IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v18y2016icp58-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Longan fruit farmers' demand for policies aimed at conserving native pollinating bees in Northern Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Narjes, Manuel Ernesto
  • Lippert, Christian

Abstract

Northern Thailand is orienting its agriculture towards intensive production systems at risk of being subjected to the current worldwide pollinator crisis. Bee-friendly pest management, improving native bee habitats within agro-forest ecosystems and fostering the husbandry of native bee species are three widely recognized strategies to conserve the local pollinating fauna. We attempted at eliciting farmers' valuation of these measures and that of their potential effect on local native bees, by conducting a choice experiment with 198 longan (Dimocarpus longan) farmers. The results of a mixed logit model indicate a significant heterogeneity in farmers' preferences, part of which was explained by the respondents' attitude towards native bees, among other idiosyncratic variables such as gender. We also determined a generally positive willingness to pay for the above mentioned conservation measures, which implemented together were valued at approx. €18.1 by the average household, all else equal. Additionally, avoiding a 50% native bee population decline was valued in average at €40.5 per household. These estimates stand in strong contrast with the comparatively high economic losses such a decline could potentially entail in terms of reduced longan production and the relatively low investment costs to implement a conservation strategy aimed at preventing such losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Narjes, Manuel Ernesto & Lippert, Christian, 2016. "Longan fruit farmers' demand for policies aimed at conserving native pollinating bees in Northern Thailand," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 58-67.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:18:y:2016:i:c:p:58-67
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041615300371
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.010?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. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, Enero.
    3. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    4. Hanley, Nick & Breeze, Tom D. & Ellis, Ciaran & Goulson, David, 2015. "Measuring the economic value of pollination services: Principles, evidence and knowledge gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 124-132.
    5. Randal R. Rucker & Walter N. Thurman & Michael Burgett, 2012. "Honey Bee Pollination Markets and the Internalization of Reciprocal Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(4), pages 956-977.
    6. McConnell K. E., 1995. "Consumer Surplus from Discrete Choice Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 263-270, November.
    7. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    8. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    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. Sponagel, Christian & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Piepho, Hans-Peter & Bahrs, Enno, 2021. "Farmers’ preferences for nature conservation compensation measures with a focus on eco-accounts according to the German Nature Conservation Act," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Narjes, Manuel Ernesto & Lippert, Christian, 2019. "The Optimal Supply of Crop Pollination and Honey From Wild and Managed Bees: An Analytical Framework for Diverse Socio-Economic and Ecological Settings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 278-290.
    3. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    5. Rilling, Benedikt & Kurz, Peter & Herbes, Carsten, 2024. "Renewable gases in the heating market: Identifying consumer preferences through a Discrete Choice Experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Yang, Y.C. Ethan & Passarelli, Simone & Lovell, Robin J. & Ringler, Claudia, 2018. "Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 58-67.
    8. Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    9. Céline Moreaux & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Bo Dalsgaard & Carsten Rahbek & Niels Strange, 2023. "Distance and Regional Effects on the Value of Wild Bee Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 37-63, January.

    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. Céline Moreaux & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Bo Dalsgaard & Carsten Rahbek & Niels Strange, 2023. "Distance and Regional Effects on the Value of Wild Bee Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 37-63, January.
    2. Kathrin Stenchly & Marc Victor Hansen & Katharina Stein & Andreas Buerkert & Wilhelm Loewenstein, 2018. "Income Vulnerability of West African Farming Households to Losses in Pollination Services: A Case Study from Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Lippert, Christian & Feuerbacher, Arndt & Narjes, Manuel, 2021. "Revisiting the economic valuation of agricultural losses due to large-scale changes in pollinator populations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    4. Luciano Pilati & Vasco Boatto, 2014. "Jointness in Sites: The Case of Migratory Beekeeping," DEM Discussion Papers 2014/10, Department of Economics and Management.
    5. Ioannis Arzoumanidis & Andrea Raggi & Luigia Petti, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment of Honey: Considering the Pollination Service," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, March.
    6. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    7. Tremlett, Constance J. & Peh, Kelvin S.-H. & Zamora-Gutierrez, Veronica & Schaafsma, Marije, 2021. "Value and benefit distribution of pollination services provided by bats in the production of cactus fruits in central Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    8. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia L. Rihn & Benjamin Campbell & Chengyan Yue & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe, 2017. "Visual Attention to Eco-Labels Predicts Consumer Preferences for Pollinator Friendly Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-14, September.
    9. Francois Bareille & Matteo Zavalloni & Meri Raggi & Davide Viaggi, 2021. "Cooperative Management of Ecosystem Services: Coalition Formation, Landscape Structure and Policies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(2), pages 323-356, June.
    10. Melathopoulos, Andony P. & Cutler, G. Christopher & Tyedmers, Peter, 2015. "Where is the value in valuing pollination ecosystem services to agriculture?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 59-70.
    11. Frauke Becker & Nana Anokye & Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Ailish Higgins & Clare Relton & Mark Strong & Julia Fox-Rushby, 2018. "Women’s preferences for alternative financial incentive schemes for breastfeeding: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, April.
    12. A. Champetier & D. Sumner & J. Wilen, 2015. "The Bioeconomics of Honey Bees and Pollination," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(1), pages 143-164, January.
    13. Fleischer, Aliza & Shafir, Sharoni & Mandelik, Yael, 2013. "A proactive approach for assessing alternative management programs for an invasive alien pollinator species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 126-132.
    14. Rafaella Guimarães Porto & Rita Fernandes Almeida & Oswaldo Cruz-Neto & Marcelo Tabarelli & Blandina Felipe Viana & Carlos A. Peres & Ariadna Valentina Lopes, 2020. "Pollination ecosystem services: A comprehensive review of economic values, research funding and policy actions," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1425-1442, December.
    15. Panchalingam, Thadchaigeni & Jones Ritten, Chian & Shogren, Jason F. & Ehmke, Mariah D. & Bastian, Christopher T. & Parkhurst, Gregory M., 2019. "Adding realism to the Agglomeration Bonus: How endogenous land returns affect habitat fragmentation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Goodrich, Brittney K., 2019. "Do more bees imply higher fees? Honey bee colony strength as a determinant of almond pollination fees," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 150-160.
    17. Despina Popovska Stojanov & Lazo Dimitrov & Jiří Danihlík & Aleksandar Uzunov & Miroljub Golubovski & Sreten Andonov & Robert Brodschneider, 2021. "Direct Economic Impact Assessment of Winter Honeybee Colony Losses in Three European Countries," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-11, April.
    18. Endre Kildal Iversen & Kristine Grimsrud & Henrik Lindhjem & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2019. "Trade-offs between carbon sequestration, landscape aesthetics and biodiversity in a cost-benefit analysis of land use options in Norway," Discussion Papers 915, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    19. Semeraro, Teodoro & Pomes, Alessandro & Del Giudice, Cecilia & Negro, Danilo & Aretano, Roberta, 2018. "Planning ground based utility scale solar energy as green infrastructure to enhance ecosystem services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 218-227.
    20. Campbell, Ben & Khachatryan, Hayk & Rihn, Alicia, 2017. "Pollinator Friendly Plants: Reasons for and Barriers to Purchase," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252763, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    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:ecoser:v:18:y:2016:i:c:p:58-67. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.