Local Communities’ Willingness to Accept Compensation for Sustainable Ecosystem Management in Wadi Araba, South of Jordan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Area and Sampling
2.2. Survey Instruments
“There are priorities and action plans to improve the ecosystems environmental situation of WA, and assuming that the responsible authorities wish to implement participatory financing plans, what are the priorities and plans that the family can have as an alternative for the controlling the use of ESs and natural resources for a period of 5 years. Choose your preferred plan (see the following plans).”
2.3. Research Methods
2.3.1. Contingent Valuation Method
2.3.2. Data Processing Method
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of Respondents
3.2. Ecosystem Services and Perceptions
3.3. Analysis of Willingness to Accept Compensation: Amount, Time Value, and Economic Value
3.4. Factors Affecting Participant WTA
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Policy Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Leviston, Z.; Walker, I.A.; Green, M.; Price, J. Linkages between ecosystem services and human wellbeing: A Nexus Webs approach. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 93, 658–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment; World Resources Institute/Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin-Young, M.B. Revision of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): A Policy Brief. One Ecosyst. 2018, 3, e27108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boone, R.B.; Conant, R.T.; Sircely, J.; Thornton, P.K.; Herrero, M. Climate change impacts on selected global rangeland ecosystem services. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 1382–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Al-Assaf, A. Applying contingent valuation to measure the economic value of forest services: A case study in Northern Jordan. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2015, 22, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majdalawi, M.I.; Raedig, C.; Alkarablieh, E.; Schlueter, S.; Salman, A.; Tabieh, M. Integration of different environmental valuation methods to estimate forest degradation in arid and semi-arid regions. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2015, 23, 392–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Naggar, Y.; Codling, G.; Giesy, J.P.; Safer, A. Beekeeping and the need for pollination from an agricultural perspective in Egypt. Bee World 2018, 95, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scheiter, S.; Schulte, J.; Pfeiffer, M.; Martens, C.; Erasmus, B.F.N.; Twine, W.C. How does climate change influence the economic value of ecosystem services in savanna rangelands? Ecol. Econ. 2019, 157, 342–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arowolo, A.O.; Deng, X.Z.; Olatunji, O.A.; Obayelu, A.E. Assessing changes in the value of ecosystem services in response to land-use/land-cover dynamics in Nigeria. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Woldeyohannes, A.; Cotter, M.; Biru, W.D.; Kelboro, G. Assessing Changes in Ecosystem Service Values over 1985–2050 in Response to Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics in Abaya-Chamo Basin, Southern Ethiopia. Land 2020, 9, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Al-Bakri, J.T.; Salahat, M.; Suleiman, A.; Suifan, M.; Hamdan, M.R.; Khresat, S.; Kandakji, T. Impact of climate and land use changes on water and food security in Jordan: Implications for transcending “the tragedy of the commons”. Sustainability 2013, 5, 724–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rajsekhar, D.; Gorelick, S.M. Increasing drought in Jordan: Climate change and cascading Syrian land-use impacts on reducing transboundary flow. Sci. Adv. 2017, 8, e1700581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ministry of Environment, UNDP. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. Ministry of Environment; Ministry of Environment, UNDP: Amman, Jordan, 2015.
