IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i18p11202-d909065.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Household Willingness to Pay for the Conservation of the Phou Chom Voy Protected Area in Lao PDR

Author

Listed:
  • Xaysompheng Sengkhamyong

    (Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305–8572, Japan)

  • Helmut Yabar

    (Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305–8572, Japan)

  • Takeshi Mizunoya

    (Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305–8572, Japan)

Abstract

This study aimed to examine whether local residents were willing to pay (WTP) for the improvement of the Phou Chom Voy Protected Area (PCV PA), by using the hypothetical scenario framework of the contingent valuation method. We interviewed a sample of 365 local residents. Among the respondents, 271 were willing to pay to maintain the protected area. Most residents who refused to pay had low incomes and stated that they did not want to increase their monthly expenses by contributing to the conservation fund. The estimated mean willingness to pay among the respondents who expressed the maximum willingness to pay for natural forest conservation because of its natural value and attractiveness for tourism was Lao Kip (LAK) 27,055/year. The aggregate willingness to pay for the protected area improvement was approximately LAK 93 million. The logit regression results revealed that age, education level, annual household income, and attitude toward conservation significantly influenced willingness to pay. The results of this study provide insights into applying willingness to pay in sustainable financing, to develop market-based conservation approaches in protected areas, thus reducing ongoing biodiversity losses and maintaining natural resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Xaysompheng Sengkhamyong & Helmut Yabar & Takeshi Mizunoya, 2022. "Assessing Household Willingness to Pay for the Conservation of the Phou Chom Voy Protected Area in Lao PDR," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11202-:d:909065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11202/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11202/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scheufele, Gabriela & Bennett, Jeff, 2017. "Can payments for ecosystem services schemes mimic markets?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 30-37.
    2. Andrea Báez-Montenegro & Ana María Bedate & Luis César Herrero & Jose Ángel Sanz, 2012. "Inhabitants' Willingness to Pay for Cultural Heritage: A Case Study in Valdivia, Chile, Using Contingent Valuation," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 235-258, November.
    3. Jang-Hwan Jo & Chang-Bae Lee & Hye-Jung Cho & Jukwan Lee, 2021. "Estimation of Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for the Implementation of Payment for Local Forest Ecosystem Services: The Case of Taxes and Donations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Vongkhamheng, Chanthavy, 2015. "Phou Chomvoy Provincial Protected Area: A Biodiversity Baseline Assessment," Research Reports 244016, Australian National University, Effective Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services in Lao PDR.
    5. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-15, April.
    6. Paulo Nunes & Peter Nijkamp, 2011. "Economic Valuation, Values And Contingent Method: An Overview," Regional Science Inquiry, Hellenic Association of Regional Scientists, vol. 0(1), pages 95-116, June.
    7. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    8. Lin Song & Yi Xue & Yaqiong Jing & Jincan Zhang, 2021. "Visitor’s Willingness to Pay for National Park Entrance Fees in China: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Baral, Nabin & Stern, Marc J. & Bhattarai, Ranju, 2008. "Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 218-227, June.
    10. Brian Witt, 2019. "Tourists’ Willingness to Pay Increased Entrance Fees at Mexican Protected Areas: A Multi-Site Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-22, May.
    11. Osiolo, Helen Hoka, 2017. "Willingness to pay for improved energy: Evidence from Kenya," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 104-112.
    12. Peter Fix & John Loomis, 1998. "Comparing the Economic Value of Mountain Biking Estimated Using Revealed and Stated Preference," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 227-236.
    13. 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.
    14. Amirnejad, Hamid & Khalilian, Sadegh & Assareh, Mohammad H. & Ahmadian, Majid, 2006. "Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 665-675, July.
    15. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    16. Eugene Ezebilo, 2016. "Willingness to Pay for Maintenance of a Nature Conservation Area: A Case of Mount Wilhelm, Papua New Guinea," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(9), pages 149-149, September.
    17. repec:hrs:journl:v:3:y:2011:i:1:p:95-116 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Precious Chikezie Ezeh & Kaitano Dube, 2024. "Willingness to Pay in Tourism and Its Influence on Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-16, December.

