Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Location
2.2. Choice Modeling
2.3. The Theory of Choice
2.4. Design of the Survey Questionnaire
2.5. Data Sources and Sampling
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of Respondent Residents
3.2. The Multinomial Logit Model
3.3. Estimation of Marginal WTP Values
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Baum, S.; Weih, M.; Busch, G.; Kroiher, F.; Bolte, A. The impact of Short Rotation Coppice Plantations on Phytodiversity. Landbauforsch. Vti Agric. For. Res. 2009, 3, 163–170. [Google Scholar]
- Bayle, G. Ecological and Social Impacts of Eucalyptus Tree plantation on the Environment. J. Biodivers. Conserv. Bioresour. Manag. 2019, 5, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teketay, D. Deforestation, Wood Land Famine and Environmental Degradation in Ethiopian Highland Ecosystems. Northeast Afr. Stud. 2001, 8, 53–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abebe, M.; Tadesse, W. Eucalyptus in Ethiopia: Risk or Opportunity? Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2006; pp. 12–14.
- Mekonnen, Z.; Kassa, H.; Lemenh, M.; Campbell, B. The Role and Management of Eucalyptus in Lode Hetosa District, Central Ethiopia. For. Trees Livelihoods 2007, 17, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birru, Y.; Anteneh, A.; Tadele, A. Expansion of Eucalyptus Woodlots in the Fertile Soils of the Highlands of Ethiopia: Could It Be a Treat on Future Cropland Use? J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 8, 97–107. [Google Scholar]
- Zalesny, R.S.; Cunningham, M.W.; Hall, R.B.; Mirck, J.; Rockwood, D.L.; Stanturf, J.A.; Volk, T.A. Woody Biomass from Short Rotation Energy Crops. In Sustainable Production of Fuels, Chemicals, and Fibers from Forest Biomass; ACS Symposium Series; Xu, J.Y., Pang, X.J., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 27–63. [Google Scholar]
- Jagger, P.; Pender, J. The role of Trees for Sustainable Management of Less-Favored Lands: The Case of Eucalyptus in Ethiopia. For. Policy Econ. 2003, 5, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lorentz, K.A.; Minogue, P.J. Exotic Eucalyptus Plantations in the Southeastern US: Risk Assessment, Management and Policy Approaches. Biol. Invasions 2015, 17, 1581–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanturf, J.A.; Young, T.M.; Perdue, J.H.; Dougherty, D.; Pigott, M.; Guo, Z.; Huang, X. Productivity and Profitability Potential for Non-Native Eucalyptus Plantings in the Southern USA. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 97, 210–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albaugh, J.M.; Dye, P.J.; King, J.S. Eucalyptus and Water use in South Africa. Int. J. For. Res. 2013, 2013, 852540. [Google Scholar]
- Toledo, F.H.S.F.; Gonçalves, J.L.D.M.; Mariño, Y.A.; Ferraz, A.D.V.; Ferreira, E.V.d.O.; Moreira, G.G.; Hakamada, R.; Arthur Júnior, J.C.D. Aboveground Biomass, Transpiration and Water Use Efficiency in E plantation Fertilized with KCl, NaCl and Phonolite Rock Powder. New For. 2019, 51, 469–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maier, C.A.; Albaugh, T.J.; Cook, R.I.; Hall, K.; McInnis, D.; Johnsen, K.H.; Johnson, J.; Rubilar, R.A.; Vose, J.M. Comparative Water Use in Short-Rotation Eucalyptus Benthamii and Pinustaeda Trees in the Southern United States. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 397, 126–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gonzalez, R.; Treasure, T.; Wright, J.; Saloni, D.; Phillips, R.; Abt, R.; Jameel, H. Exploring the potential of Eucalyptus for energy production in the Southern United States: Financial analysis of Delivered Biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 755–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgiel, S.W.; Muir, A.A. Invasive Species, Climate Change and Ecosystem Based Adaptation: Addressing Multiple Drivers of Global Change; Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP): Washington, DC, USA; Nairobi, Kenya, 2010; pp. 3–54. [Google Scholar]
- Forstmaier, A.; Shekhar, A.; Chen, J. Mapping of Eucalyptus in Natura 2000 Areas Using Sentinel 2 Imagery and Artificial Neural Networks. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mengistu, B.; Amayu, F.; Bekele, W.; Zerihun, D. Effects of Eucalyptus species plantations and crop land on Selected Soil Properties. Geol. Ecol. Landsc. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sasikumar, K.; Vijayalakshmi, C.; Parthiban, K.T. Allelopathic Effects of Eucalyptus on Black Gram (Phaseolus mungo L.). Allelopath. J. 2002, 9, 205–214. [Google Scholar]
