Do Environmental Services Buyers Prefer Differentiated Rates? A Case Study from the Colombian Andes
Flat user fees in payment for environmental services (PES) schemes promote administrative ease, and are sometimes perceived as egalitarian. However, when environmental service (ES) buyers are heterogeneous in their income and water consumption levels, this may not be optimal, as total payments become too low and services are under-supplied. This paper identifies ES buyer preferences and estimates their willingness to pay (WTP) differentiated fees in an ongoing PES initiative in an Andean watershed in Colombia. Small, flat user payments have recently been introduced to implement incipient watershed protection upstream. Environmental service users fall into two highly heterogeneous categories: smallholder peasants and owners of recreational houses. We performed a contingent valuation analysis in a representative stratified sample of 218 user households. For improved water services, ES buyers on average were willing to pay a monthly US$1 premium over current flat PES rates. Owners of recreational houses were willing to pay about US$1.50 more; smallholders only US$0.5. 85% of ES buyers also agree to pay differentiated fees. Of these, 41% would prefer fees differentiated by water consumption, 23% by household income, 30% criteria combination, and 6% by other criteria. Spatial variables, such as distance to the water distribution point and to the town center, importantly influenced WTP. The results may help designing users-driven PES schemes in accordance with efficiency and equity objectives.
|Date of creation:||06 Nov 2009|
|Contact details of provider:|| |
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Wünscher, Tobias & Engel, Stefanie & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 822-833, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:col:000089:006007. 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: (Universidad De Los Andes-Cede)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.