Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T20:45:21.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic value of mitigation of plant invaders in a subsistence economy: incorporating labour as a mode of payment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2012

Rajesh Kumar Rai  and
Helen Scarborough
Rajesh Kumar Rai
Affiliation:
School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Deakin University, Melbourne Campus at Burwood, Australia. Tel: +61-421949632. Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Helen Scarborough
Affiliation:
School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Warranmbool Campus, Deakin University, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the analysis of a choice experiment designed to estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) to mitigate damages caused by invasive plant species in a rural community of Nepal. In order to address the cash constraints problem in a subsistence economy, two payment attributes, labour contribution and membership fee, were included in the choice sets. The results reveal that rural farmers have significant WTP for forest management activities, in terms of both cash and labour contributions. The results also suggest that rural farmers value their time in this context at a different rate from the current wage rate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 225 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S., and Lovett, J.C. (2004), ‘Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal’, Ecological Economics 48(2): 245–257.Google Scholar
Ahearn, M.C., Korb, P., and Yee, J. (2009), ‘Producer dynamics in agriculture: empirical evidence’, in Dunne, T., Jensen, J.B. and Roberts, M.J. (eds), Producer Dynamics: New Evidence from Micro Data, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 391–394.Google Scholar
Ahlheim, M., Frör, O., Heinke, A., Duc, N.M., and Van Dinh, P. (2010), ‘Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies – how good is it really?’, FZID Discussion Paper No. 13–2010, Universitat Hohenheim, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Alam, K. (2006), ‘Valuing the environment in developing countries: problems and potentials’, Asia Pacific Journal on Environment and Development 13(1 & 2): 18.Google Scholar
Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., and Martinsson, P. (2001), ‘Using choice experiments for non-market valuation’, Economic Issues 8(1): 83–109.Google Scholar
Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, S. (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. and Birol, E. (2010), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Implementation, Challenges and Policy Implications, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Bergmann, A., Hanley, N., and Wright, R. (2006), ‘Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments’, Energy Policy 34(9): 1004–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birol, E. and Das, S. (2010), ‘Estimating the value of improved wastewater treatment: the case of River Ganga, India’, Journal of Environmental Management 91(11): 2163–2171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bliemer, M.C.J. and Rose, J.M. (2010), ‘Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations’, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 44(6): 720–734.Google Scholar
Born, W., Rauschmayer, F., and Brauer, I. (2005), ‘Economic valuation of biological invasions – a survey’, Ecological Economics 55: 321–336.Google Scholar
Brouwer, R., Haider, W., Gunaratne, L., and Beardmore, B. (2010), ‘A choice experiment of human–elephant conflict resolution in Sri Lanka’, in Bennett, J. and Birol, E. (eds), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Implementation, Challenges and Policy Implications, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 17–32.Google Scholar
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., and Liljenstolpe, C. (2003), ‘Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments’, Ecological Economics 47(1): 95–103.Google Scholar
Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., and Lampi, E. (2010), ‘Dealing with ignored attributes in choice experiments on valuation of Sweden's environmental quality objectives’, Environmental and Resource Economics 47(1): 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarty, S., Grote, U., and Lüchters, G. (2011), ‘Does social labelling encourage child schooling and discourage child labour in Nepal?’, International Journal of Educational Development 31(5): 489–495.Google Scholar
Curnutt, J.L. (2000), ‘Host area specific climatic matching: similarity breeds exotics’, Biological Conservation 94: 341–351.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C.M. and Kark, S. (2002), ‘Impacts and extent of biotic invasions in terrestrial ecosystems’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17(5): 202–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DNPWC (2011), ‘Annual report Shrawan 2067–Ashad 2068 (July 2010–June 2011)’, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Kathmandu.Google Scholar
Do, T.N. and Bennett, J. (2009), ‘Estimating wetland biodiversity values: a choice modelling application in Vietnam's Mekong River Delta’, Environment and Development Economics 14(2): 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolisca, F., Carter, D.R., McDaniel, J.M., Shannon, D.A., and Jolly, C.M. (2006), ‘Factors influencing farmers' participation in forestry management programs: a case study from Haiti’, Forest Ecology and Management 236(2–3): 324–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmeades, S., Smale, M., and Karamura, D. (2006), ‘For cultivar attributes and the biodiversity of bananas on farms in Uganda’, in Smale, M. (ed.), Valuing Crop Biodiversity On-Farm Genetic Resources and Economic Change, Wallingford: CABI Publishing, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
Ferrini, S. and Scarpa, R. (2007), ‘Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53(3): 342–363.Google Scholar
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Nunes, P., González, J., Alcorlo, P., and Montes, C. (2011), ‘Analyzing the social factors that influence willingness to pay for invasive alien species management under two different strategies: eradication and prevention’, Environmental Management 48(3): 418–435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanemann, M. (1984), ‘Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 332–341.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. and Kanninen, B. (1999), ‘Statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data’, in Bateman, I.J. and Willis, K.G. (eds), Valuing Environmental Preferences. Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, Developing Countries, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 302–442.Google Scholar
Hanley, N., Wright, R., and Adamowicz, V. (1998), ‘Using choice experiments to value the environment’, Environmental and Resource Economics 11(3): 413–428.Google Scholar