- Raghu, S.; Anderson, R.C.; Daehler, C.C.; Davis, A.S.; Wiedenmann, R.N.; Simberloff, D.; Mack, R.N. Ecology. Adding biofuels to the invasive species fire? Science 2006, 313, 1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mooney, H.A. Invasive Alien Species: A New Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 63. [Google Scholar]
- Becerra, P.I. Invasion de Aloctonous Trees in a Basin Pre-andina de Chile Central. Gayana. Botanica 2006, 63, 161–174. [Google Scholar]
- Forsyth, G.G.; Richardson, D.M.; Brown, P.J.; Van Wilgen, B.W. A rapid assessment of the invasive status of Eucalyptus species in two South African provinces: Working for water. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2004, 100, 75–77. [Google Scholar]
- Larcombe, M.J.; Silva, J.S.; Vaillancourt, R.E.; Potts, B.M. Assessing the invasive potential of Eucalyptus globulus in Australia: Quantification of wildling establishment from plantations. Biol. Invasions 2013, 15, 2763–2781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becerra, P.I.; Catford, J.A.; Luce McLeod, M.; Andonian, K.; Aschehoug, E.T.; Montesinos, D.; Callaway, R.M. Inhibitory effects of Eucalyptus globulus on understorey plant growth and species richness are greater in non-native regions. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2018, 27, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eucalyptus in East Africa. The Socio-Economic and Environmental Issues. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/aq401e/aq401e.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2021).
- Lopez, A.J. Predicting Invasive Range of Eucalyptus Globulus in California. Master’s Thesis, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; Cumberland, J.H.; Daly, H.; Goodland, R.; Norgaard, R.B.; Kubiszewski, I.; Franco, C. An Introduction to Ecological Economics, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, H.; Din, J.U.; Bosso, L.; Hameed, S.; Kabir, M. Expanding or Shrinking? Range Shifts in Wild Ungulates under Climate Change in Pamir-Karakoram Mountains, Pakistan. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0260031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Townhill, B.L.; Reppas-Chrysovitsinos, E.; Suhring, R.; Halsall, C.J.; EMengo, E.; Sanders, T.; Dahnke, K.; Crabeck, O.; Kaiser, J.; Birchenough, S.N.R. Pollution in the Arctic Ocean: An Overview of Multiple Pressures and Implications for Ecosystem Services. Ambio 2022, 51, 471–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Bennett, J.W.; Blaney, R.K. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation; Edward Elgar Publishing: Chaltenham, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Hanley, N.; Mourato, S.; Wright, R.E. Choice Modelling Approaches: A superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation? J. Econ. Surv. 2001, 15, 435–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D.; Rose, J.M.; Greene, W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, R.L.; Watzing, M.C.; Manning, R.E. Investigating Stakeholder Preferences for Managing Lake Champlain Using a Choice Experiment. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 615–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kragt, M.E.; Bennett, J. Using Choice Experiments to Value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Cairns, Australia, 11–13 February 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Nam Do, N.T.; Bennett, J. Estimating Wetland Biodiversity Values: A Choice Modelling Application in Vietnam’s Mekong River Delta; Economics and Environmental Network Working Paper No. EEN0704; The Australian National University: Canberra, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Luisetti, T. An Ecosystem Services Approach for Assessing Managed Realignment Coastal Policy in England; CSERGE Working Paper; University of East Anglia: Norwich, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Farming Systems Characterization and Analysis in East Gojjam Zone: Implications for Research and Development (R&D) Interventions. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344848973 (accessed on 29 July 2021).
