IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v100y2024i2p333-352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Benefits of Titling Indigenous Communities in the Peruvian Amazon: A Stated Preference Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Allen Blackman
  • Sahan T. M. Dissanayake
  • Adan L. Martinez-Cruz
  • Leonardo Corral
  • Maja Schling

Abstract

We conduct a discrete choice experiment with leaders of 164 Peruvian Indigenous communities (ICs) to elicit their preferences about and valuation of land titles—to our knowledge, the first use of rigorous stated preference methods to analyze land titling. We find that on average, IC leaders are willing to pay US$35,000–US$45,000 for a title, roughly twice the per community administrative cost of titling; willingness to pay is positively correlated with the value of IC land and the risk of land grabbing; and leaders prefer titling processes that involve Indigenous representatives and titles that encompass land with cultural value.

Suggested Citation

  • Allen Blackman & Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Adan L. Martinez-Cruz & Leonardo Corral & Maja Schling, 2024. "The Benefits of Titling Indigenous Communities in the Peruvian Amazon: A Stated Preference Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 100(2), pages 333-352.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:100:y:2024:i:2:p:333-352
    Note: DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/le.100.2.092822-0075R
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/100/2/333
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Marek Giergiczny & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 705-727, November.
    2. Xu, Yuting & Huang, Xianjin & Bao, Helen X.H. & Ju, Xiang & Zhong, Taiyang & Chen, Zhigang & Zhou, Yan, 2018. "Rural land rights reform and agro-environmental sustainability: Empirical evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 73-87.
    3. Thiede, Brian C. & Gray, Clark, 2020. "Characterizing the indigenous forest peoples of Latin America: Results from census data," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    4. Vélez, Maria Alejandra & Robalino, Juan & Cardenas, Juan Camilo & Paz, Andrea & Pacay, Eduardo, 2020. "Is collective titling enough to protect forests? Evidence from Afro-descendant communities in the Colombian Pacific region," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    5. Venn, Tyron J. & Quiggin, John, 2007. "Accommodating indigenous cultural heritage values in resource assessment: Cape York Peninsula and the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 334-344, March.
    6. Stephen T. Garnett & Neil D. Burgess & Julia E. Fa & Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares & Zsolt Molnár & Cathy J. Robinson & James E. M. Watson & Kerstin K. Zander & Beau Austin & Eduardo S. Brondizio & Neil, 2018. "A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(7), pages 369-374, July.
    7. Gao, Liangliang & Sun, Dingqiang & Huang, Jikun, 2017. "Impact of land tenure policy on agricultural investments in China: Evidence from a panel data study," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 244-252.
    8. Oleson, Kirsten L.L. & Barnes, Michele & Brander, Luke M. & Oliver, Thomas A. & van Beek, Ingrid & Zafindrasilivonona, Bienvenue & van Beukering, Pieter, 2015. "Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows among indigenous fishers: A discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 104-116.
    9. Valerie Mueller & Agnes Quisumbing & Hak Lim Lee & Klaus Droppelmann, 2014. "Resettlement for Food Security’s Sake: Insights from a Malawi Land Reform Project," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 222-236.
    10. Börger, Tobias & Ngoc, Quach Thi Khanh & Kuhfuss, Laure & Hien, Tang Thi & Hanley, Nick & Campbell, Danny, 2021. "Preferences for coastal and marine conservation in Vietnam: Accounting for differences in individual choice set formation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    12. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    13. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    14. Mendola, Mariapia & Simtowe, Franklin, 2015. "The Welfare Impact of Land Redistribution: Evidence from a Quasi-Experimental Initiative in Malawi," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 53-69.
    15. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2019. "Determinants of willingness-to-pay for attributes of power outage - An empirical discrete choice experiment addressing implications for fuel switching in developing countries," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 206-215.
    16. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    17. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    18. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    19. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    20. Ranjan Kumar Ghosh & Shweta Gupta & Vartika Singh & Patrick S. Ward, 2021. "Demand for Crop Insurance in Developing Countries: New Evidence from India," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 293-320, February.
    21. Kerstin K Zander & Stephen T Garnett, 2011. "The Economic Value of Environmental Services on Indigenous-Held Lands in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-6, August.
    22. Ito, Junichi & Bao, Zongshun & Ni, Jing, 2016. "Land rental development via institutional innovation in rural Jiangsu, China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-11.
    23. Pender, John & Suyanto & Kerr, John & Kato, Edward, 2008. "Impacts of the Hutan Kamasyarakatan Social Forestry Program in the Sumberjaya watershed, West Lampung District of Sumatra, Indonesia:," IFPRI discussion papers 769, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    24. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    25. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Fernández-Macho, Javier, 2009. "The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2372-2381, June.
    26. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    27. Besley, Timothy, 1995. "Property Rights and Investment Incentives: Theory and Evidence from Ghana," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(5), pages 903-937, October.
    28. Liz Alden Wily, 2018. "Collective Land Ownership in the 21st Century: Overview of Global Trends," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-26, May.
    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. 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.
    2. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    3. 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).
    4. Miller, Sini & Tait, Peter & Saunders, Caroline, 2015. "Estimating indigenous cultural values of freshwater: A choice experiment approach to Māori values in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 207-214.
    5. Anthony PARIS & Pascal GASTINEAU & Pierre-Alexandre MAHIEU & Benoît CHEZE, 2020. "Citizen involvement in the energy transition: Highlighting the role played by the spatial heterogeneity of preferences in the public acceptance of biofuels," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2828, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    6. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Schueftan, Alejandra & Aravena, Claudia & Reyes, René, 2021. "Financing energy efficiency retrofits in Chilean households: The role of financial instruments, savings and uncertainty in energy transition," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    8. Bakhtiari, Fatemeh & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Strange, Niels & Boman, Mattias, 2018. "Disentangling Distance and Country Effects on the Value of Conservation across National Borders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 11-20.
    9. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2015. "Capturing More Relevant Measures of Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay: Using an Iterative Grid Search Algorithm to Quantify Proximate Environmental Impacts," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205450, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Jose Alberto Lara-Pulido & Adan L. Martinez-Cruz, 2023. "Stated benefits of teleworking in Mexico City: a discrete choice experiment on office workers," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(5), pages 1743-1807, October.
    11. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    12. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    16. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    19. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    20. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:uwp:landec:v:100:y:2024:i:2:p:333-352. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.