IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i15p9073-d871547.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Amare Tesfaw

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos P.O. Box 269, Ethiopia)

  • Feyera Senbeta

    (Center for Environment and Development Studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 1176, Ethiopia)

  • Dawit Alemu

    (Bilateral Ethio-Netherlands Effort for Food, Income & Trade Partnership (BENEFIT), Addis Ababa P.O. Box 88, Ethiopia)

  • Ermias Teferi

    (Center for Environment and Development Studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 1176, Ethiopia)

Abstract

Today, evaluating ecological wellbeing and ecosystem services is becoming a great concern towards conserving the natural resource base. Healthy functioning ecosystems have fundamental roles for aiding humankind to lead a healthy life and ensure an improved social welfare. Estimating the non-market benefits of ecosystem services can help experts and the public frame policy directions designed for landscape development. The ecosystem of the Eucalyptus hotspot highlands of northwestern Ethiopia, where this study was carried out, provides services that are essential to changes in the life of the society and biodiversity. However, in recent years, the ecosystem is facing a serious threat from intensive monoculture plantations of Eucalyptus . This has resulted in transformation of the cultural landscapes and a loss of biodiversity. The problem in turn calls for designing appropriate ecological improvement programs. Thus, the current study examined the preferences of residents concerning this area and estimated their willingness to pay (WTP) for the proposed ecosystem improvement programs using a Choice Experiment approach. Data were aggregated from 388 residents using a questionnaire survey in January 2020. The survey contained ecological improvement schemes and a hypothetical event by which respondents expressed their willingness to pay a yearly utility fee as a compensation for the improvement programs. Results showed significant differences in resident preferences towards the proposed ecological improvement attributes. The findings also indicated that the socioeconomic backgrounds of residents contributed for the heterogeneity in their WTP for ecological improvement schemes. Accordingly, the marginal willingness to pay of residents was USD 205/person/year for the respective ecological improvement attributes. The findings suggest that policy makers should consider such attribute-based public preferences while planning landscape development and conservation programs. This study can provide vital policy implications and contribute to knowledge as it presents how the non-market valuations of ecosystems help maximize social welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Amare Tesfaw & Feyera Senbeta & Dawit Alemu & Ermias Teferi, 2022. "Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9073-:d:871547
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9073/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9073/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marit E Kragt & Jeff Bennett, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 0916, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, revised Sep 2009.
    2. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    3. Jang-Hwan Jo & Chang-Bae Lee & Hye-Jung Cho & Jukwan Lee, 2021. "Estimation of Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for the Implementation of Payment for Local Forest Ecosystem Services: The Case of Taxes and Donations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Kristīne Pakalniete & Heini Ahtiainen & Juris Aigars & Ingrīda Andersone & Aurelija Armoškaite & Henning Sten Hansen & Solvita Strāķe, 2021. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Service Benefits and Welfare Impacts of Offshore Marine Protected Areas: A Study from the Baltic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-30, September.
    5. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & João C. Azevedo & Pascual Fernández, 2021. "Ecosystem Services, Sustainable Rural Development and Protected Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-3, September.
    6. Jagger, Pamela & Pender, John, 2003. "The role of trees for sustainable management of less-favored lands: the case of eucalyptus in Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 83-95, January.
    7. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    8. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    9. Heekyun Oh & Seongjun Yun & Heechan Lee, 2021. "Willingness to Pay for Public Benefit Functions of Daecheong Dam Operation: Moderating Effects of Climate Change Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Stanturf, John A. & Young, Timothy M. & Perdue, James H. & Dougherty, Derek & Pigott, Michael & Guo, Zhimei & Huang, Xia, 2018. "Productivity and profitability potential for non-native Eucalyptus plantings in the southern USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 210-222.
    11. Belay Simane & Benjamin F. Zaitchik & Mutlu Ozdogan, 2013. "Agroecosystem Analysis of the Choke Mountain Watersheds, Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-25, February.
    12. Na Zhao & Hui Wang & Jingqiu Zhong & Dongqi Sun, 2022. "Assessment of Recreational and Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Islands," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    15. Matus Kubak & Beata Gavurova & Klaudia Legutka, 2020. "Economic Value Estimation of the Natural Heritage of the Tatra National Park," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-17, April.
    16. Juutinen, Artti & Mitani, Yohei & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Shoji, Yasushi & Siikamäki, Pirkko & Svento, Rauli, 2011. "Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1231-1239, April.
    17. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028, March.
    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. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    2. Stanisław Bielski & Renata Marks-Bielska & Anastasija Novikova & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2020. "Assessing the Value of Agroecosystem Services in Warmia and Mazury Province Using Choice Experiments," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dehez, Jeoffrey & Point, Patrick, 2012. "Recreational value, user heterogeneity and site characteristics in contingent valuation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 195-204.
    4. 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).
    5. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    6. Kermagoret, Charlène & Levrel, Harold & Carlier, Antoine & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2016. "Individual preferences regarding environmental offset and welfare compensation: a choice experiment application to an offshore wind farm project," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 230-240.
    7. Sophal Chhun & Paul Thorsnes & Henrik Moller, 2013. "Preferences for Management of Near-Shore Marine Ecosystems: A Choice Experiment in New Zealand," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-33, September.
    8. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Espinosa-Goded, María & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús, 2014. "The role of ancillary benefits on the value of agricultural soils carbon sequestration programmes: Evidence from a latent class approach to Andalusian olive groves," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 63-73.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    12. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    13. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    14. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    15. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    16. Andersson, Linda & Ek, Kristina & Kastensson, Åsa & Wårell, Linda, 2020. "Transition towards sustainable transportation – What determines fuel choice?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 31-38.
    17. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    18. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    19. Viteri Mejía, César & Brandt, Sylvia, 2015. "Managing tourism in the Galapagos Islands through price incentives: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-11.
    20. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9073-:d:871547. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.