    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. George Halkos & Aikaterini Leonti & Eleni Sardianou, 2020. "Assessing the Preservation of Parks and Natural Protected Areas: A Review of Contingent Valuation Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-24, June.
    2. Halkos, George & Leonti, Aikaterini & Petropoulos, Constantinos & Sardianou, Eleni, 2022. "Determinants of willingness to pay for urban parks: An empirical analysis in Greece," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    3. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    4. Shrestha, Ram K. & Seidl, Andrew F. & Moraes, Andre S., 2002. "Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 289-299, August.
    5. Wei Fang & Gloria Rui Gou & Lewis T. O. Cheung & Lincoln Fok & Alice S. Y. Chow & Ke Zhang, 2024. "An Investigation of Willingness to Pay for Geopark Management and Conservation: A Case Study of Geotourists in the Greater China Region," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    7. Vorstius, Anne Carolin & Spray, Christopher J., 2015. "A comparison of ecosystem services mapping tools for their potential to support planning and decision-making on a local scale," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 75-83.
    8. Xichen Ge & Liang Sun & Jiongzhen Chen & Shuangrong Cai, 2022. "Land Utilization, Landscape Pattern, and Ecological Efficiency: An Empirical Analysis of Discrimination and Overlap from Suining, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-19, July.
    9. Zhongmin, Xu & Guodong, Cheng & Zhiqiang, Zhang & Zhiyong, Su & Loomis, John, 2003. "Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 345-358, March.
    10. Rees, Siân E. & Fletcher, Stephen & Gall, Sarah C. & Friedrich, Laura A. & Jackson, Emma L. & Rodwell, Lynda D., 2014. "Securing the benefits: Linking ecology with marine planning policy to examine the potential of a network of Marine Protected Areas to support human wellbeing," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 335-341.
    11. Mann, Carsten, 2015. "Strategies for sustainable policy design: Constructive assessment of biodiversity offsets and banking," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 266-274.
    12. Prévost, Benoît & Rivaud, Audrey, 2018. "The World Bank’s environmental strategies: Assessing the influence of a biased use of New Institutional Economics on legal issues," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 370-380.
    13. Markowska, Agnieszka & Zylicz, Tomasz, 1999. "Costing an international public good: the case of the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 301-316, August.
    14. Reed, James & van Vianen, Josh & Foli, Samson & Clendenning, Jessica & Yang, Kevin & MacDonald, Margaret & Petrokofsky, Gillian & Padoch, Christine & Sunderland, Terry, 2017. "Trees for life: The ecosystem service contribution of trees to food production and livelihoods in the tropics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 62-71.
    15. John Kurien, 2003. "The blessing of the commons: Small-scale fisheries, community property rights and coastal natural assets," Centre for Development Studies, Trivendrum Working Papers 349, Centre for Development Studies, Trivendrum, India.
    16. Gaaff, Aris & Reinhard, Stijn, 2012. "Incorporating the value of ecological networks into cost–benefit analysis to improve spatially explicit land-use planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-74.
    17. Bergstrom, John & Holmes, Tom & Huszar, Eric & Kask, Susan, 2001. "Testing a Computer-Assisted Valuation Panel Approach for Valuing Watershed Ecosystem Restoration," Western Region Archives 321683, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    18. Chaofan Wu & Huanhuan Shen & Ke Wang & Aihua Shen & Jinsong Deng & Muye Gan, 2016. "Landsat Imagery-Based Above Ground Biomass Estimation and Change Investigation Related to Human Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-13, February.
    19. Yajuan Chen & Qian Zhang & Wenping Liu & Zhenrong Yu, 2017. "Analyzing Farmers’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and PES Schemes within Agricultural Landscapes in Mengyin County, China: Transforming Trade-Offs into Synergies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, August.
    20. Mukherjee, Joyita & Scharler, Ursula M. & Fath, Brian D. & Ray, Santanu, 2015. "Measuring sensitivity of robustness and network indices for an estuarine food web model under perturbations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 306(C), pages 160-173.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11202-:d:909065. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.