IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v24y2022i3d10.1007_s10668-021-01608-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socioeconomic and ecological indicators in willingness to accept compensation for the conservation of medicinal plants in a tropical dry forest

Author

Listed:
  • Marcelânio Laurentino

    (Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco
    Universidade Federal de Pernambuco)

  • Elcida Araújo

    (Departamento de Botânica)

  • Marcelo Alves Ramos

    (Universidade de Pernambuco)

  • Maria Clara Bezerra Tenório Cavalcanti

    (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco)

  • Paulo Henrique Santos Gonçalves

    (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco)

  • Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque

    (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco)

Abstract

The contingent valuation method employs a hypothetical scenario to record a person’s declared preference with regard to their willingness to pay for an environmental asset or willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for not using it. Many studies have evaluated the inclination to conserve watersheds, forest areas, or certain species. In this study, we reported the economical values of medicinal species based on the perceptions of locals living within a protected area in a seasonal dry tropical forest in Northeastern Brazil. Moreover, we assessed the effects of socioeconomic variables (gender, family income, and family size) on the WTA compensation for not using the species. We interviewed 96 household heads from seven communities to obtain their socioeconomic data and WTA values. Additionally, we used data from a plant inventory to gather information on species abundance. We found that the selected socioeconomic variables are a poor predictor of the WTA values. Our findings also demonstrate that women accept lower WTA values to not use some species. Additionally, individuals from bigger families accept lower WTA values to not use just one of the plant species. Species abundance did not influence informants’ WTA values. Generally, informants overestimated bids, which may hinder biodiversity conservation. Socioeconomic and ecological factors may not have an influence on WTA values in communities that inhabit protected areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcelânio Laurentino & Elcida Araújo & Marcelo Alves Ramos & Maria Clara Bezerra Tenório Cavalcanti & Paulo Henrique Santos Gonçalves & Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque, 2022. "Socioeconomic and ecological indicators in willingness to accept compensation for the conservation of medicinal plants in a tropical dry forest," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 4471-4489, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01608-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01608-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-021-01608-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-021-01608-5?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. Virpi Lehtoranta & Anna-Kaisa Kosenius & Elina Seppälä, 2017. "Watershed Management Benefits in a Hypothetical, Real Intention and Real Willingness to Pay Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(13), pages 4117-4132, October.
    2. Kai Xiong & Fanbin Kong & Ning Zhang & Ni Lei & Chuanwang Sun, 2018. "Analysis of the Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay and Payout Level for Ecological Environment Improvement of the Ganjiang River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Hao Li & Xiaohui Yang & Xiao Zhang & Yuyan Liu & Kebin Zhang, 2018. "Estimation of Rural Households’ Willingness to Accept Two PES Programs and Their Service Valuation in the Miyun Reservoir Catchment, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    4. Bing Yu & Yuying Cai & Laiqun Jin & Bisheng Du, 2018. "Effects on Willingness to Pay for Marine Conservation: Evidence from Zhejiang Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Eugene E. Ezebilo & Mattias Boman & Leif Mattsson & Anders Lindhagen & Werner Mbongo, 2015. "Preferences and willingness to pay for close to home nature for outdoor recreation in Sweden," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(2), pages 283-296, February.
    6. Torres-Miralles, M. & Grammatikopoulou, I. & Rescia, A.J., 2017. "Employing contingent and inferred valuation methods to evaluate the conservation of olive groves and associated ecosystem services in Andalusia (Spain)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 258-269.
    7. Glenn Bush & Nick Hanley & Mirko Moro & Daniel Rondeau, 2013. "Measuring the Local Costs of Conservation: A Provision Point Mechanism for Eliciting Willingness to Accept Compensation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 490-513.
    8. Strand, Jon & Carson, Richard T. & Navrud, Stale & Ortiz-Bobea, Ariel & Vincent, Jeffrey R., 2017. "Using the Delphi method to value protection of the Amazon rainforest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 475-484.
    9. Vincent, Jeffrey R & Carson, Richard T & DeShazo, JR & Schwabe, Kurt A & Ahmad, Ismariah & Chong, Siew Kook & Chang, Yii Tan & Potts, Matthew D, 2014. "Tropical countries may be willing to pay more to protect their forests," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt3w77c50q, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    10. Johannes Haushofer & Jeremy Shapiro, 2016. "The Short-term Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers to the Poor: ExperimentalEvidence from Kenya," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(4), pages 1973-2042.
    11. Prosun Kumar Ghosh & M. Shahjahan Mondal, 2013. "Economic valuation of the non-use attributes of a south-western coastal wetland in Bangladesh," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(9), pages 1403-1418, November.
    12. Lindhjem, Henrik & Mitani, Yohei, 2012. "Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 290-302.
    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. Jana Fančovičová & Pavol Prokop & Markéta Kubíčková, 2022. "The Effect of Aposematic Signals of Plants on Students’ Perception and Willingness to Protect Them," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-10, July.

