Estimation of Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for the Implementation of Payment for Local Forest Ecosystem Services: The Case of Taxes and Donations
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
2.1. Payment for ES of Local Forest
2.2. Predicting Factors of Participants’ WTP for Local Forest PES
3. Methods
3.1. Research Participants
3.2. Research Site
3.3. Experimental Design
3.4. Econometric Process
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Estimation of Mean Willingness to Pay (MWTP)
4.2. Predicting Factors Influencing Citizens’ WTP for Yeoninsan ESs
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- De Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M. A Typology for the Classification, Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, P. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations; UNEP/Earthprint: Nairobi, Kenya, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Díaz, S.; Demissew, S.; Carabias, J.; Joly, C.; Lonsdale, M.; Ash, N.; Larigauderie, A.; Adhikari, J.R.; Arico, S.; Báldi, A. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting Nature and People. Current opinion in environmental sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orenstein, D.E.; Groner, E. In the Eye of the Stakeholder: Changes in Perceptions of Ecosystem Services Across an International Border. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kull, C.A.; de Sartre, X.A.; Castro-Larrañaga, M. The Political Ecology of Ecosystem Services. Geoforum 2015, 61, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salzman, J.; Bennett, G.; Carroll, N.; Goldstein, A.; Jenkins, M. The Global Status and Trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S.; Rowcroft, P.; Cade, S.; Scott, A.; Black, J.; Brace, A.; Evely, A.; Savege, S.; White, C. Visitor Giving Payment for Ecosystem Service Pilot; Birmingham City University: Birmingham, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- DEFRA. Defra’s Payments for Ecosystem Services Pilot Projects 2012–2015; Review of Key Findings; Departmentfor Environment, Food & Rural Affairs: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Rodricks, S. Biodiversity Banking and Offset Scheme of NSW, Australia. 2010. Available online: http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Biodiversity-Banking-and-Offset-scheme-New-South-Wales-Australia.pdf. (accessed on 31 May 2021).
- Dupont, V. Biodiversity Offsets in NSW Australia: The Biobanking Scheme Versus Negotiated Offsets in Urban Areas. J. Environ. Law 2017, 29, 75–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.; Yang, W.; Zhang, J.; Connor, T.; Liu, J. Revealing Pathways from Payments for Ecosystem Services to Socioeconomic Outcomes. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaao6652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Act on the Conservation and Use of Biological Diversity; Korean Law Information Center: Sejong, Korea, 2021.
- 2020 Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 50; Korea Forest Service: Daejeon, Korea, 2019.
- Salzman, J.; Ruhl, J.B. Currencies and the Commodification of Environmental Law. Stanf. Law Rev. 2000, 53, 607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ha, H.M.; Noordwijk, M.Y.; Thuy, P.T. Payment for Environmental Services in Vietnam: Experiences and Lessons in Vietnam; World Agroforestry Center: Nairobi, Kenya; VNA Publishing House: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Fletcher, R.; Breitling, J. Market Mechanism or Subsidy in Disguise? Governing Payment for Environmental Services in Costa Rica. Geoforum 2012, 43, 402–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milne, S.; Adams, B. Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of Community-Level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia. Dev. Chang. 2012, 43, 133–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pindilli, E.J.; Casey, F. Biodiversity and Habitat Markets—Policy, Economic, and Ecological Implications of Market-Based Conservation. Circular 2015, 60, 1–72. [Google Scholar]
- Suyanto, S. Conditional Land Tenure: A Pathway to Healthy Landscapes and Enhance Livlihoods; RUPES Sumerjaya Brief: Sumerjaya, Indonesia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Willetts, E. Watershed Payments for Ecosystem Services and Climate Change Adaptation Case Study on Rugezi Wetlands, Rwanda; Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University: Durham, NC, USA, 2008; p. 93. [Google Scholar]
- Namirembe, S.; Mwangi, J.K.; Gathenya, J.M. Institutional Considerations in Payments for Watershed Ecosystem Services in East Africa. In Co-Investment in Ecosystem Services: Global Lessons from Payment and Incentive Schemes; Namirembe, S., Leimona, B., van Noordwijk, M., Minang, P., Eds.; World Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi, Kenya, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kaiser, J.; Haase, D.; Krueger, T. Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Review of Definitions, the Role of Spatial Scales, and Critique. Ecol. Soc. 2021, 26, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wendland, K.J.; Honzák, M.; Portela, R.; Vitale, B.; Rubinoff, S.; Randrianarisoa, J. Targeting and Implementing Payments for Ecosystem Services: Opportunities for Bundling Biodiversity Conservation with Carbon and Water Services in Madagascar. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2093–2107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jo, J.; Yang, J.Y.; Roh, T. Willingness to Pay for Eco-Labeled Food in Forests: Integrated View from South Korea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bhandari, A.K.; Heshmati, A. Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2010, 27, 612–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolunay, A.; Başsüllü, Ç. Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey. Sustainability 2015, 7, 3311–3337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elliot, T.; Almenar, J.B.; Rugani, B. Modelling the Relationships Between Urban Land Cover Change and Local Climate Regulation to Estimate Urban Heat Island Effect. