IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rza/ersawp/272.html

Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Observing preference anomalies in Double-Bounded CVM

Author

Listed:
  • Dambala Gelo
  • Steven F. Koch

Abstract

This study examines the potential for anomalous response behaviour effects within the context of double-bounded contingent valuation methods applied to community forestry programs in rural Ethiopia. Anomalous responses considered include shift effects, framing effects and anchoring effects, and these effects are considered within a double-bounded contingent valuation study. The results confirmed the presence of incentive incompatibility and framing effects. However, anchoring effects are not uncovered. After controlling for these biases, the community forestry program considered is shown to offer a welfare gain ranging from Ethiopian Birr (ETB) 20.14 to 22.80. In addition to these welfare benefits, the results raise questions with respect to the validity of previous welfare estimates associated with double-bounded CVM studies in developing countries, suggesting that future studies should control for incentive incompatibility and framing effects bias.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch, 2012. "Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Observing preference anomalies in Double-Bounded CVM," ERSA Working Paper Series 272, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    • Handle: RePEc:rza:ersawp:272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Lim, Seul-Ye & Kim, Hyo-Jin & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2018. "Household willingness to pay for expanding fuel cell power generation in Korea: A view from CO2 emissions reduction," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 242-249.
    3. Nadia Palmieri & Alessandro Suardi & Luigi Pari, 2020. "Italian Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Eucalyptus Firewood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Rongrong Zheng & Jiasui Zhan & Luxing Liu & Yanli Ma & Zishuai Wang & Lianhui Xie & Dunchun He, 2019. "Factors and Minimal Subsidy Associated with Tea Farmers’ Willingness to Adopt Ecological Pest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-12, November.
    5. Ho-Young Kim & So-Yeon Park & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2016. "Public Acceptability of Introducing a Biogas Mandate in Korea: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, October.
    6. Durba Biswas, 2015. "Anchoring Effect in Context of a Familiar Good: A Case Study of Irrigation Water Supply in Rural India," Bangladesh Development Studies, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS), vol. 38(4), pages 91-98.
    7. Amani Al-Assaf & Abeer Albalawneh & Mohammad Majdalawi & Lana Abu Nowar & Rabab Kabariti & Amgad Hjazin & Safaa Aljaafreh & Wafa’a Abu Hammour & Mai Diab & Nizar Haddad, 2021. "Local Communities’ Willingness to Accept Compensation for Sustainable Ecosystem Management in Wadi Araba, South of Jordan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, May.
    8. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy

    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:rza:ersawp:272. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Maggi Sigg (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersawps.org/index.php/working-paper-series/ .

    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.