IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Small-Scale Agricultural Management Interventions in Burkina Faso: A Discrete Choice Experiment Approach


  • Prosper Houessionon

    (Department of Economic Science and Management, University Ouaga II, Ouagadougou 22650, Burkina Faso
    West African Science Service Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use, Ouagadougou 22650, Burkina Faso)

  • William M. Fonta

    (West African Science Service Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use, Ouagadougou 22650, Burkina Faso
    Earth Institute Center for Environmental Sustainability (EICES), Colombia University, New York, NY 10027, USA)

  • Aymar Y. Bossa

    (West African Science Service Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use, Ouagadougou 22650, Burkina Faso
    Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Management, National Institute of Water, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou 01, Benin)

  • Safiétou Sanfo

    (West African Science Service Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use, Ouagadougou 22650, Burkina Faso)

  • Noel Thiombiano

    (Department of Economic Science and Management, University Ouaga II, Ouagadougou 22650, Burkina Faso)

  • Pam Zahonogo

    (Department of Economic Science and Management, University Ouaga II, Ouagadougou 22650, Burkina Faso)

  • Thomas B. Yameogo

    (West African Science Service Center on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use, Ouagadougou 22650, Burkina Faso)

  • Bedru Balana

    (International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Western Africa Regional Office, Accra, Ghana)


The main purpose of this paper is to estimate farmers’ preferences and their willingness to pay (WTP) for ecosystem services derived from four agricultural water management (AWM) and resource recovery and reuse (RRR) intervention options in Burkina Faso, using a choice experiment (CE). These include; small water infrastructure, drip irrigation, recovery of organic matter from waste, and treated wastewater. The design decisions relating to attribute selection, the level of attributes, alternatives and choice tasks were guided by literature, field visits, focus group discussions, expert input and an iterative process of the STATA software to generate an orthogonal main-effects CE design. The data used was generated from a random sample of 300 farm households in the Dano and Ouagadougou municipalities in Burkina Faso. Results from conditional logit, latent class logit and mixt logit models show that farmers have positive and significant preferences for drip irrigation, treated wastewater, and organic matter. However, they are WTP on average more for drip irrigation and organic matter for agricultural sustainability. In line with economic theory, the cost of an intervention reduces demand for a given intervention. These findings can provide policy makers with evidence for agricultural policy design to build farmers’ resilience in the Sahel.

Suggested Citation

  • Prosper Houessionon & William M. Fonta & Aymar Y. Bossa & Safiétou Sanfo & Noel Thiombiano & Pam Zahonogo & Thomas B. Yameogo & Bedru Balana, 2017. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Small-Scale Agricultural Management Interventions in Burkina Faso: A Discrete Choice Experiment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1672-:d:112599