    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. Shivaraj Thapa & Subina Shrestha & Ram Kumar Adhikari & Suman Bhattarai & Deepa Paudel & Deepak Gautam & Anil Koirala, 2022. "Residents’ willingness-to-pay for watershed conservation program facilitating ecosystem services in Begnas watershed, Nepal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 7811-7832, June.
    2. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    3. Lehmann, M. Christian & Matarazzo, Hellen, 2019. "Voters’ response to in-kind transfers: Quasi-experimental evidence from prescription drug cost-sharing in Brazil," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    4. Saini, Shweta & Sharma, Sameedh & Gulati, Ashok & Hussain, Siraj & von Braun, Joachim, 2017. "Indian food and welfare schemes: Scope for digitization towards cash transfers," Discussion Papers 261791, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    5. Meya, Jasper N. & Drupp, Moritz A. & Hanley, Nick, 2021. "Testing structural benefit transfer: The role of income inequality," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    6. Corno, Lucia & Voena, Alessandra, 2023. "Child marriage as informal insurance: Empirical evidence and policy simulations," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    7. Tofallis, Chris, 2020. "Which formula for national happiness?," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    8. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    9. Louis-Philippe Beland & Abel Brodeur & Taylor Wright, 2020. "COVID-19, Stay-at-Home Orders and Employment: Evidence from CPS Data," Carleton Economic Papers 20-04, Carleton University, Department of Economics, revised 19 May 2020.
    10. Jules Gazeaud & Victor Stephane, 2023. "Productive Workfare? Evidence from Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 265-290, January.
    11. Islam, Nizamul & Colombino, Ugo, 2018. "The case for NIT+FT in Europe. An empirical optimal taxation exercise," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 38-69.
    12. Gregori Galofré-Vilà & Martin McKee & David Stuckler, 2022. "Quantifying the mortality impact of the 1935 old-age assistance," European Review of Economic History, European Historical Economics Society, vol. 26(1), pages 62-77.
    13. Aregawi G Gebremariam & Elisabetta Lodigiani & Giacomo Pasini, 2024. "The Impact of Ethiopian Productive Safety Net Program on Children's Educational Aspirations and Attainments," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 33(3), pages 271-296.
    14. Otto, Steven & Poe, Gregory L. & Just, David R., 2017. "Formulating and Testing a New Conservation Auction Mechanism in an Experimental Setting," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258476, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Clemente Pignatti & Zachary Parolin, 2024. "The effects of an unconditional cash transfer on parents' mental health in the United States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(10), pages 2253-2287, October.
    16. Girum Abebe & A Stefano Caria & Marcel Fafchamps & Paolo Falco & Simon Franklin & Simon Quinn, 2021. "Anonymity or Distance? Job Search and Labour Market Exclusion in a Growing African City [Endogenous Stratification in Randomized Experiments]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(3), pages 1279-1310.
    17. Schwabe, Kurt A & Carson, Richard T & DeShazo, JR & Potts, Matthew D & Reese, Ashley N & Vincent, Jeffrey R, 2015. "Creation of Malaysia’s Royal Belum State Park: A Case Study of Conservation in a Developing Country," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt9tf2j26s, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    18. Calderone, Margherita & Fiala, Nathan & Melyoki, Lemayon Lemilia & Schoofs, Annekathrin & Steinacher, Rachel, 2022. "Making intense skills training work at scale: Evidence on business and labor market outcomes in Tanzania," Ruhr Economic Papers 950, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    19. Shapiro, Jeremy, 2019. "The impact of recipient choice on aid effectiveness," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-149.
    20. Cherchye, Laurens & Chiappori, Pierre-André & De Rock, Bram & Ringdal, Charlotte & Vermeulen, Frederic, 2021. "Feed the Children," IZA Discussion Papers 14687, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01608-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.