IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ccsesa/241767.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Trade-Offs Between Environmental Service Provision through Improved Fallows and Private Welfare Using Stated Preference Approach: A Case Study in Chongwe - Zambia

Author

Listed:
  • Kuntashula, Elias
  • Mungatana, Eric

Abstract

The trade-offs between environmental service (ES) provision through the uptake of improved fallows and private farmer welfare losses have rarely been evaluated. Unlike inorganic fertiliser, improved fallows provide ES in addition to improving the soil fertility. This study used contingent valuation methodologies to evaluate willingness to provide ES through improved fallows among 324 farmers in Chongwe district of Zambia. Given scenarios that improved fallows, unlike inorganic fertiliser, help in mitigating soil erosion and water pollution, more than 70% of the farmers were willing to supply these services through the technology. The willingness to be pro-fertiliser oriented was positively associated with cropped land sizes and soil fertility challenges and negatively associated with total farm size. In addition, for users of improved fallows, increases in per capita income increased the probability of willingness to embrace fertiliser. Group membership decreased the probability for the users’ willingness to embrace fertiliser. For the non-users, the probability of joining the association that would ensure blockage of an improved fallow policy decreased with maize productivity. For the few farmers, there was no significant difference in the willingness to pay (WTP) (t = 1.546, p = 0.136) to ensure availability of fertiliser or blocking a policy compelling uptake of improved fallows between the users (WTP = K1, 050,000, US$1 = K5, 000) and non-users (WTP= K1, 380,000) of the technology. The trade-off between ES provisions through improved fallows and loss in immediate private welfare by not embracing fertiliser was similar across the technology’ users divide. Therefore a payment for environmental services policy could target the farmers as a homogenous group.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuntashula, Elias & Mungatana, Eric, 2016. "Understanding the Trade-Offs Between Environmental Service Provision through Improved Fallows and Private Welfare Using Stated Preference Approach: A Case Study in Chongwe - Zambia," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 5(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ccsesa:241767
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.241767
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/241767/files/P12-p124-141.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.241767?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ajayi, Olu Clifford & Matakala, Patrick, 2006. "Environmental Conservation and Food Security in Developing Countries: Bridging the Disconnect," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25636, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Zilberman, David & Lipper, Leslie & Mccarthy, Nancy, 2008. "When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 255-278, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    2. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    3. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    5. Benra, Felipe & Nahuelhual, Laura, 2019. "A trilogy of inequalities: Land ownership, forest cover and ecosystem services distribution," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 247-257.
    6. Kwayu, Emmanuel J. & Sallu, Susannah M. & Paavola, Jouni, 2014. "Farmer participation in the equitable payments for watershed services in Morogoro, Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-9.
    7. Vorlaufer, Miriam & Wollni, Meike & Ibañez, Marcela, 2014. "Equity vs. Conservation: Can Payments for Environmental Services (PES) achieve both?," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183070, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Wang, Pu & Poe, Gregory L. & Wolf, Steven A., 2017. "Payments for Ecosystem Services and Wealth Distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 63-68.
    9. Laura Villalobos & Juan Robalino & Catalina Sandoval & Francisco Alpízar, 2023. "Local Effects of Payments for Ecosystem Services on Rural Poverty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(3), pages 753-774, March.
    10. Wango, Virginiah & Mburu, John & Nyikal, Rose & Onwong'A, Richard, 2016. "An Analysis Of Profitability And Factors Influencing Adoption Of Agro-Ecological Intensification (Aei) Techniques In Yatta Sub- County, Kenya," Dissertations and Theses 269533, University of Nairobi, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    11. Ajayi, Olu Clifford & Akinnifesi, Festus K. & Sileshi, G. & Kanjipite, W., 2009. "Labour inputs and financial profitability of conventional and agroforestry-based soil fertility management practices in Zambia," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 48(3), pages 1-17, September.
    12. Barbier, Edward B., 2010. "Global governance: the G20 and a Global Green New Deal," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 4, pages 1-35.
    13. Liang, Yicheng & Li, Shuzhuo & Feldman, Marcus W. & Daily, Gretchen C., 2012. "Does household composition matter? The impact of the Grain for Green Program on rural livelihoods in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 152-160.
    14. Cacho, Oscar J. & Lipper, Leslie & Moss, Jonathan, 2013. "Transaction costs of carbon offset projects: A comparative study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 232-243.
    15. Narloch, Ulf & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai, 2011. "Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1837-1845, September.
    16. Bingtao Qin & Yongwei Yu & Liming Ge & Le Yang & Yuanguo Guo, 2022. "Does Eco-Compensation Alleviate Rural Poverty? New Evidence from National Key Ecological Function Areas in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-21, September.
    17. Ajayi, Oluyede C. & Jack, B. Kelsey & Leimona, Beria, 2012. "Auction Design for the Private Provision of Public Goods in Developing Countries: Lessons from Payments for Environmental Services in Malawi and Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 1213-1223.
    18. Stefano Pagiola & Ana Rios & Agustin Arcenas, 2010. "Poor Household Participation in Payments for Environmental Services: Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Quindío, Colombia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 371-394, November.
    19. Oluyede Clifford Ajayi & Festus K. Akinnifesi & Gudeta Sileshi & Sebastian Chakeredza, 2007. "Adoption of renewable soil fertility replenishment technologies in the southern African region: Lessons learnt and the way forward," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 31(4), pages 306-317, November.
    20. Dalton, Timothy J. & Lilja, Nina K. & Johnson, Nancy & Howeler, Reinhardt, 2011. "Farmer Participatory Research and Soil Conservation in Southeast Asian Cassava Systems," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 2176-2186.

    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:ags:ccsesa:241767. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ccsenet.org/sar .

    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.