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.
    4. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    5. Kontogianni, Areti & Skourtos, Mihalis S. & Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J. & Georgiou, Stavros, 2001. "Integrating stakeholder analysis in non-market valuation of environmental assets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 123-138, April.
    6. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    8. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Hoanh, Chu Thai & Johnston, Robyn & Smakhtin, Vladimir, 2015. "Climate change and agricultural development: a challenge for water management," Book Chapters,, International Water Management Institute.
    11. Bationo, Andre & Kihara, Job & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Waswa, Boaz & Kimetu, Joseph, 2007. "Soil organic carbon dynamics, functions and management in West African agro-ecosystems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 13-25, April.
    12. Burney, Jennifer A. & Naylor, Rosamond L., 2012. "Smallholder Irrigation as a Poverty Alleviation Tool in Sub-Saharan Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 110-123.
    13. Qadir, M. & Wichelns, D. & Raschid-Sally, L. & McCornick, P.G. & Drechsel, P. & Bahri, A. & Minhas, P.S., 2010. "The challenges of wastewater irrigation in developing countries," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 561-568, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Qadir, M. & Sharma, B.R. & Bruggeman, A. & Choukr-Allah, R. & Karajeh, F., 2007. "Non-conventional water resources and opportunities for water augmentation to achieve food security in water scarce countries," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 2-22, January.
    16. Speelman, Stijn & Veettil, Prakashan Chellattan, 2013. "Heterogeneous preferences for water rights reforms among smallholder irrigators in South Africa," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 2(2), pages 1-19, August.
    17. Jonas Wanvoeke & Jean-Philippe Venot & Charlotte De Fraiture & Margreet Zwarteveen, 2016. "Smallholder Drip Irrigation in Burkina Faso: The Role of Development Brokers," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(7), pages 1019-1033, July.
    18. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    19. Rigby, Dan & Burton, Michael P., 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 58200, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    21. Rutkowski, Thomas & Raschid-Sally, Liqa & Buechler, Stephanie, 2007. "Wastewater irrigation in the developing world--Two case studies from the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(1-3), pages 83-91, March.
    22. 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.
    23. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    24. David Jakinda Otieno & Eric Ruto & Lionel Hubbard, 2011. "Cattle Farmers’ Preferences for Disease‐Free Zones in Kenya: An application of the Choice Experiment Method," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 207-224, February.
    25. Jonas Wanvoeke & Jean-Philippe Venot & Margreet Zwarteveen & Charlotte de Fraiture, 2015. "Performing the success of an innovation: the case of smallholder drip irrigation in Burkina Faso," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 432-445, May.
    26. Akponikpè, P.B. Irénikatché & Wima, Koffi & Yacouba, Hamma & Mermoud, André, 2011. "Reuse of domestic wastewater treated in macrophyte ponds to irrigate tomato and eggplant in semi-arid West-Africa: Benefits and risks," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(5), pages 834-840, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Ortiz, Cristhian A. & Avila-Santamaría, Jorge J. & Martinez-Cruz, Adan L., 2023. "Dairy farmers’ willingness to adopt cleaner production practices for water conservation: A discrete choice experiment in Mejia, Ecuador," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    2. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Chanyul Park & Hwasung Song, 2018. "Visitors’ Perceived Place Value and the Willingness to Pay in an Urban Lake Park," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, November.
    4. Agossadou, A.J. & Fiamohe, R. & Tossou, H. & Kinkpe, T., 2018. "Agribusiness opportunities for youth in Nigeria: Farmers perceptions and willingness to pay for mechanized harvesting equipment," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277553, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Alcon, Francisco & Marín-Miñano, Cristina & Zabala, José A. & de-Miguel, María-Dolores & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2020. "Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    6. Evelyne Gbénou-Sissinto & Ygué P. Adegbola & Gauthier Biaou & Roch C. Zossou, 2018. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for New Storage Technologies for Maize in Northern and Central Benin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    7. Che Ibrahim, Nur Syuhada & Kamaludin, Mahirah & Shaari, Nur Fatihah, 2019. "A Discrete Choice Experiment in Estimate Public Willingness to Pay for Attributes of Water Services in Terengganu, Malaysia," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 53(2), pages 213-225.
    8. Tesfaye, Meneyahel Z. & Balana, Bedru B. & Bizimana, Jean-Claude, 2021. "Assessment of smallholder farmers’ demand for and adoption constraints to small-scale irrigation technologies: Evidence from Ethiopia," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).

    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. Houessionon, P. & Fonta, W. M. & Bossa, A. Y. & Sanfo, S. & Thiombiano, N. & Zahonogo, P. & Yameogo, T. B. & Balana, Bedru, "undated". "Economic valuation of ecosystem services from small-scale agricultural management interventions in Burkina Faso: a discrete choice experiment approach," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048370, International Water Management Institute.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    4. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    5. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Pascual, Unai & Etxano, Iker, 2012. "Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344.
    6. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Uwamariya, Beatrice, 2014. "Assessment of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Quality Certification and Origin-Labeling in Fruit Salads in Kigali,Rwanda," Research Theses 198512, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    9. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    10. Engelman, Marc & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2018. "Hunters' trade-off in valuation of different game animals in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 73-81.
    11. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Kloos, Julia & Tsegai, Daniel W., 2009. "Preferences for domestic water services in the Middle Olifants sub-basin of South Africa," Discussion Papers 49970, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    13. Kennedy Otieno Pambo & David Jakinda Otieno & Julius Juma Okello, 2017. "Analysis of Consumer Preference for Vitamin A-Fortified Sugar in Kenya," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(4), pages 745-768, August.
    14. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    15. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    16. Kermagoret, Charlène & Levrel, Harold & Carlier, Antoine & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2016. "Individual preferences regarding environmental offset and welfare compensation: a choice experiment application to an offshore wind farm project," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 230-240.
    17. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.
    18. 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).
    19. 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.
    20. Kennedy Otieno, Pambo, 2013. "Analysis of Consumer Awareness and Preferences for Fortified Sugar in Kenya," Research Theses 243455, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.


    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:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1672-:d:112599. 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: .

    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.