- Simane, B.; Zaitchik, B.F.; Ozdogan, M. Agroecosystem Analysis of the Choke Mountain Watersheds, Ethiopia. Sustainability 2013, 5, 592–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shoyama, K.; Managi, S.; Yamagata, Y. Public Preferences for Biodiversity Conservation and Climate-Change Mitigation: A choice Experiment Using Ecosystem Services Indicators. Land Use Policy 2013, 34, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Frontiers in Econometrics; Zarembka, P., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974; pp. 105–142. [Google Scholar]
- Alpinzar, F.; Carlsson, F.; Martinsoon, P. Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation; Department of Economics Working Papers in Economics Series, No. 52; Goteborg University: Goteborg, Sweden, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Hanley, N.; Bergmann, A.; Wright, R. Valuing the Attributes of Renewable Energy Investments in Scotland; University of Stirling: Stirling, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Lancaster, K. A new Approach to Consumer Theory. J. Political Econ. 1966, 74, 132–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luce, R.D. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1959. [Google Scholar]
- Bateman, I.J.; Carson, R.T.; Day, B.; Hanemann, M.; Hanley, N.; Hett, T.; Jones-Lee, M.; Loomes, G.; Maurato, S.; Ozdemiroglu, E.; et al. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques. A Manual; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Louvierre, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Greene, W.; Hensher, D. A latent Class Model for Discrete Choice Analysis: Contrasts with Mixed Logit. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2003, 37, 681–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jo, J.-H.; Lee, C.-B.; Cho, H.-J.; Lee, J. Estimation of Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for the Implementation of Payment for Local Forest Ecosystem Services: The Case of Taxes and Donations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, H.; Yun, S.; Lee, H. Willingness to Pay for Public Benefit Functions of Daecheong Dam Operation: Moderating Effects of Climate Change Perceptions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 14060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, N.; Wang, E.; Yu, Y.; Duan, Z. Valuing Recreational Services of the National Forest Parks Using a Tourist Satisfaction Method. Forests 2021, 12, 1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birol, E.; Karousakis, K.; Koundouri, P. Using a Choice Experiment to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in Wetland Attributes: The Case of Cheimaditida Wetland in Greece. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swinton, S.M.; Lupi, F.; Robertson, G.P.; Hamilton, S.K. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandhu, H.S.; Wratten, S.D.; Porter, J.R.; Costanza, R.; Pretty, J.; Reganold, J. Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services into Future Farming. Solutions 2016, 7, 40–47. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, N.; Wang, H.; Zhong, J.; Sun, D. Assessment of Recreational and Cultural Ecosystem Services Value of Islands. Land 2022, 11, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Castro-Pardo, M.; Azevedo, J.C.; Fernández, P. Ecosystem Services, Sustainable Rural Development and Protected Areas. Land 2021, 10, 1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rejmánek, M.; Richardson, D. Eucalypts: In Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions; Simberloff, D., Rejmanek, M., Eds.; University of California Press: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 203–209. [Google Scholar]