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 50, 126650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tussupova, K.; Berndtsson, R.; Bramryd, T.; Beisenova, R. Investigating Willingness to Pay to Improve Water Supply Services: Application of Contingent Valuation Method. Water 2015, 7, 3024–3039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Briner, S.; Huber, R.; Bebi, P.; Elkin, C.; Schmatz, D.R.; Grêt-Regamey, A. Trade-Offs between Ecosystem Services in a Mountain Region. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cademus, R.; Escobedo, F.J.; McLaughlin, D.; Abd-Elrahman, A. Analyzing Trade-Offs, Synergies, and Drivers among Timber Production, Carbon Sequestration, and Water Yield in Pinus Elliotii Forests in Southeastern USA. Forests 2014, 5, 1409–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Galicia, L.; Zarco-Arista, A.E. Multiple Ecosystem Services, Possible Trade-Offs and Synergies in a Temperate Forest Ecosystem in Mexico: A Review. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2014, 10, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S.; Allen, K.; Dougill, A.J.; Evans, K.L.; Kenter, J.O.; Hoy, J.; McNab, D.; Stead, S.M.; Twyman, C.; Scott, A.S.; et al. A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 43, 92–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raudsepp-Hearne, C.; Peterson, G.; Bennett, E.M. Ecosystem Service Bundles for Analyzing Tradeoffs in Diverse Landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5242–5247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jacobs, S.; Dendoncker, N.; Keune, H. Ecosystem Services: Global Issues, Local Practices; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Turkelboom, F.; Thoonen, M.; Jacobs, S.; Berry, P. Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs and Synergies. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 21, 43. [Google Scholar]
- Kong, L.; Zheng, H.; Xiao, Y.; Ouyang, Z.; Li, C.; Zhang, J.; Huang, B. Mapping Ecosystem Service Bundles to Detect Distinct Types of Multifunctionality within the Diverse Landscape of the Yangtze River Basin, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dittrich, A.; Seppelt, R.; Václavík, T.; Cord, A.F. Spatial Patterns of Ecosystem Service Bundles in Germany. In Atlas of Ecosystem Services; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 279–283. [Google Scholar]
- Ota, T.; Kusin, K.; Kilonzi, F.M.; Usup, A.; Moji, K.; Kobayashi, S. Sustainable Financing for Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) to Conserve Peat Swamp Forest Through Enterprises Based on Swiftlets’ Nests: An Awareness Survey in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Small-Scale For. 2020, 19, 521–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adhikari, B.; Agrawal, A. Understanding the Social and Ecological Outcomes of PES Projects: A Review and an Analysis. Conserv. Soc. 2013, 11, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markova-Nenova, N.; Wätzold, F. PES for the Poor? Preferences of Potential Buyers of Forest Ecosystem Services for Including Distributive Goals in the Design of Payments for Conserving the Dry Spiny Forest in Madagascar. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 80, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lurie, S.; Bennett, D.E.; Duncan, S.; Gosnell, H.; Hunter, M.L.; Morzillo, A.T.; Moseley, C.; Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Parker, R.; White, E.M. PES Marketplace Development at the Local Scale: The Eugene Water and Electric Board as a Local Watershed Services Marketplace Driver. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 6, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mascarenhas, A.; Ramos, T.; Haase, D.; Santos, R. Participatory Selection of Ecosystem Services for Spatial Planning: Insights from the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 18, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boeraeve, F.; Dufrene, M.; De Vreese, R.; Jacobs, S.; Pipart, N.; Turkelboom, F.; Verheyden, W.; Dendoncker, N. Participatory Identification and Selection of Ecosystem Services: Building on Field Experiences. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliot, T.; Bertrand, A.; Almenar, J.B.; Petucco, C.; Proença, V.; Rugani, B. Spatial Optimisation of Urban Ecosystem Services through Integrated Participatory and Multi-Objective Integer Linear Programming. Ecol. Model. 2019, 409, 108774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carson, R.T.; Flores, N.E.; Meade, N.F. Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 19, 173–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neumayer, E. The Environment, Left-Wing Political Orientation and Ecological Economics. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 51, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vaske, J.J.; Kobrin, K.C. Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. J. Environ. Educ. 2001, 32, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patterson, M.E.; Williams, D.R. Maintaining Research Traditions on Place: Diversity of Thought and Scientific Progress. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 361–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagothu, U.; Reis, N.; Sydness, G.S.; Barton, D. Feasibility of Payments for Watershed Services. Part I: A Methodological Review and Survey of Experiences in India and Asia; Norsk Institutt for Vannforskning: Oslo, Norway, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Fowler Jr, F.J. Survey Research Methods; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Dillman, D.A.; Christenson, J.A.; Carpenter, E.H.; Brooks, R.M. Increasing Mail Questionnaire Response: A Four State Comparison. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1974, 39, 744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of the Interior and Safety. The Population and Housing Census in 2020. 2020. Available online: https://jumin.mois.go.kr/ (accessed on 20 July 2020).
