IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/94678.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantifying benefit losses from poor governance of climate change adaptation projects: A discrete choice experiment with farmers in Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Nthambi, Mary
  • Wätzold, Frank
  • Markova-Nenova, Nonka

Abstract

Climate change impacts pose a great challenge to agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa as droughts become more frequent and more severe. A major roadblock to implementing climate change adaptation measures is poor governance. Given their experience with governing organizations, farmers are highly suitable respondents to assess the appropriateness of different governing organizations to implement adaptation measures on the ground. We surveyed 300 farmers in Makueni County in Kenya applying the choice experiment method to assess their preferences in relation to different attributes of a sand storage dam project to enhance rainwater harvesting as an adaptation measure. Attributes include the organization governing the dam construction, dam wall height and volume of water harvested, the type of pump used to distribute water, number of tree rows planted to prevent silting, and labor time farmers are willing to contribute to dam construction. Responses were analyzed using the mixed logit model. Our key result shows that farmers prefer an NGO as the governing organization, followed closely by a farmer network and, with some distance, a government institution. For the whole of Makueni County, we find that benefit losses of $ 482,766 occur if farmer networks are the governing organizations instead of NGOs and $ 2,679,706 if government institutions govern the dam construction instead of NGOs. While the importance of governance structures for development is well-known, our study is novel as it quantifies the benefit losses that occur due to poor governance in the field of climate change adaptation. On a methodological level, our study contributes to improving the application of choice experiments in developing countries as it draws attention to the careful selection of the payment vehicle. In terms of policy recommendations, our results suggest that substantial benefit losses may occur if appropriate governing organizations are not selected when implementing much needed climate adaptation measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Nthambi, Mary & Wätzold, Frank & Markova-Nenova, Nonka, 2018. "Quantifying benefit losses from poor governance of climate change adaptation projects: A discrete choice experiment with farmers in Kenya," MPRA Paper 94678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:94678
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/94678/1/MPRA_paper_94678.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morgan, Julia, 2016. "Participation, empowerment and capacity building: Exploring young people's perspectives on the services provided to them by a grassroots NGO in sub-Saharan Africa," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 175-182.
    2. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 43(4), pages 609-636.
    3. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    4. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Collins, Andrew T., 2016. "On determining priors for the generation of efficient stated choice experimental designs," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 10-14.
    5. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Léa Tardieu & Fabien Quétier & Sébastien Roussel, 2018. "Corrigendum: Preferences for biodiversity offset contracts on arable land: a choice experiment study with farmers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 45(4), pages 675-675.
    6. Besley, Timothy & Ghatak, Maitreesh, 2017. "Public–private partnerships for the provision of public goods: Theory and an application to NGOs," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 356-371.
    7. Grigolon, Anna B. & Borgers, Aloys W.J. & Kemperman, Astrid D.A.M. & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2014. "Vacation length choice: A dynamic mixed multinomial logit model," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 158-167.
    8. John Bergstrom & Kevin Boyle & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2004. "Trading Taxes vs. Paying Taxes to Value and Finance Public Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 533-549, August.
    9. Bethany Cooper & John Rose & Lin Crase, 2012. "Does anybody like water restrictions? Some observations in Australian urban communities," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(1), pages 61-81, January.
    10. Brass, Jennifer N., 2012. "Why Do NGOs Go Where They Go? Evidence from Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 387-401.
    11. Roessler, Regina & Drucker, Adam G. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Markemann, André & Lemke, Ute & Thuy, Le T. & Valle Zárate, Anne, 2008. "Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers' preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North-West Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 184-192, May.
    12. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2009. "The Payment Vehicle Used in CV Studies of Environmental Goods Does Matter," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 1-14, December.
    13. Elisabeth Fischer & Matin Qaim, 2014. "Smallholder Farmers and Collective Action: What Determines the Intensity of Participation?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(3), pages 683-702, September.
    14. 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.
    15. Pueyo, Ana, 2018. "What constrains renewable energy investment in Sub-Saharan Africa? A comparison of Kenya and Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 85-100.
    16. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    17. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Léa Tardieu & Fabien Quétier & Sébastien Roussel, 2018. "Preferences for biodiversity offset contracts on arable land: a choice experiment study with farmers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 45(4), pages 553-582.
    18. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2013. "Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 199-214.
    19. J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
    20. Binswanger-Mkhize, Hans & McCalla, Alex F., 2010. "The Changing Context and Prospects for Agricultural and Rural Development in Africa," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 70, pages 3571-3712, Elsevier.
    21. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "PES for the poor? Preferences of potential buyers of forest ecosystem services for including distributive goals in the design of payments for conserving the dry spiny forest in Madagascar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 71-79.
    22. Osiolo, Helen Hoka, 2017. "Willingness to pay for improved energy: Evidence from Kenya," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 104-112.
    23. Waldman, Kurt B. & Ortega, David L. & Richardson, Robert B. & Snapp, Sieglinde S., 2017. "Estimating demand for perennial pigeon pea in Malawi using choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 222-230.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Good governance; climate change adaptation measures; governing organizations; choice modeling; payment vehicle; willingness to pay;

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    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:pra:mprapa:94678. 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: (Joachim Winter). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.