IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v87y2013icp110-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries

Author

Listed:
  • Krishna, Vijesh V.
  • Drucker, Adam G.
  • Pascual, Unai
  • Raghu, Prabhakaran T.
  • King, E.D. Israel Oliver

Abstract

This paper examines the role of direct compensation payments for agrobiodiversity conservation, using minor millet landraces in India as an example. The cost of farmer participation in a hypothetical ‘payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services’ (PACS) scheme is estimated using a stated preference valuation approach. Significant inter-crop and inter-varietal differences are observed with respect to consumption values, upon which the compensation demanded by farm households is shown to primarily depend. Drawing on a categorisation of consumption values and farmer preferences, the paper points to the importance of simultaneously considering a range of potential interventions in order to conserve a priority portfolio of agrobiodiverse resources in predominantly subsistence-based agricultural systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Krishna, Vijesh V. & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai & Raghu, Prabhakaran T. & King, E.D. Israel Oliver, 2013. "Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 110-123.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:87:y:2013:i:c:p:110-123
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091200496X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Gruère, Guillaume & Nagarajan, Latha & King, E.D.I. Oliver, 2009. "The role of collective action in the marketing of underutilized plant species: Lessons from a case study on minor millets in South India," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 39-45, February.
    2. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    3. Richard C. Ready & Richard C. Bishop, 1991. "Endangered Species and the Safe Minimum Standard," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(2), pages 309-312.
    4. Arslan, Aslihan & Taylor, J.Edward, 2009. "Farmers' Subjective Valuation of Subsistence Crops: The Case of Traditional Maize in Mexico," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1-4, April.
    5. Cummings, Ronald G & Elliott, Steven & Harrison, Glenn W & Murphy, James, 1997. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 609-621, June.
    6. Zander, Kerstin K. & Drucker, Adam G., 2008. "Conserving what's important: Using choice model scenarios to value local cattle breeds in East Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 34-45, December.
    7. Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "The Noah's Ark Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(6), pages 1279-1298, November.
    8. Van Dusen, M. Eric & Taylor, J. Edward, 2005. "Missing markets and crop diversity: evidence from Mexico," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 513-531, August.
    9. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    10. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    11. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
    12. 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.
    13. Drucker, Adam G., 2006. "An application of the use of safe minimum standards in the conservation of livestock biodiversity," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 77-94, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Salvatore Di Falco & Jean-Paul Chavas, 2008. "Rainfall Shocks, Resilience, and the Effects of Crop Biodiversity on Agroecosystem Productivity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 83-96.
    16. Narloch, Ulf & Pascual, Unai & Drucker, Adam G., 2012. "Collective Action Dynamics under External Rewards: Experimental Insights from Andean Farming Communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 2096-2107.
    17. Derek Byerlee & Edward Souza, 1997. "Wheat Rusts and the Costs of Genetic Diversity in the Punjab of Pakistan," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 726-737.
    18. Krishna, Vijesh V. & Pascual, Unai & Zilberman, David, 2010. "Assessing the potential of labelling schemes for in situ landrace conservation: an example from India," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 127-151, April.
    19. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    20. Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann & Carel P. C. M. Van der Hamsvoort, 1998. "Auctions as a Means of Creating a Market for Public Goods from Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 334-345, September.
    21. Brown, Thomas C. & Gregory, Robin, 1999. "Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 323-335, March.
    22. Narloch, Ulf & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai, 2011. "Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1837-1845, September.
    23. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    24. 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.
    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. Nicholas Tyack & Milan Scasny, 2018. "Estimating the Value of Crop Diversity Conservation Services Provided by the Czech National Programme for Agrobiodiversity," Working Papers IES 2018/09, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Apr 2018.
    2. Giacomo Pallante & Adam Drucker, 2014. "Niche Markets for Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Preference and Scale Heterogeneity Effects on Nepalese Consumers’ WTP for Finger Millet Products," SEEDS Working Papers 1414, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    3. Sylvaine Lemeilleur & Julie Subervie & Anderson Edilson Presoto & Roberta de Castro Souza & Maria Sylvia Macchione Saes, 2016. "Eco-certified contract choice among coffee farmersin Brazil," Working Papers 16-09, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    4. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    5. Anthony Amoah & Peter G. Moffatt, 2017. "Estimating demand for reliable piped-water services in urban Ghana: An application of competing valuation approaches," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2017-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    6. Vijesh Krishna & Matin Qaim & David Zilberman, 2016. "Transgenic crops, production risk and agrobiodiversity," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 43(1), pages 137-164.
    7. Shoyama, Kikuko & Kamiyama, Chiho & Morimoto, Junko & Ooba, Makoto & Okuro, Toshiya, 2017. "A review of modeling approaches for ecosystem services assessment in the Asian region," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 316-328.
    8. 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.
    9. Moucheng Liu & Qingwen Min & Lun Yang, 2018. "Rice Pricing during Organic Conversion of the Honghe Hani Rice Terrace System in China," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, January.
    10. Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2018. "Can stated measures of willingness-to-accept be valid? Evidence from laboratory experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 133-149.
    11. Pallante, Giacomo & Drucker, Adam G. & Sthapit, Sajal, 2016. "Assessing the potential for niche market development to contribute to farmers' livelihoods and agrobiodiversity conservation: Insights from the finger millet case study in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 92-105.
    12. Nicholas Tyack & Milan Ščasný, 2018. "Social Valuation of Genebank Activities: Assessing Public Demand for Genetic Resource Conservation in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    13. Hai-Ying Gu & Qing-Mi Hu & Tian-Qiong Wang, 2019. "Payment for Rice Growers to Reduce Using N Fertilizer in the GHG Mitigation Program Driven by the Government: Evidence from Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Ademola A. Adenle & Casey Stevens & Peter Bridgewater, 2014. "Stakeholder Visions for Biodiversity Conservation in Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(1), pages 1-23, December.
    16. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    17. Sylvaine Lemeilleur & Subervie Julie & Anderson Edilson Presoto & Roberta de Castro Souza & Maria Sylvia Macchione Saes, 2019. "Coffee farmers’ motivations to comply with sustainability standards," Post-Print halshs-02278751, HAL.
    18. Nordhagen, Stella & Pascual, Unai & Drucker, Adam G., 2017. "Feeding the Household, Growing the Business, or Just Showing Off? Farmers' Motivations for Crop Diversity Choices in Papua New Guinea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 99-109.
    19. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

    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:87:y:2013:i:c:p:110-123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.