- Jo, J.-H.; Choi, M.; Lee, C.-B.; Lee, K.-H.; Kim, O. Comparing Strengths and Weaknesses of Three Approaches in Estimating Social Demands for Local Forest Ecosystem Services in South Korea. Forests 2021, 12, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jo, J.-H.; Choi, M.-K.; Kim, O.S.; Lee, K.-H.; Lee, C.-B. Mapping the Supply of Local Forest Ecosystem Services: Based on Delphi and Land Use Scoring Method. J. Assoc. Korean Geogr. 2020, 9, 295–312. [Google Scholar]
- Aikoh, T.; Shoji, Y.; Tsuge, T.; Shibasaki, S.; Yamamoto, K. Application of the Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Model to the Estimation of Crowding Acceptability in Natural Recreation Areas. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2018, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cameron, T.A.; Quiggin, J. Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a “Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up” Questionnaire. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1994, 27, 218–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanemann, M.; Loomis, J.; Kanninen, B. Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1991, 73, 1255–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haab, T.C.; McConnell, K.E. Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1997, 32, 251–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kriström, B. Spike Models in Contingent Valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1997, 79, 1013–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Florio, M.; Giffoni, F. A Contingent Valuation Experiment about Future Particle Accelerators at CERN. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0229885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Menges, R.; Traub, S. An Experimental Study on the Gap Between Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Donate for Green Electricity. Finanzarchiv Public Financ. Anal. 2009, 65, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Youn, Y.-C. Use of Forest Resources, Traditional Forest-Related Knowledge and Livelihood of Forest Dependent Communities: Cases in South Korea. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 257, 2027–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrison, A.; Aubrey, W. Payments for Ecosystem Services Literature Review. In A Review of Lessons Learned and a Framework for Assessing PES Feasibility; World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF): Gland, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Blackburn, W.R. The Sustainability Handbook: The Complete Management Guide to Achieving Social, Economic, and Environmental Responsibility; Environmental Law Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Kytle, B.; Ruggie, J.G. Corporate Social Responsibility as Risk Management: A Model for Multinationals; John, F., Ed.; Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Waage, S. New Business Decision-Making Aids in an Era of Complexity, Scrutiny, and Uncertainty: Tools for Identifying, Assessing, and Valuing Ecosystem Services. In Handbook on the Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 546–566. [Google Scholar]
- Ferraro, P.J.; Pressey, R.L. Measuring the Difference Made by Conservation Initiatives: Protected Areas and Their Environmental and Social Impacts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 370, 20140270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jayachandran, S.; De Laat, J.; Lambin, E.F.; Stanton, C.Y.; Audy, R.; Thomas, N.E. Cash for Carbon: A Randomized Trial of Payments for Ecosystem Services to Reduce Deforestation. Science 2017, 357, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Status | Case Number (People) | Proportion (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mail delivery failures | 346 | 3.7 | |||
Mails successfully sent | Received mail left unchecked | 5443 | 58.7 | ||
Received mail checked | Logged-out (Recipient) | 606 | 6.5 | ||
