," MPRA Paper 91549, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    6. Iván Pérez-Rubio & Daniel Flores & Christian Vargas & Francisco Jiménez & Iker Etxano, 2021. "To What Extent Are Cattle Ranching Landholders Willing to Restore Ecosystem Services? Constructing a Micro-Scale PES Scheme in Southern Costa Rica," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    8. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    9. Hao Li & Michael T Bennett & Xuemei Jiang & Kebin Zhang & Xiaohui Yang, 2017. "Rural Household Preferences for Active Participation in “Payment for Ecosystem Service” Programs: A Case in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    10. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    11. Julia Martin-Ortega & Giacomo Giannoccaro & Julio Berbel, 2011. "Environmental and Resource Costs Under Water Scarcity Conditions: An Estimation in the Context of the European Water Framework Directive," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1615-1633, April.
    12. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Yahya, Nurul & Musa, Rusmani, 2013. "Status Quo Effect and Preferences Uncertainty: A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value (HEV) Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 47(1), pages 163-172.
    13. 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.
    14. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    15. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Rawi, Shamsul Bahrain & Omar, Hamimi, 2018. "Does Status Quo Interpretation Affect Welfare Estimates?," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(3), pages 115-128.
    16. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    17. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    18. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    19. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:108:y:2014:i:c:p:91-103. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.