IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v141y2017icp95-105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Payments for ecosystem services and agricultural intensification: Evidence from a choice experiment on deforestation in Zambia

Author

Listed:
  • Vorlaufer, Tobias
  • Falk, Thomas
  • Dufhues, Thomas
  • Kirk, Michael

Abstract

Agriculture is considered to be one of the major drivers of deforestation worldwide. In developing countries in particular this process is driven by small-scale agriculture. At the same time, many African governments aim to increase agricultural productivity. Empirical evidence suggests, however, that win-win relationships between agricultural intensification and forest conservation are the exception. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) could be linked to agriculture support programmes to simultaneously achieve both goals. Due to potentially higher profits from intensified agriculture than from pure cash transfers, potential payment recipients may prefer in-kind over conventional cash payments. Nevertheless, little scientific evidence exists regarding the preferences of potential PES recipients for such instruments. We report from a discrete choice experiment in Zambia that elicited preferences of smallholder farmers for PES contracts. Our results suggest that potential PES recipients in Zambia value in-kind agricultural inputs more highly than cash payments (even when the monetary value of the inputs is lower than the cash payment), highlighting that PES could potentially succeed in conserving forests and intensifying smallholder agriculture. Respondents who intended to clear forest within the next three years were found to require higher payments, but could be motivated to enrol in appropriately designed PES.

Suggested Citation

  • Vorlaufer, Tobias & Falk, Thomas & Dufhues, Thomas & Kirk, Michael, 2017. "Payments for ecosystem services and agricultural intensification: Evidence from a choice experiment on deforestation in Zambia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 95-105.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:141:y:2017:i:c:p:95-105
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916312460
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.024?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2011. "Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2350-2390, October.
    2. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    3. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2008. "How High Are Rates of Return to Fertilizer? Evidence from Field Experiments in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 482-488, May.
    4. Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2010. "Performance payments: A new strategy to conserve large carnivores in the tropics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 405-412, December.
    5. Wunder, Sven & Albán, Montserrat, 2008. "Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 685-698, May.
    6. Rode, Julian & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Krause, Torsten, 2015. "Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 270-282.
    7. Grillos, Tara, 2017. "Economic vs non-material incentives for participation in an in-kind payments for ecosystem services program in Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 178-190.
    8. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    9. Zhiying Xu & Zhengfei Guan & T.S. Jayne & Roy Black, 2009. "Factors influencing the profitability of fertilizer use on maize in Zambia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 437-446, July.
    10. 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.
    11. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, September.
    12. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    13. Vollan, Bjørn, 2008. "Socio-ecological explanations for crowding-out effects from economic field experiments in southern Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 560-573, November.
    14. Nicole M. Mason & T.S. Jayne & Rhoda Mofya-Mukuka, 2013. "Zambia's input subsidy programs," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(6), pages 613-628, November.
    15. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-79, January.
    16. Kalaba, Felix Kanungwe & Quinn, Claire Helen & Dougill, Andrew John, 2013. "The role of forest provisioning ecosystem services in coping with household stresses and shocks in Miombo woodlands, Zambia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 143-148.
    17. Kaczan, David & Swallow, Brent M. & Adamowicz, W.L. (Vic), 2013. "Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: An assessment of payment approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 20-30.
    18. Asquith, Nigel M. & Vargas, Maria Teresa & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 675-684, May.
    19. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    20. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    21. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services and rural development: Landowners' preferences and potential participation in western Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 72-81.
    22. Jorien Veldwijk & Mattijs S Lambooij & Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Henriëtte A Smit & G Ardine de Wit, 2014. "The Effect of Including an Opt-Out Option in Discrete Choice Experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-9, November.
    23. Bruno S. Frey & Reto Jegen, 2001. "Motivation Crowding Theory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 589-611, December.
    24. Gharad Bryan & Dean Karlan & Scott Nelson, 2010. "Commitment Devices," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 671-698, September.
    25. Arifin, Bustanul & Swallow, Brent M. & Suyanto, S. & Coe, Richard D., 2009. "A conjoint analysis of farmer preferences for community forestry contracts in the Sumber Jaya Watershed, Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2040-2050, May.
    26. 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.
    27. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    28. Engel, Stefanie, 2016. "The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 9(1-2), pages 131-177, July.
    29. T.S. Jayne & Shahidur Rashid, 2013. "Input subsidy programs in sub-Saharan Africa: a synthesis of recent evidence," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(6), pages 547-562, November.
    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. Carriazo, Fernando & Labarta, Ricardo & Escobedo, Francisco J., 2020. "Incentivizing sustainable rangeland practices and policies in Colombia’s Orinoco region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    2. Yehouenou, Lauriane S. & Grogan, Kelly A. & Yehouenou, Lauriane S. & Morgan, Stephen N., 2021. "Preferences For Payment For Ecosystems Services Attributes In Forest Management," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313934, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Yan Yu & Ya Wu & Pan Wang & Yili Zhang & Liang Emlyn Yang & Xian Cheng & Jianzhong Yan, 2021. "Grassland Subsidies Increase the Number of Livestock on the Tibetan Plateau: Why Does the “Payment for Ecosystem Services” Policy Have the Opposite Outcome?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    5. Dietz, Julia & Treydte, Anna Christina & Lippe, Melvin, 2023. "Exploring the future of Kafue National Park, Zambia: Scenario-based land use and land cover modelling to understand drivers and impacts of deforestation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    6. Voravee Saengavut & Chintana Somswasdi, 2022. "Preference Heterogeneity of Local Participation in Coupling Conservation and Community-Based Entrepreneurship Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    8. Maldonado, Jorge H. & Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio & Henao-Henao, Juan P. & Bruner, Aaron, 2019. "Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Geussens, Katrien & Van Den Broeck, Goedele & Vanderhaegen, Koen & Verbist, Bruno & Maertens, Miet, 2018. "Farmers' perspectives on payments for watershed services in Uganda," Working Papers 276470, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    10. Liu, Wenjing & Wang, Jingsheng & Li, Chao & Chen, Baoxiong & Sun, Yufang, 2019. "Using Bibliometric Analysis to Understand the Recent Progress in Agroecosystem Services Research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 293-305.
    11. Hadunka, Protensia & Baylis, Kathy, 2022. "Staple crop pest damage and natural resources exploitation: fall army worm infestation and charcoal production in Zambia," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322075, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Nansikombi, Hellen & Fischer, Richard & Ferrer Velasco, Rubén & Lippe, Melvin & Kalaba, Felix Kanungwe & Kabwe, Gillian & Günter, Sven, 2020. "Can de facto governance influence deforestation drivers in the Zambian Miombo?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    13. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    14. Iván Pérez-Rubio & Daniel Flores & Christian Vargas & Francisco Jiménez & Iker Etxano, 2021. "To What Extent Are Cattle Ranching Landholders Willing to Restore Ecosystem Services? Constructing a Micro-Scale PES Scheme in Southern Costa Rica," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    15. Geussens, K. & Van den Broeck, G. & Vanderhaegen, K. & Verbist, B. & Maertens, M., 2019. "Farmers’ perspectives on payments for ecosystem services in Uganda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 316-327.
    16. Falk, Thomas & Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Siegmund-Schultze, Marianna & Kobbe, Susanne & Feike, Til & Kuebler, Daniel & Settele, Josef & Vorlaufer, Tobias, 2018. "Identifying governance challenges in ecosystem services management – Conceptual considerations and comparison of global forest cases," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 193-203.
    17. Tu, Hung-Ming & Chen, Hui-Mei, 2020. "From deforestation to afforestation: Effect of slopeland use policies on land use/cover change in Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    18. Bocci, Corinne & Sohngen, Brent & Lupi, Frank & Milian, Bayron, 2020. "Timber or carbon? Evaluating forest conservation strategies through a discrete choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).

