IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lsg/lsgwps/wp101.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Investigating fishers� preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes

Author

Listed:
  • Rhona Barr
  • Susana Mourato

Abstract

We determine the effects of various management restrictions on adoption rates of marine PES schemes. Choice experiments are used in order to determine how fisher participation rates differ under different marine PES programme designs. Various designs, with differing restriction rates, show different rates of adoption. However, fishers� express a high utility loss associated with any move away from the current management situation, irrespective of restriction levels. This indicates that PES scheme costs may be high and creating an enabling environment could be important to reducing these perceived losses, as could investment into conditional in-kind compensation mechanisms. The paper also shows choice experiments to be a useful tool in marine PES design.

Suggested Citation

  • Rhona Barr & Susana Mourato, 2012. "Investigating fishers� preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," GRI Working Papers 101, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
  • Handle: RePEc:lsg:lsgwps:wp101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/WP101-fishers-marine-payments-environmental-services-schemes.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    2. Akpalu, Wisdom, 2010. "A Dynamic Model of Mesh Size Regulatory Compliance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(1), April.
    3. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), December.
    4. Maria Espinosa-Goded & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri-Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273.
    5. Wattage, Premachandra & Mardle, Simon & Pascoe, Sean, 2005. "Evaluation of the importance of fisheries management objectives using choice-experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 85-95, October.
    6. Pomeroy, Robert S. & Katon, Brenda M. & Harkes, Ingvild, 2001. "Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co-management: lessons from Asia," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 197-208, May.
    7. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    8. Gong, Yazhen & Bull, Gary & Baylis, Kathy, 2010. "Participation in the world's first clean development mechanism forest project: The role of property rights, social capital and contractual rules," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1292-1302, April.
    9. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    10. Schlapfer, Felix, 2006. "Survey protocol and income effects in the contingent valuation of public goods: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 415-429, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    13. Louise Teh & William W.L. Cheung & Andy Cornish & Clarus Chu & U. Rashid Sumaila, 2008. "A survey of alternative livelihood options for Hong Kong's fishers," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 35(5), pages 380-395, April.
    14. Florian Heiss, 2002. "Structural choice analysis with nested logit models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(3), pages 227-252, August.
    15. Dobbs, Thomas L. & Pretty, Jules, 2008. "Case study of agri-environmental payments: The United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 765-775, May.
    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. Katikiro, Robert E. & Macusi, Edison D. & Ashoka Deepananda, K.H.M., 2015. "Challenges facing local communities in Tanzania in realising locally-managed marine areas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 220-229.
    2. Rocío del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez & Jorge H. Maldonado & Camilo Andrés Gutiérrez & Melissa Rubio, 2013. "Valoración de Áreas Marinas Protegidas desde la perspectiva de los usuarios de recursos: conciliando enfoques cuantitativos individuales con enfoques cualitativos colectivos," DOCUMENTOS CEDE 011936, UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES-CEDE.
    3. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:lsg:lsgwps:wp101. 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: (The GRI Administration). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/grlseuk.html .

    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.