Logged-in (Recipient) | Not targeted subject | 965 | 10.4 | ||
Incomplete response | 586 | 6.3 | |||
Untrustworthy data | 328 | 3.5 | |||
Completed response | 1000 | 10.8 | |||
Total | 9274 | 100.0 |
Category | Sample Size (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Variables | Variable Code | ||
Age | 20s | 2 | 19.7 |
30s | 3 | 20.3 | |
40s | 4 | 24.1 | |
50s and above | 5 | 35.9 | |
Sex | Male | 1 | 49..3 |
Female | 0 | 50.7 | |
Marriage | Married | 1 | 62.6 |
Single | 0 | 37.4 | |
Number of children | None | 0 | 39.1 |
One | 1 | 25.2 | |
Two | 2 | 31.3 | |
Three or more | 3 | 4.3 | |
Education | No degree/Elementary school graduate | 1 | 0 |
Middle school graduate | 2 | 0.3 | |
High school graduate | 3 | 20.8 | |
University graduate | 4 | 60.4 | |
Graduate school graduate | 5 | 10.5 | |
Monthly household income | Below 99 (10 thousand KRW) | 1 | 3.4 |
100~199 (10 thousand KRW) | 2 | 7.7 | |
200~299 (10 thousand KRW) | 3 | 17.0 | |
300~399 (10 thousand KRW) | 4 | 18.9 | |
400~499 (10 thousand KRW) | 5 | 18.7 | |
500~599 (10 thousand KRW) | 6 | 11.4 | |
600~699 (10 thousand KRW) | 7 | 9.9 | |
Over 700 (10 thousand KRW) | 8 | 13.0 | |
Social activity participation (i.e., Environmental citizen’s organization, religious organization, political party/organization, volunteer organization) | Yes | 1 | 16.1 |
No | 0 | 83.9 | |
Political orientation | Progressive | <9 | 34.2 |
Moderate | 9 | 45.3 | |
Conservative | >9 | 20.5 | |
Personal relationship with the site | Yes | 1 | 12.5 |
No | 0 | 87.5 | |
Geological distance from the site | Near | 1 | 70.9 |
Far | 0 | 29.1 |
Category | Response Type | N | Category | Response Type | N | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tax | YY | 274 | Donation | YY | 200 | ||
YN | 180 | YN | 134 | ||||
NY | 99 | NY | 43 | ||||
NN | NNY | 100 | NN | NNY | 11 | ||
NNN | 347 | NNN | 612 | ||||
SUM | 1000 | SUM | 1000 |
Category | Spike MWTP (Unit: KRW) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SE | Wald | N | ||
Tax | Respondent with zero included | 14,315.30 *** | 704.77 | 36.34 *** | 1000 |
Respondent with zero not included | 20,126.13 *** | 827.328 | 21.36 ** | 653 | |
Donation | Respondent with zero included | 12,257.80 *** | 927.2256 | 37.82 *** | 1000 |
Respondent with zero not included | 26,518.07 *** | 1357.617 | 11.36 | 388 |
Resource Type | WTP_1 | WTP_2 | Differentiation | SE | T Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tax vs. Denotation | Tax | Donation | 2057.5 *** | 36.83 | 55.86 |
Variables | Tax | Donation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coef | SE | Coef | SE | |||
BID OFFER | 6.82 × 10−5 *** | 3.19 × 10−6 | 4.05 × 10−5 *** | 2.73 × 10−6 | ||
Constant | 0.5532 | 0.299 | −0.5029 | 0.3267 | ||
Socio-demographics | Sex | −0.0496 | 0.1161 | −0.1847 | 0.1288 | |
Age | 0.021 | 0.0591 | 0.0922 | 0.0661 | ||
Married | −0.1297 | 0.1628 | −0.3905 * | 0.1816 | ||
Income | 0.0089 ** | 0.0034 | 0.0091 * | 0.0038 | ||
Distance from the site | 0.0384 | 0.1272 | 0.0174 | 0.1409 | ||
Predictors | Social activity participation | 0.3723 * | 0.1604 | 0.6435 *** | 0.1666 | |
Political orientation | Moderate | −0.56147 *** | 0.133949 | −0.3133 * | 0.1456 | |
Conservative | −0.41656 * | 0.162017 | −0.2739 | 0.178 | ||
Personal relationship with the site | 0.16303 | 0.177105 | 0.3341 | 0.1878 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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
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. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116186
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(11):6186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116186
Chicago/Turabian StyleJo, Jang-Hwan, Chang-Bae Lee, Hye-Jung Cho, and Jukwan Lee. 2021. "Estimation of Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for the Implementation of Payment for Local Forest Ecosystem Services: The Case of Taxes and Donations" Sustainability 13, no. 11: 6186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116186