    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. Maldonado, Jorge H. & Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio & Henao-Henao, Juan P. & Bruner, Aaron, 2019. "Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Ito, Junichi & Feuer, Hart N. & Kitano, Shinichi & Komiyama, Midori, 2018. "A Policy Evaluation of the Direct Payment Scheme for Collective Stewardship of Common Property Resources in Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 141-151.
    3. Geussens, Katrien & Van Den Broeck, Goedele & Vanderhaegen, Koen & Verbist, Bruno & Maertens, Miet, 2018. "Farmers' perspectives on payments for watershed services in Uganda," Working Papers 276470, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    4. Huang, Yali & Zhang, Xiaoling & Sheng, Xushan & Wang, Yue & Leung, Kenneth Mei Yee, 2024. "The impact of payment for ecosystem service schemes on participants’ motivation: A global assessment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    5. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.
    6. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    7. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Geussens, K. & Van den Broeck, G. & Vanderhaegen, K. & Verbist, B. & Maertens, M., 2019. "Farmers’ perspectives on payments for ecosystem services in Uganda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 316-327.
    9. Mohebalian, Phillip M. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2018. "Design of tropical forest conservation contracts considering risk of deforestation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 451-462.
    10. Moros, Lina & Vélez, María Alejandra & Corbera, Esteve, 2019. "Payments for Ecosystem Services and Motivational Crowding in Colombia's Amazon Piedmont," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 468-488.
    11. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    12. Lliso, Bosco & Pascual, Unai & Engel, Stefanie & Mariel, Petr, 2020. "Payments for ecosystem services or collective stewardship of Mother Earth? Applying deliberative valuation in an indigenous community in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    13. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    14. Bottazzi, Patrick & Wiik, Emma & Crespo, David & Jones, Julia P.G., 2018. "Payment for Environmental “Self-Service”: Exploring the Links Between Farmers' Motivation and Additionality in a Conservation Incentive Programme in the Bolivian Andes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 11-23.
    15. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    16. 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.
    17. Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Corbera, Esteve & Lapeyre, Renaud, 2019. "Payments for Environmental Services and Motivation Crowding: Towards a Conceptual Framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 434-443.
    18. Hanna Ihli & Ronja Seegers & Etti Winter & Brian Chiputwa & Anja Gassner, 2022. "Preferences for tree fruit market attributes among smallholder farmers in Eastern Rwanda," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(1), pages 5-21, January.
    19. Ngoma, Hambulo & Hailu, Amare Teklay & Kabwe, Stephen & Angelsen, Arild, 2020. "Pay, talk or ‘whip’ to conserve forests: Framed field experiments in Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    20. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).

    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:eee:ecolec:v:141:y:2017:i:c:p:95-105. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.