IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/jeapmx/v15y2013i04ns146433321350021x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Preferences For Compensation Packages Using The Discrete Choice Method: The Case Of The Bolsa Floresta Program In Amazonas, Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • ESSAM YASSIN MOHAMMED

    (International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK)

  • INA PORRAS

    (International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK)

  • MARYANNE GRIEG-GRAN

    (International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK)

  • LUIZA LIMA

    (International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK)

  • AFRIANO SOARES

    (International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK)

  • JOÃO TEZZA NETO

    (International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK)

  • VIRGILIO VIANA

    (International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK)

Abstract

Natural ecosystems, including forest ecosystems, continue to be degraded or converted at an alarming rate. To complement or substitute regulatory approaches to ecosystem management, market-based instruments such as "payments for ecosystem services" (PES) have been introduced and are gaining popularity. One of the prominent PES schemes in the world is the Bolsa Floresta Program (BFP) in the State of Amazonas, Brazil. The BFP was established by the Government of the State of Amazonas through its Secretariat for Environment and Sustainable Development in 2006 and is implemented by the Amazonas Sustainable Foundation. The BFP, which is a voluntary program to reduce deforestation and promote sustainable development by rewarding the communities for changing their land use practices, has four main components: the Bolsa Floresta Income; Bolsa Floresta Social; Bolsa Floresta Family; and Bolsa Floresta Association. A study was conducted to assess the preferences of the participating households in three reserves, namely: Rio Negro, Juma, and Uatumã, for different payment packages with varying combinations of the bolsas relative to the status quo option. The discrete choice method and an open ended question format were used to elicit the preferences of the participant households. The discrete choice model results showed that the majority of the respondents (about 80 per cent) in the three reserves chose an alternative which offered a 20 per cent increase in direct cash payments to households as their most preferred alternative. On the other hand, the majority of respondents who were subjected to open question stated that they would like to see an increase in benefits that fall under the Bolsa Floresta Social category.

Suggested Citation

  • Essam Yassin Mohammed & Ina Porras & Maryanne Grieg-Gran & Luiza Lima & Afriano Soares & João Tezza Neto & Virgilio Viana, 2013. "Assessing Preferences For Compensation Packages Using The Discrete Choice Method: The Case Of The Bolsa Floresta Program In Amazonas, Brazil," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(04), pages 1-20.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:jeapmx:v:15:y:2013:i:04:n:s146433321350021x
    DOI: 10.1142/S146433321350021X
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S146433321350021X
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S146433321350021X?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. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    2. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    3. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), 2010. "Choice Experiments in Developing Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13208.
    5. Mohammed, Essam, 2011. "Pro-poor benefit distribution in REDD+: Who gets what and why does it matter?," MPRA Paper 43648, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    2. Osborne, Matthew & Lambe, Fiona & Ran, Ylva & Dehmel, Naira & Tabacco, Giovanni Alberto & Balungira, Joshua & Pérez-Viana, Borja & Widmark, Erik & Holmlid, Stefan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2022. "Designing development interventions: The application of service design and discrete choice experiments in complex settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    4. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    5. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    6. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    7. Holte, Jon Helgheim & Kjaer, Trine & Abelsen, Birgit & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2015. "The impact of pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives for attracting young doctors to rural general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    8. Andrew Briggs, 2016. "A View from the Bridge: Health Economic Evaluation — A Value‐Based Framework?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(12), pages 1499-1502, December.
    9. Phu Nguyen Van & Thierry Blayac & Dimitri Dubois & Sebastien Duchene & Marc Willinger & Bruno Ventelou, 2021. "Designing acceptable anti-COVID-19 policies by taking into account individuals’ preferences: evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," EconomiX Working Papers 2021-33, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    10. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    12. Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Michelle Miller & Maria Crotty, 2018. "Taste, choice and timing: Investigating resident and carer preferences for meals in aged care homes," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 116-124, March.
    13. Shimelis Araya Geda & Rainer Kühl, 2021. "Exploring Smallholder Farmers’ Preferences for Climate-Smart Seed Innovations: Empirical Evidence from Southern Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    14. Sangeethaa, V & Bishnoia , S & Venkateshb, P & Singha, P & Satyapriyaa, & Lenina, V & Paula, S & Baruaa, S & Krishnana, M & Singha, S, 2018. "Rural households’ preferences for nutri-cereals supplied through public distribution system: a discrete choice experiment," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 31(2).
    15. Krucien, Nicolas & Ryan, Mandy & Hermens, Frouke, 2017. "Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 251-267.
    16. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    17. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    18. Jackson, Louise & Al-Janabi, Hareth & Roberts, Tracy & Ross, Jonthan, 2021. "Exploring young people's preferences for STI screening in the UK: A qualitative study and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    19. Genie, Mesfin G. & Nicoló, Antonio & Pasini, Giacomo, 2020. "The role of heterogeneity of patients’ preferences in kidney transplantation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    20. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).

    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:wsi:jeapmx:v:15:y:2013:i:04:n:s146433321350021x. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/jeapm/jeapm.shtml .

    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.