- Aguas, A.; Ferreira, A.; Maia, P.; Fernandes, P.M.; Roxo, L.; Keizer, J.; Silva, J.S.; Rego, F.C.; Moreira, F. Natural Establishment of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. in Burnt Stands in Portugal. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 323, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stanturf, J.A.; Vance, E.D.; Fox, T.R.; Kirst, M. Eucalyptus Beyond its Native Range: Environmental Issues in Exotic Bioenergy Plantations. Int. J. For. Res. 2013, 2013, 463030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toledo, F.H.; McIntosh, T.; Knothe, C.; Aubrey, D.P. Eucalyptus are Unlikely to Escape Plantations and Invade Surrounding Forests Managed with Prescribed Fire in Southeastern US. Forests 2020, 11, 694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vance, E.D.; Loehle, C.; Wigley, T.B.; Weatherford, P. Scientific Basis for Sustainable Management of Eucalyptus and Populus as Short-Rotation Woody Crops in the U.S. Forests 2014, 5, 901–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, Y.; Liu, S.; Chen, F. Effects of Continuous Cropping on Understory Species Diversity in Eucalypt plantations. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 16, 1667–1671. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, L.; Wang, X.; Chen, F.; Li, C.; Wu, L. Effects of the Successive Planting of Eucalyptus urophylla on Soil Bacterial and Fungal Community Structure, Diversity, Microbial Biomass and Enzyme Activity. Land Degrad. Dev. 2019, 30, 636–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.; Gou, X.; Yin, D. Response of Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem Services to Climate Change in China: A Review. Ecologies 2021, 2, 313–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, S.; Giordano, A.; Costanza, R.; Kubiszewski, I.; Sutton, P.; Maes, J.; Neale, A. National ecosystem service mapping approaches. In Mapping Ecosystem Services; Pensoft Publishers: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2017; p. 237. [Google Scholar]
- Sutton, P. Space matters: Exploring problematic spatial issues in the valuation of ecosystem services. In Valuing Ecosystem Services: Methodological Issues and Case Studies; Ninan, K.N., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2014; pp. 132–147. [Google Scholar]
- Kubak, M.; Gavurova, B.; Legutka, K. Economic Value Estimation of the Natural Heritage of the Tatra National Park. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juutinen, A.; Mitani, Y.; Mäntymaa, E.; Shoji, Y.; Siikamäki, P.; Svento, R. Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1231–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.; Shin, J.; Hyung, J.; Kim, K.; Koo, J.; Cha, Y. Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Supply Services Based on Asset Management: A Contingent Valuation Study in South Korea. Water 2021, 13, 2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, X.-J.; Randrup, T.B. Willingness to Pay for the Maintenance of Green Infrastructure in Six Chinese Pilot Sponge Cities. Water 2022, 14, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pakalniete, K.; Ahtiainen, H.; Aigars, J.; Andersone, I.; Armoškaite, A.; Hansen, H.S.; Strake, S. Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Service Benefits and Welfare Impacts of Offshore Marine Protected Areas: A Study from the Baltic Sea. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attribute | Description/Assumptions | Levels |
---|---|---|
Intended land use plan (scale of Eucalyptus plantation, %) | Plots devoid of Eucalyptus plantations are rich in biodiversity | 25 |
50 | ||
75 | ||
Fertility of land 1 | Plantations focusing mainly on marginal lands will have reduced impact ecosystem | Not fertile |
Fertile | ||
Highly fertile | ||
Number of other tree species to be grown | The more the number of other tree species, the better will be the ecological wellbeing | 2 |
3 | ||
4 | ||
Payment for change in attribute (USD) | How much are households willing to pay as a compensation for restriction of Eucalyptus plantation | 31.21 |
62.41 | ||
93.62 |
Variable | Description |
---|---|
Attribute variables | |
