IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaae16/249343.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sustainable water management and resource recovery and reuse contracts in agricultural in Burkina-Faso for Ecosystem Services sustainability: Using choice experiments to estimate the farmers’ welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Houessionon, Prosper
  • Balana, Bedru
  • Zahodogo, Pam
  • Thiombiano, Noël
  • Bossa, Aymar

Abstract

This paper describes the results of a choice experiment measuring social benefits for sustainable management practices related to water and resource recovery and reuse solutions in agricultural in Burkina-Faso for ecosystem services preservation. Sustainable management is conceptualized with four illustrative practices that impact water availability, water save, soil restoration, soil fertility improvement and productivity growth: storing water with small water infrastructure in rainy season, complete fresh water with waste water from household, watering crop with drip irrigation and fertilizing with organic matter of sludge from septic tank (human faeces). Data for a choice experiment are collected using a face-to-face survey of farmers practicing off-season production in two region (Dano and Ouagadougou) in Burkina- Faso. Results identify substantial benefits for ecosystem services preservation, the use of small water infrastructure, drip irrigation, waste water and organic matter from human faeces. Results also suggest that the estimated household benefits of all fours sustainable management practices combined are similar in magnitude to the benefits from ecosystem services alone. Based on model results, policy and future research may wish to examine possibilities for subsidizing sustainable management practices in urban-influenced areas as a more cost-effective means of providing benefits similar to those realized through ecosystem services sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Houessionon, Prosper & Balana, Bedru & Zahodogo, Pam & Thiombiano, Noël & Bossa, Aymar, 2016. "Sustainable water management and resource recovery and reuse contracts in agricultural in Burkina-Faso for Ecosystem Services sustainability: Using choice experiments to estimate the farmers’ welfare," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 249343, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaae16:249343
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.249343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/249343/files/324.%20Water%20management%20policy%20implementation.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.249343?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonas Wanvoeke & Jean-Philippe Venot & Margreet Zwarteveen & Charlotte de Fraiture, 2015. "Performing the success of an innovation: the case of smallholder drip irrigation in Burkina Faso," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 432-445, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Qadir, M. & Sharma, B.R. & Bruggeman, A. & Choukr-Allah, R. & Karajeh, F., 2007. "Non-conventional water resources and opportunities for water augmentation to achieve food security in water scarce countries," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 2-22, January.
    4. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    5. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Flores Tenorio, Pedro, 2017. "A choice modelling experiment to explore the opportunities to invest in biodiversity conservation in the Amazon," 2017 Conference (61st), February 7-10, 2017, Brisbane, Australia 258666, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Prosper Houessionon & William M. Fonta & Aymar Y. Bossa & Safiétou Sanfo & Noel Thiombiano & Pam Zahonogo & Thomas B. Yameogo & Bedru Balana, 2017. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Small-Scale Agricultural Management Interventions in Burkina Faso: A Discrete Choice Experiment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Houessionon, P. & Fonta, W. M. & Bossa, A. Y. & Sanfo, S. & Thiombiano, N. & Zahonogo, P. & Yameogo, T. B. & Balana, Bedru, "undated". "Economic valuation of ecosystem services from small-scale agricultural management interventions in Burkina Faso: a discrete choice experiment approach," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048370, International Water Management Institute.
    5. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    9. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    10. Campbell, Robert M. & Venn, Tyron J. & Anderson, Nathaniel M., 2016. "Social preferences toward energy generation with woody biomass from public forests in Montana, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 58-67.
    11. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    12. Voravee Saengavut & Chintana Somswasdi, 2022. "Preference Heterogeneity of Local Participation in Coupling Conservation and Community-Based Entrepreneurship Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    13. Lee, Peter & Cassells, Sue M. & Holland, John, 2013. "The Non-Market Value of Abel Tasman National Park, New Zealand: A Choice Modelling Application," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152163, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Yrjola, Tapani & Kola, Jukka, 2002. "Social Benefits of Multifunctional Agriculture in Finland," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24812, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2015-002 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Kaczan, David & Swallow, Brent M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2011. "Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme design in rural Tanzania: Famers’ preferences for enforcement and payment options," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103673, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Badura, Tomas & Vačkářová, Davina, 2020. "Public preferences for post 2020 agri-environmental policy in the Czech Republic: A choice experiment approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    21. Hyesun Kim & Jooa Baek & Yeongbae Choe, 2021. "Family life cycle and preferences for a mega-sporting event package: The case of the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympic Games," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(3), pages 548-568, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use; Resource/Energy Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaae16:249343. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaaeaea.html .

    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.