{"id":4946,"date":"2021-06-15T11:32:30","date_gmt":"2021-06-15T09:32:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/?p=4946"},"modified":"2021-06-15T11:32:30","modified_gmt":"2021-06-15T09:32:30","slug":"estimating-the-willingness-to-pay-for-regulating-and-cultural-ecosystem-services-from-forested-siwalik-landscapes-perspectives-of-disaggregated-users","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/2021\/06\/15\/estimating-the-willingness-to-pay-for-regulating-and-cultural-ecosystem-services-from-forested-siwalik-landscapes-perspectives-of-disaggregated-users\/","title":{"rendered":"Estimating the willingness to pay for regulating and cultural ecosystem services from forested Siwalik landscapes: perspectives of disaggregated users"},"content":{"rendered":"<script type='text\/javascript' src='https:\/\/d1bxh8uas1mnw7.cloudfront.net\/assets\/embed.js'><\/script><p><strong>Key message<\/strong><br \/>\nWe assessed forest users\u2019 willingness to pay (WTP) for regulating and cultural forest services based on their socio-economic status (rich vs. poor), proximity to forests (nearby vs. distant), and forest management modalities (community forestry vs. collaborative forest management). As expected, a huge variation was found in WTP among these sub-groups. The wealthier households (HH) preferred \u2018cash\u2019 whereas poor HHs preferred \u2018labour\u2019 as a payment option.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Abstract<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>Context<\/strong> Forest\u2019s ecosystem services (FES) research have largely concentrated on aggregated economic valuation, while minimal consideration has been paid to distributional issues of willingness to pay (WTP) of many regulating and cultural services such as water quality improvement (WQI), flood control (FC), and bequest and aesthetic values.<br \/>\n<strong>Aims<\/strong> We assessed WTP of high-priority FES to the various sub-groups (nearby\/distant, rich\/poor and community\/collaborative forest users) and explored the preferred payment options among the sub-groups in the Siwalik landscape of Nepal.<br \/>\n<strong>Methods<\/strong> We carried out contingent valuation survey of 253 households (ranging from 31 to 33 households from each of the sub-groups). We performed the generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) to analyse the data in RStudio.<br \/>\n<strong>Results<\/strong> Spatial distance and wealth levels of the respondents play a crucial role in WTP of FES. GLMM analysis indicated that WTP of non-marketed FES differed in terms of cash and labour format. Generally, the WTP is higher in wealthier sub-groups as a cash option. WTP in-terms of labour is a better option for poor HH.<br \/>\n<strong>Conclusion<\/strong> Disaggregated WTP should be considered while designing future forest management interventions.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Keywords<\/strong><br \/>\nValuation; Economic contribution; Flood control; Water quality improvement; Bequest value; Aesthetic value<\/p>\n<div class='altmetric-embed' data-badge-type='donut' data-doi='10.1007\/s13595-021-01046-3'  style='float: right; ' ><\/div>\n<p><strong>Publication<\/strong><br \/>\nAcharya, R.P., Maraseni, T.N. &amp; Cockfield, G. Estimating the willingness to pay for regulating and cultural ecosystem services from forested Siwalik landscapes: perspectives of disaggregated users. Annals of Forest Science 78, 51 (2021). <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s13595-021-01046-3\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s13595-021-01046-3<\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>For the read-only version of the full text:<\/strong><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/rdcu.be\/cmyUR\">https:\/\/rdcu.be\/cmyUR<\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>Data availability<\/strong><br \/>\nThe datasets generated during and\/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Handling Editor<\/strong><br \/>\nRasoul Yousefpour<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Key message We assessed forest users\u2019 willingness to pay (WTP) for regulating and cultural forest services based on their socio-economic status (rich vs. poor), proximity to forests (nearby vs. distant), and forest management modalities (community forestry vs. collaborative forest management). As expected, a huge variation was found in WTP among these sub-groups. The wealthier households [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":109,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4946","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-type","category-research-paper","cat-14-id","cat-15-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4946","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/109"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4946"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4946\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4946"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4946"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ist.blogs.inrae.fr\/afs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4946"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}