Intended land use plan (scale of Eucalyptus plantation, %) | Plots devoid of Eucalyptus plantations are rich in biodiversity |
Fertility of land planned for Eucalyptus plantation (%) | Plantations of Eucalyptus on marginal lands will have reduced impact on biodiversity |
Number of other tree species to be grown | The more the number of other tree species, the better will be the ecological wellbeing |
Payment (Birr) | Charge incurred as a compensation for restriction of Eucalyptus expansion per hectare year |
Non-attribute variable | |
Income source | Sources of income from crop, livestock, trading, rentals, etc. |
Age | Age of household head |
Sex | Sex of the household head |
Family Labor | Number of family labor available (continuous) |
Total land size (ha) | Size of total land holdings of households (ha) |
Slope (%) | Slope of cultivable plots (%) |
Number of oxen | Number of oxen owned by a household |
Characteristics | Variable | Value |
---|---|---|
Demography | Average family size | 6 |
Dependency ratio (%) | 64 | |
Age | 48 | |
Gender (%) | ||
Female | 10 | |
Male | 90 | |
Marital status (%) | ||
Married | 80.9 | |
Not Married | 5.2 | |
Divorced | 7.7 | |
Widowed | 6.2 | |
Literacy status (%) | Cannot read and write | 8.93 |
Read and write | 80.51 | |
Religious school | 4.12 | |
Grade 1–6 | 5.15 | |
Grade 7–12 | 1.29 | |
Average land size (ha) | 1.37 | |
Farm resource and income | Average annual income (USD) from | |
Crop | 502.98 | |
Eucalyptus | 881.20 | |
Livestock | 330.07 | |
Non-farm sources | 211.43 |
Attribute Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | Coefficient | Coefficient | |
Land use plan | 0.42199 (0.05109) *** | 0. 42128 (0.05139) *** | 0.41006 (0.05142) *** |
Fertility | 0.23473 (0.05459) *** | 0.23437 (0.05493) *** | 0.22117 (0.06120) ** |
Other trees | 0.48953 (0.05362) *** | 0.49173 (0.05393) *** | 0.50125 (0.05421) *** |
Payment | 0.00031 (0.00003) *** | 0.00031 (0.00003) *** | 0.00033 (0.00004) ** |
Constant | −3.32501 (0.19608) *** | ||
Income | 0.10495 (0.04776) *** | 0.12136 (0.04991) *** | |
Age | 0.01499 (0.00498) *** | 0.01501 (0.00611) | |
Sex | −0.15990 (0.13622) | −0.16030 (0.14501) | |
Family labor | 0.16043 (0.03937) *** | 0.16171 (0.04015) *** | |
Land size (ha) | −0.00366 (0.06307) | −0.00386 (0.08821) | |
Slope (%) | 0.11086 (0.08254) | 0.11104 (0.08715) | |
Number of oxen | −0.11045 (0.05235) | −0.11630 (0.06104) | |
Constant | −4.90173 (0.41072) *** | ||
Income *Land use plan | 0.31090 (0.03281) ** | ||
Income *Fertility | 0.03931 (0.01410) | ||
Income *Other trees | 0.21095 (0.09142) *** | ||
Age *Land use plan | 0.02657 (0.03120) *** | ||
Age *Land fertility | −0.03531 (0.02381) ** | ||
Age *Other trees | 0.31140 (0.00201) | ||
Family labor *Land use | 0.07142 (0.03224) *** | ||
Family labor *Fertility | 0.21705 (0.03496) ** | ||
Family labor *Other trees | 0.362510 (0.04184) | ||
Constant | −6.03272 (0.49035) *** | ||
Log likelihood | −3406.2996 | −3382.7425 | −3391.5241 |
Pseudo R2 | 0.0458 | 0.0528 | 0.0762 |
Change in Attribute | MWTP (USD/Person/Year) |
---|---|
Intended land use plan (scale of Eucalyptus plantation, from 75–25% or less) | 54.83 (26.75%) |
Shift of plantation from fertile to non-fertile plots | 24.35 (11.88%) |
Increasing plantation of other tree species from minimal to more | 125.82 (61.38%) |
Total | 205.00 (100%) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tesfaw, A.; Senbeta, F.; Alemu, D.; Teferi, E. Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9073. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159073
Tesfaw A, Senbeta F, Alemu D, Teferi E. Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(15):9073. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159073
Chicago/Turabian StyleTesfaw, Amare, Feyera Senbeta, Dawit Alemu, and Ermias Teferi. 2022. "Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 15: 9073. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159073