IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v18y2016icp58-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Longan fruit farmers' demand for policies aimed at conserving native pollinating bees in Northern Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Narjes, Manuel Ernesto
  • Lippert, Christian

Abstract

Northern Thailand is orienting its agriculture towards intensive production systems at risk of being subjected to the current worldwide pollinator crisis. Bee-friendly pest management, improving native bee habitats within agro-forest ecosystems and fostering the husbandry of native bee species are three widely recognized strategies to conserve the local pollinating fauna. We attempted at eliciting farmers' valuation of these measures and that of their potential effect on local native bees, by conducting a choice experiment with 198 longan (Dimocarpus longan) farmers. The results of a mixed logit model indicate a significant heterogeneity in farmers' preferences, part of which was explained by the respondents' attitude towards native bees, among other idiosyncratic variables such as gender. We also determined a generally positive willingness to pay for the above mentioned conservation measures, which implemented together were valued at approx. €18.1 by the average household, all else equal. Additionally, avoiding a 50% native bee population decline was valued in average at €40.5 per household. These estimates stand in strong contrast with the comparatively high economic losses such a decline could potentially entail in terms of reduced longan production and the relatively low investment costs to implement a conservation strategy aimed at preventing such losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Narjes, Manuel Ernesto & Lippert, Christian, 2016. "Longan fruit farmers' demand for policies aimed at conserving native pollinating bees in Northern Thailand," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 58-67.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:18:y:2016:i:c:p:58-67
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041615300371
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.010?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. Randal R. Rucker & Walter N. Thurman & Michael Burgett, 2012. "Honey Bee Pollination Markets and the Internalization of Reciprocal Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(4), pages 956-977.
    2. McConnell K. E., 1995. "Consumer Surplus from Discrete Choice Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 263-270, November.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, November.
    4. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    5. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    6. Hanley, Nick & Breeze, Tom D. & Ellis, Ciaran & Goulson, David, 2015. "Measuring the economic value of pollination services: Principles, evidence and knowledge gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 124-132.
    7. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    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. Sponagel, Christian & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Piepho, Hans-Peter & Bahrs, Enno, 2021. "Farmers’ preferences for nature conservation compensation measures with a focus on eco-accounts according to the German Nature Conservation Act," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Narjes, Manuel Ernesto & Lippert, Christian, 2019. "The Optimal Supply of Crop Pollination and Honey From Wild and Managed Bees: An Analytical Framework for Diverse Socio-Economic and Ecological Settings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 278-290.
    3. Shoyama, Kikuko & Kamiyama, Chiho & Morimoto, Junko & Ooba, Makoto & Okuro, Toshiya, 2017. "A review of modeling approaches for ecosystem services assessment in the Asian region," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 316-328.
    4. Yang, Y.C. Ethan & Passarelli, Simone & Lovell, Robin J. & Ringler, Claudia, 2018. "Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 58-67.
    5. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Rilling, Benedikt & Kurz, Peter & Herbes, Carsten, 2024. "Renewable gases in the heating market: Identifying consumer preferences through a Discrete Choice Experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    8. Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    9. Céline Moreaux & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Bo Dalsgaard & Carsten Rahbek & Niels Strange, 2023. "Distance and Regional Effects on the Value of Wild Bee Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 37-63, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Céline Moreaux & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Bo Dalsgaard & Carsten Rahbek & Niels Strange, 2023. "Distance and Regional Effects on the Value of Wild Bee Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 37-63, January.
    3. Frauke Becker & Nana Anokye & Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Ailish Higgins & Clare Relton & Mark Strong & Julia Fox-Rushby, 2018. "Women’s preferences for alternative financial incentive schemes for breastfeeding: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, April.
    4. Endre Kildal Iversen & Kristine Grimsrud & Henrik Lindhjem & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2019. "Trade-offs between carbon sequestration, landscape aesthetics and biodiversity in a cost-benefit analysis of land use options in Norway," Discussion Papers 915, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    5. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    6. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    7. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    8. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    9. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    10. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    11. Kathrin Stenchly & Marc Victor Hansen & Katharina Stein & Andreas Buerkert & Wilhelm Loewenstein, 2018. "Income Vulnerability of West African Farming Households to Losses in Pollination Services: A Case Study from Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-12, November.
    12. Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Whittle, Colin, 2022. "Household acceptability of energy efficiency policies in the European Union: Policy characteristics trade-offs and the role of trust in government and environmental identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    13. Meredith Fowlie, 2010. "Emissions Trading, Electricity Restructuring, and Investment in Pollution Abatement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 837-869, June.
    14. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    15. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    16. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    17. Barros, Carlos Pestana & Ferreira, Candida & Williams, Jonathan, 2007. "Analysing the determinants of performance of best and worst European banks: A mixed logit approach," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 2189-2203, July.
    18. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    19. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    20. Hossan, Md Sakoat & Asgari, Hamidreza & Jin, Xia, 2016. "Investigating preference heterogeneity in Value of Time (VOT) and Value of Reliability (VOR) estimation for managed lanes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 638-649.

    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:ecoser:v:18:y:2016:i:c:p:58-67. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.