Estimating farmers’ stated willingness to accept pay for ecosystem services: case of Lake Naivasha watershed Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme-Kenya

被引：7

作者：

Nyongesa J.M. ^{[1
]}

Bett H.K. ^{[1
]}

Lagat J.K. ^{[1
]}

Ayuya O.I. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Management, Egerton University, P.O. Box 536, Egerton-Njoro

来源：

Ecological Processes | 2016年 / 5卷 / 01期

关键词：

Conservation; Ecosystem services; Livelihoods; Payment for Ecosystem Services; Practice; Watershed; Willingness to accept pay;

D O I：

10.1186/s13717-016-0059-z

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Introduction: Lake Naivasha watershed is recognized for its contribution to Kenya’s national gross domestic product from the export of horticultural products. Commercial horticultural investment downstream depends mainly on the Lake’s water. The fresh water lake lacks surface outflow, and its recharge depends on river Malewa flowing from upper catchment in Aberdare ranges. However, unsustainable land use practices in the upper catchment has led to increasing sediment loading and pollution in river Malewa which affects water quality in the Lake downstream. Payment for Environmental Services (PES) scheme has been initiated as an alternative incentive approach to motivate upstream smallholder farmers adopt sustainable land use practices for conservation of watershed services. This paper analyzes willingness to accept pay (WTA) as proxy economic measure of environmental service (ES) value and determines socio-economic factors influencing farmers WTA for watershed conservation. We analyzed the WTA and characterized WTA underlying socio-economic determinants in two PES intervention sites in Kenya. Methods: The objective of this study was to estimate WTA and determine socio-economic factors influencing WTA. Semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect data from 200 PES farmers through face-to-face interview. We applied contingent valuation (CV) and logistic regression for data analyses to elicit farmer’s WTA estimates to implement PES farm practices and determine socio-economic factors influencing WTA, respectively. Results: Results revealed over 90 % of respondents were farmers and 60 % had primary level of education. Average household farm size was 2.305 acres and family size was six members on average. We recorded a monthly marginal household increase in gross income from Kshs. 6891.96 9 (US$68.92) before PES to Kshs. 11,011.48 (US$110.12) with PES interventions. The estimated annual lowest and highest WTA for PES farm practices were at Kshs. 8835 (US$88.35) for grass strip and Kshs. 21,847.500 (US$218.48) for fallowing. Household socio-economic characteristics had significant influence on WTA among farmers. Conclusions: The study revealed heterogeneity in WTA estimates among PES implementing farmers. The WTA reflects opportunity cost to farmers. We recommend PES mechanism as a policy tool to internalize negative watershed externalities to provide ecosystem services. © 2016, The Author(s).

引用

共 58 条

[1]

Aura S., Determinants of the adoption of integrated soil fertility management technologies in Mbale division, Kenya. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 16(1):1–14. 10.18697/ajfand, 73, (2016)

[2]

Arild V., An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services, Ecol Econ, 69, pp. 1245-1252, (2010)

[3]

Asrat P.K., Belay H.D., Determinants of farmers’ willingness to pay for soil conservation practices in the Southeastern Highlands of Ethiopia, Land Degrad Dev, 15, pp. 423-438, (2004)

[4]

Bett R.C., Bett H.K., Kahi A.K., Peters K.J., Evaluation and effectiveness of breeding and production services for dairy goat farmers in Kenya, Journal of Ecological Economics, 68, pp. 2451-2460, (2009)

[5]

Bond I., Mayers J., Fair deals for watershed services: lessons from a multi-country action-learning project, Natural Resource Issues No. 13. IIED, London. ISBN: 978-1-84369-646-9 ISSN: 1605-1017, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 13, pp. 1-122, (2010)

[6]

Brendan F., Kulindwa K., Mwanyoka I., Turner R.K., Burgess N.D., Common pool resource management and PES: lessons and constraints for water PES in Tanzania, Ecol Econ, 69, pp. 1253-1261, (2010)

[7]

Carson R., Groves T., Incentive and informational properties of preference questions, Environ Resour Econ, 37, 1, pp. 181-210, (2007)

[8]

Chapika S., Andreas N., Willingness of upstream and downstream resource managers to engage in compensation schemes for environmental services, International Journal of the Commons, 3, 1, pp. 41-63, (2009)

[9]

Cole R.J., June, Social and environmental impacts of payments for environmental services for agroforestry on small-scale farms in southern Costa Rica, Int J Sust Dev World, 17, 3, pp. 208-216, (2010)

[10]

Cummings R.G., Taylor L.O., Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method, Am Econ Rev, 89, pp. 649-665, (1999)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 →