IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v151y2023ics1389934123000680.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences for a payment for ecosystem services program to control forest fires in Burkina Faso: A choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Diendéré, Achille Augustin
  • Kaboré, Dominique

Abstract

The successful implementation of a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program depends on a mix of incentives, including nonmonetary incentives. This study investigates local households' willingness to enroll in a PES program that controls forest fires in the Nazinon forest of Burkina Faso. A choice experiment is conducted with 200 household heads to elicit their preferences for the different attributes of the proposed PES program. Five attributes are considered, namely, forms of technical assistance, use restrictions, the number of monitoring trips conducted, the width of the implemented firewall, and monthly financial incentives. A mixed logit model specified in the preference space is used to examine the heterogeneity of preferences for the PES program's attributes. We provide estimates for marginal willingness-to-accept values of the considered attributes. The results indicate that the current PES reduces respondents' satisfaction and decreases the probability of their uptake. Furthermore, the results show that increasing the frequency of monitoring, the width of firewall bands, and technical assistance and improving financial incentives promote households' utility. This study provides valuable insights for policymakers to guide the future design of PES programs and encourage user support to combat forest resource degradation.

Suggested Citation

  • Diendéré, Achille Augustin & Kaboré, Dominique, 2023. "Preferences for a payment for ecosystem services program to control forest fires in Burkina Faso: A choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:151:y:2023:i:c:s1389934123000680
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102973
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934123000680
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102973?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. Aza, A. & Riccioli, F. & Di Iacovo, F., 2021. "Optimising payment for environmental services schemes by integrating strategies: The case of the Atlantic Forest, Brazil," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    2. Zhenglei Xie & Bing-Bing Zhou & Hanzeyu Xu & Le Zhang & Jing Wang, 2020. "An Agent-Based Sustainability Perspective on Payment for Ecosystem Services: Analytical Framework and Empirical Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Juutinen, Artti & Tyrväinen, Liisa & Karhu, Jouni & Kurttila, Mikko, 2018. "Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 14-24.
    4. Zanella, Matheus A. & Schleyer, Christian & Speelman, Stijn, 2014. "Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 166-176.
    5. 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.
    6. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    7. Jones, Kelly W. & Gannon, Benjamin & Timberlake, Thomas & Chamberlain, James L. & Wolk, Brett, 2022. "Societal benefits from wildfire mitigation activities through payments for watershed services: Insights from Colorado," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    9. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.
    10. Tesfaye, Abonesh & Brouwer, Roy, 2012. "Testing participation constraints in contract design for sustainable soil conservation in Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 168-178.
    11. Juutinen, Artti & Kurttila, Mikko & Pohjanmies, Tähti & Tolvanen, Anne & Kuhlmey, Katharina & Skudnik, Mitja & Triplat, Matevž & Westin, Kerstin & Mäkipää, Raisa, 2021. "Forest owners' preferences for contract-based management to enhance environmental values versus timber production," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    12. Joseph C. Cooper & Russ W. Keim, 1996. "Incentive Payments to Encourage Farmer Adoption of Water Quality Protection Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 54-64.
    13. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    14. Ingram, Jane Carter & Wilkie, David & Clements, Tom & McNab, Roan Balas & Nelson, Fred & Baur, Erick Hogan & Sachedina, Hassanali T. & Peterson, David Dean & Foley, Charles Andrew Harold, 2014. "Evidence of Payments for Ecosystem Services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 10-21.
    15. Amacher, Gregory S. & Ollikainen, Markku & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2014. "Forests and ecosystem services: Outlines for new policy options," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-3.
    16. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    17. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    18. 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.
    19. Mombo, Felister & Lusambo, Leopold & Speelman, Stijn & Buysse, Jeroen & Munishi, Pantaleo & van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2014. "Scope for introducing payments for ecosystem services as a strategy to reduce deforestation in the Kilombero wetlands catchment area," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 81-89.
    20. Permadi, Dwiko B. & Burton, Michael & Pandit, Ram & Race, Digby & Walker, Iain, 2018. "Local community's preferences for accepting a forestry partnership contract to grow pulpwood in Indonesia: A choice experiment study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 73-83.
    21. Elizabeth Shapiro‐Garza & Pamela McElwee & Gert Van Hecken & Esteve Corbera, 2020. "Beyond Market Logics: Payments for Ecosystem Services as Alternative Development Practices in the Global South," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 51(1), pages 3-25, January.
    22. 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.
    23. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    24. S. Wunder & R. Brouwer & S. Engel & D. Ezzine-de-Blas & R. Muradian & U. Pascual & R. Pinto, 2018. "From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(3), pages 145-150, March.
    25. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa & Benjamin, Emmanuel & Lang, Hannes, 2019. "Determinants of the environmental conservation and poverty alleviation objectives of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 52-66.
    26. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Strange, Niels, 2018. "Landowner participation in forest conservation programs: A revealed approach using register, spatial and contract data," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-12.
    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. Hansen, Kristiana & Duke, Esther & Bond, Craig & Purcell, Melanie & Paige, Ginger, 2018. "Rancher Preferences for a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in Southwestern Wyoming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 240-249.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Jones, Kelly W. & Powlen, Kathryn & Roberts, Ryan & Shinbrot, Xoco, 2020. "Participation in payments for ecosystem services programs in the Global South: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.
    7. Zandersen, Marianne & Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Nainggolan, Doan & Gyldenkærne, Steen & Winding, Anne & Greve, Mogens Humlekrog & Termansen, Mette, 2016. "Potential and economic efficiency of using reduced tillage to mitigate climate effects in Danish agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 14-22.
    8. 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).
    9. Hao Li & Michael T Bennett & Xuemei Jiang & Kebin Zhang & Xiaohui Yang, 2017. "Rural Household Preferences for Active Participation in “Payment for Ecosystem Service” Programs: A Case in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    10. Bremer, Leah L. & Farley, Kathleen A. & Lopez-Carr, David & Romero, José, 2014. "Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem services in the Ecuadorian Andes: What is the potential for ‘win–win’?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 148-165.
    11. Ferré, Marie & Engel, Stefanie & Gsottbauer, Elisabeth, 2022. "Incentivizing coordination in the adoption of sustainable land use when costs are heterogeneous: An economic experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    14. Jones, Kelly W. & Muñoz Brenes, Carlos L. & Shinbrot, Xoco A. & López-Báez, Walter & Rivera-Castañeda, Andrómeda, 2018. "The influence of cash and technical assistance on household-level outcomes in payments for hydrological services programs in Chiapas, Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 208-218.
    15. 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).
    16. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    17. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    18. Mingie, James C. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Bowker, J.M. & Mengak, Michael T. & Siry, Jacek P., 2017. "Big game hunter preferences for hunting club attributes: A choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 98-106.
    19. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa & Benjamin, Emmanuel & Lang, Hannes, 2019. "Determinants of the environmental conservation and poverty alleviation objectives of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 52-66.
    20. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.

    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:forpol:v:151:y:2023:i:c:s1389934123000680. 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/forpol .

    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.