Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T16:53:23.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are buyers of forest ecosystem services willing to consider distributional impacts of payments to local suppliers? Results from a choice experiment in Antananarivo, Madagascar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2016

HENINTSOA RANDRIANARISON  and
FRANK WÄTZOLD
HENINTSOA RANDRIANARISON
Affiliation:
C3ED-Madagascar, University of Antananarivo, P.O. Box 905, Antananarivo, Madagascar Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Chair of Environmental Economics, P.O. Box 101344, 03013 Cottbus, Germany
FRANK WÄTZOLD*
Affiliation:
Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Chair of Environmental Economics, P.O. Box 101344, 03013 Cottbus, Germany
*
*Correspondence: Prof. Dr. Frank Wätzold e-mail: waetzold@b-tu.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A controversial issue in the debate on payments for ecosystem services (PESs) is whether distributional goals should be considered in the design of such schemes. We contribute to this debate by analysing the preferences of citizens of Antananarivo (Madagascar) as potential buyers of forest ecosystem services from a developing country. We conducted a choice experiment to investigate citizens’ willingness to pay to conserve the endemic spiny forests in southwest Madagascar and their preferences for including distributional goals in the design of a PES scheme aimed at spiny forest conservation. We found that respondents were willing to pay for forest conservation and preferred a PES scheme in which the poorest households in a community would receive the largest share of payments over a scheme in which every household would receive the same share, which, in turn, they preferred over a PES scheme in which they would have no information about its distributional impact. In comparing these results with those of a similar survey in a developed country (in Cottbus, Germany), we find that the preference ranking regarding distributional impacts is identical. However, citizens in Cottbus attach greater importance to the consideration of distributive goals in PESs than citizens in Antananarivo.

Keywords

choice modellingdistributional impactspayments for ecosystem servicesspiny forestsMahafaly region
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 44 , Issue 1: Thematic section: Forest Ecosystem Services , March 2017 , pp. 74 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Supplementary material can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000540