Hensher, D.A. and Johnson, L.W. (1981), Applied Discrete-Choice Modelling, London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., and Greene, W.H. (2005), Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoagland, P. and Jin, D. (2006), ‘Science and economics in the management of an invasive species’, BioScience 56: 931–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, T.P., Aukema, J.E., Holle, B.V., Liebhold, A., and Sills, E. (2009), ‘Economic impacts of invasive species in forests, past, present and future’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1162: 18–38.Google Scholar
Hung, L.T., Loomis, J.B., and Thinh, V.T. (2007), ‘Comparing money and labour payment in contingent valuation: the case of forest fire prevention in Vietnamese context’, Journal of International Development 19(2): 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jae, H. and Delvecchio, D. (2004), ‘Decision making by low-literacy consumers in the presence of point-of-purchase information’, Journal of Consumer Affairs 38(2): 342–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jetter, K. and Paine, T.D. (2004), ‘Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for biological control in the urban landscape’, Biological Control 30: 312–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, H. (2009), ‘Willingness to pay and demand elasticities for two national parks: empirical evidence from two surveys in Pakistan’, Environment, Development and Sustainability 11(2): 293–305.Google Scholar
King, N.A. (2007), ‘Economic valuation of environmental goods and services in the context of good ecosystem governance’, Water Policy 9: 51–67.Google Scholar
Krinsky, I. and Robb, A. (1986), ‘On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities’ Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 715–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristrom, B. and Riera, P. (1996), ‘Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one?’, Environmental and Resource Economics 7(1): 45–55.Google Scholar
Lancaster, K. (1966), ‘A new approach to consumer theory’, Journal of Political Economy 74: 132–157.Google Scholar
Lehtonen, E., Kuuluvainen, J., Pouta, E., Rekola, M., and Li, C.-Z. (2003), ‘Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland’, Environmental Science & Policy 6(3): 195–204.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D. (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McFadden, D. (1974), ‘Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior’, in Zarembka, P. (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, New York: Academic Press, pp. 105–142.Google Scholar
Mekonnen, A. (2000), ‘Valuation of community forestry in Ethiopia, a contingent valuation study of rural livelihoods’, Environment and Development Economics 5: 289–308.Google Scholar
Meyerson, L.A. and Mooney, H.A. (2007), ‘Invasive alien species in an era of globalization’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(4): 199–208.Google Scholar
Moore, P.D. (2000), ‘Alien invaders’, Nature 403: 492–493.Google Scholar
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., and Kent, J. (2000), ‘Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities’, Nature 403(6772): 853–858.Google Scholar
Nuñez, M.A. and Pauchard, A.B. (2010), ‘Biological invasions in developing and developed countries: does one model fit all?’, Biological Invasions 12: 707–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, P.A.L.D. and Markandya, A. (2008), ‘Economic value of damage caused by marine bio-invasions: lessons from two European case studies’, ICES Journal of Marine Science 65(5): 775–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, P.A.L.D. and van Den Bergh, C.J.M. (2004), ‘Can people value protection against invasive marine species? Evidence from a joint TC-CV survey in the Netherlands’, Environmental and Resource Economics 28: 517–532.Google Scholar
Pasiecznik, N. (1999), ‘Prosopis – pest of providence, weed or wonder tree?’, European Tropical Forest Research Network Newsletter 28: 12–14.Google Scholar
Pejchar, L. and Mooney, H.A. (2009), ‘Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well-being’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(9): 497–504.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. (2005), ‘Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States’, Ecological Economics 52(3): 273–288.Google Scholar
Pyšek, P., Richardson, D.M., Pergl, J., Jarošík, V., Sixtová, Z., and Weber, E. (2008), ‘Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23(5): 237–244.Google Scholar
Rai, R.K., Scarborough, H., Subedi, N., and Lamichhane, B. (2012), ‘Invasive plants – do they devastate or diversify rural livelihoods? Rural farmers’ perception of three invasive plants in Nepal’, Journal for Nature Conservation 20(3): 170–176.Google Scholar
Rolfe, J., Bennett, J., and Louviere, J. (2000), ‘Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation’, Ecological Economics 35(2): 289–302.Google Scholar
Sapkota, I. and Oden, P.C. (2008), ‘Household characteristics and dependency on community forests in Terai of Nepal’, International Journal of Social Forestry 52: 253–282.Google Scholar
Scarpa, R. and Rose, J.M. (2008), ‘Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why’, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 52(3): 253–282.Google Scholar
Shackleton, C.M., McGarry, D., Fourie, S., Gambiza, J., Shackleton, S.E., and Fabricius, C. (2007), ‘Assessing the effects of invasive alien species on rural livelihoods: case examples and a framework from South Africa’, Human Ecology 35(1): 113–127.Google Scholar
Shackleton, S., Kirby, D., and Gambiza, J. (2011), ‘Invasive plants – friends or foes? Contribution of prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) to livelihoods in Makana Municipality, Eastern Cape, South Africa’, Development Southern Africa 28(2): 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Train, K.E. (1998), ‘Recreation demand models with taste differences over people’, Land Economics 74: 230–239.Google Scholar
Train, K.E. (2003), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, X., Bennett, J., Xie, C., Zhang, Z., and Liang, D. (2007), ‘Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: a choice modeling approach’, Ecological Economics 63(1): 114–125.Google Scholar
Wilcove, D.S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., and Losos, E. (1998), ‘Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States’, BioScience 48: 607–615.Google Scholar
Xu, H., Ding, H., Li, M., Qiang, S., Guo, J., Han, Z., Huang, Z., Sun, H., He, S., Wu, H., and Wan, F. (2006), ‘The distribution and economic losses of alien species invasion to China’, Biological Invasions 8: 1495–1500.Google Scholar
Zhongmin, X., Loomis, J., Zhiqiang, Z., and Hamamura, K. (2006), ‘Evaluating the performance of different willingness to pay question formats for valuing environmental restoration in rural China’, Environment and Development Economics 11(5): 585–601.Google Scholar