References

Andriamahefazafy, F. (2011) Expériences des Projets Pilotes WWF en Paiement pour Services Environnementaux Hydrologiques: Eau Potable à Fianarantsoa (Bassin Versant d'Antarambiby) et à Andapa (Bassin Versant de Sahamazava) et Écosystèmes de Mangroves à Toliara (Site d'Ambondrolava). Document de Travail no. 2011-05, Antananarivo, Madagascar: Programme SERENA.Google Scholar
Bertelsmann Stiftung (2012) Madagascar Country Report. Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Stiftung.Google Scholar
Birol, E., Karousakis, K. & Koundouri, P. (2006) Using economic valuation techniques to inform water resources management: a survey and critical appraisal of available techniques and an application. Science of the Total Environment 365: 105–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbera, E. & Pascual, U. (2012) Ecosystem services: heed social goals. Science 335: 655–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P. & Lagerkvist, C.J. (2005) Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economics Letters 89: 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz, S. & Atkinson, G. (2010) The equity–efficiency trade-off in environmental policy: evidence from stated preferences. Land Economics 86: 423–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, S. & Palmer, C. (2008) Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: the case of Indonesia. Ecological Economics 8: 799–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenberger, K. (2010) Paradise Lost? Lessons from 25 Years of USAID Environment Programs in Madagascar, Washington D.C.: International Resource Group [www document]. URL www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/paradise_lost_25years_env_programs.pdf Google Scholar
Ganzhorn, J.U., Manjoazy, T., Paeplow, O., Randrianavelona, R., Razafimanahaka, J.H., Ronto, W.M. et al. (2015) Rights to trade for species conservation: exploring the issue of the radiated tortoise in Madagascar. Environmental Conservation 42: 291–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, N. & Mourato, S. (2001) Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15: 436–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, G.J., Steininger, M.C., Tucker, C.J., Juhn, D. & Hawkins, F. (2007) Fifty years of deforestation and forest fragmentation in Madagascar. Environmental Conservation 34: 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, J. & McFadden, D. (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52: 1219–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M. & Greene, W.H. (2005) Applied Choice Analysis – A Primer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyos, D. (2010) The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics 69: 1595–1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinzig, A.P., Perrings, C., Chapin, F.S., Polasky, S., Smith, V.K., Tilman, D. & Turner, B.L. (2011) Paying for ecosystem services – promise and peril. Science 334: 603–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, J., Vardhan, M. & Jindal, R. (2014) Incentives, conditionality and collective action in payment for environmental services. International Journal of the Commons 8: 595–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markova-Nenova, N. & Wätzold, F. (2014) PES for the poor? The preferences of buyers [www document]. URL http://www.bioecon-network.org/pages/16th_2014/Waetzold.pdf Google Scholar
Mangham, L.J., Hanson, K. & McPake, B. (2009) How to do (or not to do). . . Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy and Planning, 24: 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D. & Train, K.E. (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 15: 447–470.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, M., Mahanty, S. & Schreckenberg, K. (2013) Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy 33: 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Méral, P., Froger, G., Andriamahefazafy, F. & Rabearisoa, A. (2008) Le financement des aires protégées à Madagascar: de nouvelles modalités. In: Aires Protégées: Espaces Durables?, ed. Aubertin, C. & Rodary, E., pp. 135–155. Marseille, France: IRD, Objectives Sud.Google Scholar
Narloch, U., Pascual, U. & Drucker, A.G. (2012) Collective action dynamics under external rewards: experimental insights from farming communities in the Andes. World Development 40: 2096–2107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neudert, R., Götter, J.F., Andriamparany, J.N. & Rakotoarisoa, M. (2015) Income diversification, wealth, education and well-being in rural south-western Madagascar: results from the Mahafaly region. Development Southern Africa 32: 758–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, N., Bishop, J. & Anstee, S. (2011) Exploring Ecosystem Valuation to Move towards Net Positive Impact on Biodiversity in the Mining Sector. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Rio Tinto Technical Series.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S. (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 65: 712–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagiola, S., Arcenas, A. & Platais, G. (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 33: 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A. et al. (2014) Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience 64: 1027–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, S. & Patrick, S. (2008) Index of State Weakness in the Developing World. Washington, DC: Brookings – Brookings Global Economy and Development.Google Scholar
Schreiber, A., Wirth, R., Riffel, M. & Van Rompaey, H. (1989) Weasels, Civets, Mongooses, and their Relatives – An Action Plan for the Conservation of Mustelids and Viverrids. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Mustelid and Viverrid Specialist Group.Google Scholar
SuLaMa (2011) Recherche Participative pour Appuyer la Gestion Durable des Terres du Plateau Mahafaly dans le Sud-Ouest de Madagascar – Diagnostic Participatif de la Gestion des Ressources Naturelles sur le Plateau Mahafaly Commune Rurale de Beheloka – Toliara. Toliara, Madagascar: Project SuLaMa.Google Scholar
Train, K.E. (1998) Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 74: 230–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Train, K.E. (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2nd Edition). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers [www document]. URL http://www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/local-and-regional-policy-makers/ Google Scholar
Thu Thuy, P., Minh Ha, H. & Campbell, B.M. (2008) Pro-poor payments for environmental services: challenges for the government and administrative agencies in Vietnam. Public Administration and Development 28: 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turpie, J.K., Marais, C. & Blignaut, J. (2008) Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism addressing both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics 65: 788–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Teeffelen, A.J.A., Opdam, P., Wätzold, F., Hartig, F., Johst, K., Drechsler, M. et al. (2014) Ecological and economic conditions and associated institutional challenges for conservation banking in dynamic landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 130: 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatn, A. (2010) An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69: 1245–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessie, J. (1999) Seemingly unrelated estimation and the cluster-adjusted sandwich estimator. Stata Technical Bulletin 52: 34–47.Google Scholar
Zander, K.K. & Garnett, S.T. (2011) The economic value of environmental services on indigenous-held lands in Australia. PLoS ONE 6: e23154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zander, K.K., Dunnett, D.R., Brown, C., Campion, O. & Garnett, S.T. (2013) Rewards for providing environmental services – where indigenous Australians’ and western perspectives collide. Ecological Economics 87: 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Randrianarison and Wätzold supplementary material

Appendix S1

Download Randrianarison and Wätzold supplementary material(File)
File 18.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Randrianarison and Wätzold supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Randrianarison and Wätzold supplementary material(File)
File 102.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Randrianarison and Wätzold supplementary material

Table S2

Download Randrianarison and Wätzold supplementary material(File)
File 12.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Randrianarison and Wätzold supplementary material

Table S3

Download Randrianarison and Wätzold supplementary material(File)
File 13 KB
Supplementary material: File

Randrianarison and Wätzold supplementary material

Table S2

Download Randrianarison and Wätzold supplementary material(File)
File 13 KB
Supplementary material: File

Randrianarison and Wätzold supplementary material

Table S1

Download Randrianarison and Wätzold supplementary material(File)
File 14.5 KB