- Nawash, O.; Al-Assaf, A.; El-Oqlah, A.; Omari, A. Floristic features, distribution, and ethnobotany of plants gathered and used by local people from the Mediterranean forest in Northern Jordan. Ethnobot. Res. Appl. 2014, 2, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shishany, S.; Al-Assaf, A.; Majdalawi, M.; Tabieh, M.; Tadros, M. Factors influencing Local Communities Relational Values to Forest Protected Areas in Jordan. J. Sustain. For. 2020, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamaliah, M.M.; Powell, R.B. Ecotourism resilience to climate change in Dana Biosphere Reserve, Jordan. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 519–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nawash, O.; Horani, A.A. The most important medicinal plants in Wadi Araba desert in South West Jordan: A review article. Adv. Environ. Biol. 2011, 5, 418–426. [Google Scholar]
- Alassaf, A.; Alhunaiti, D.; Dick, J.; Al-Adwan, T. Differences in Perceptions, Attitudes, and Use of Ecosystem Services among Diverse Communities in an Arid Region: A Case Study from the South of Jordan. J. Hum. Ecol. 2014, 45, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orenstein, D.E.; Groner, E. Using the Ecosystem Services Framework in a Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) Platform: Lessons from the Wadi Araba Desert, Israel and Jordan. In Earth Stewardship; Rozzi, R., Chapin, F.S., III, Callicott, J.B., Pickett, S.T.A., Power, M.E., Armesto, J.J., May, R.H., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 2, pp. 281–296. [Google Scholar]
- Hanauer, M.M.; Reid, J. Valuing urban open space using the travel-cost method and the implications of measurement error. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 198, 50–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iftekhar, M.S.; Polyakov, M.; Ansell, D.; Gibson, F.; Kay, G. How economics can further the success of ecological restoration. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tinch, R.; Mathieu, L. Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: Valuation Methods and Their Practical Application; Biodiversity Series; UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Lewis, D.J.; Provencher, B.; Beardmore, B. Using an intervention framework to value salient ecosystem services in a stated preference experiment. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christie, M.; Fazey, I.; Cooper, R.; Hyde, T.; Kenter, J.O. An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 83, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Börger, T.; Böhnke-Henrichs, A.; Hattam, C.; Piwowarczyk, J.; Schasfoort, F.; Austen, M.C. The role of interdisciplinary collaboration for stated preference methods to value marine environmental goods and ecosystem services. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2018, 201, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Estimated Population of the Kingdom by Governorate, Locality Sex and Households; DOS, Department of Statistics, Department of Population and Social Statistics: Amman, Jordan, 2020.
- Governor’s Aqaba Qasabah; (Ministry of Interior Affairs, Aqaba Governorate, Jordan). Personal communication, 2019.
- Feng, D.; Liang, L.; Wu, W.; Wang, L.Y. Factors influencing willingness to accept in the Paddy Land-to-Dry Land program based on contingent value method. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Adamowski, J.F.; Wang, G.; Cao, J.; Zhu, G.; Zhou, J.; Liu, C.; Dong, X. Farmers’ Willingness to Accept Compensation to Maintain the Benefits of Urban Forests. Forests 2019, 10, 691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loomis, J.; Kent, P.; Strange, L.; Fausch, K.; Covich, A. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 33, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awad, I.; Holländer, R. Applying contingent valuation method to measure the total economic value of domestic water services: A case study in Ramallah Governorate, Palestine. Eur. J. Econ. Financ. Adm. Sci. 2010, 20, 76–93. [Google Scholar]
- Milder, J.C.; Scherr, S.J.; Bracer, C. Trends and Future Potential of Payment for Ecosystem Services to Alleviate Rural Poverty in Developing Countries. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gelo, D.; Koch, S.F. Contingent Valuation of Community Forestry Programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for Preference Anomalies in Double-Bounded CVM. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, P.; Wolf, S.A. A targeted approach to payments for ecosystem services. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 17, e00577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, S.; Popp, J.; English, L.; Odetola, T. Willingness to pay for riparian zones in an ozark watershed. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2017, 143, 04017006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Yang, H.; Zhang, X.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.K. Estimation of rural households’ willingness to accept two PES programs and their service valuation in the Miyun reservoir catchment, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chu, X.; Zhan, J.; Wang, C.; Hameeda, S.; Wang, X. Households’ Willingness to Accept Improved Ecosystem Services and Influencing Factors: Application of Contingent Valuation Method in Bashang Plateau, Hebei Province, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 255, 109925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fahad, S.; Jing, W. Evaluation of Pakistani farmers’ willingness to pay for crop insurance using contingent valuation method: The case of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. Land Use Policy 2018, 72, 570–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, K.; Zhang, J.; Zeng, Y.; Zhang, L. Households’ willingness to accept compensation for agricultural waste recycling: Taking biogas production from livestock manure waste in Hubei, P.R. China as an example. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 131, 410–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, J.H.; Cherry, T.L.; Kallbekken, S.; Torvanger, A. Willingness to accept local wind energy development: Does the compensation mechanism matter? Energy Policy 2016, 99, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyongesa, J.M.; Bett, H.K.; Lagat, J.K.; Ayuya, O.I. Estimating farmers’ stated willingness to accept pay for ecosystem services: Case of Lake Naivasha watershed Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme-Kenya. Ecol. Process. 2016, 5, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kang, M.J.; Siry, J.P.; Colson, G.; Ferreira, S. Do forest property characteristics reveal landowners’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services contracts in southeast Georgia, US? Ecol. Econ. 2019, 161, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, X.; Hua, L.X.; Cheng, S.; Qing, W.; Hua, L. Estimation of ecological compensation standards for fallow heavy metal-polluted farmland in China based on farmer willingness to accept. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiong, K.; Kong, F. The Analysis of Farmers’ Willingness to Accept and Its Influencing Factors for Ecological Compensation of Poyang Lake Wetland. Procedia Eng. 2017, 174, 835–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, Y.; Liu, Y.; Hu, Y.N.; Chen, X.; Peng, J. Identification of non-economic influencing factors affecting farmer’s participation in the paddy land to dry land program in chicheng county, China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haile, K.K.; Tirivayi, N.; Tesfaye, W. Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 39, 100964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolunay, A.; Bassullu, C. Willingness to pay for carbon sequestration and co-benefits of forests in Turkey. Sustainability 2015, 7, 3311–3337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harrison, M. Valuing the Future: The Social Discount Rate in Cost-Benefit Analysis; Productivity Comission: Melbourne, Australian, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, Z.M.; Cheng, G.D.; Zhang, Z.Q.; Su, Z.Y.; Loomis, J. Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 44, 345–358. [Google Scholar]
- Li, P.; Agusdinata, D.B.; Suditha, P.H. Ecosystem services and trade-offs: Implications for land dynamics and sustainable livelihoods in Northern Lombok, Indonesia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unks, R.R.; King, E.G.; Nelson, D.R.; Wachira, N.P.; German, L.A. Constraints, multiple stressors, and stratified adaptation: Pastoralist livelihood vulnerability in a semi-arid wildlife conservation context in Central Kenya. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 54, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danne, M.; Musshoff, O. Analysis of farmers’ willingness to participate in pasture grazing programs: Results from a discrete choice experiment with German dairy farmers. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 7569–7580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abu Zanat, M.M.; Mekdadi, H.A.; Tabbaa, M.J. Production systems of small ruminants in middle badia of Jordan. Dirasat 2005, 32, 205–213. [Google Scholar]
- Fankhauser, S.; Tol, R.S.J. The social costs of climate change: The IPCC second assessment report and beyond. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 1997, 1, 385–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jamaliah, M.; Powell, R. Integrated vulnerability assessment of ecotourism to climate change in Dana Biosphere Reserve, Jordan. Curr. Issues Tour. 2017, 22, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, X.; Yang, Z.; Tang, K.; Yang, H. Difference between the WTP and WTA in cultural service value evaluation of agriculture ecosystems: Shanghai pond aquaculture case study. Chin. J. Ecoagric. 2012, 20, 1546–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aloufi, A.; Ehab, E. Zootherapy: A study from the Northwestern region of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2016, 15, 14. [Google Scholar]
- Motta, R.S.D.; Ortiz, R.A. Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 147, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shogren, J.F. Behavioural Economics and Environmental Incentives. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k8zwbhqs1xn-en (accessed on 20 February 2021).
- Rey-Valette, H.; Mathé, S.; Salles, J.M. An assessment method of ecosystem services based on stakeholders’ perceptions: The Rapid Ecosystem Services Participatory Appraisal (RESPA). Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guarini, M.R.; Morano, P.; Sica, F. Eco-system Services and Integrated Urban Planning. A Multi-criteria Assessment Framework for Ecosystem Urban Forestry Projects. In Values and Functions for Future Cities; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 201–216. [Google Scholar]
Suggested Plans | Imposed Constrains | Priority 1 JOD | Priority 2 JOD | Priority 3 JOD |
---|---|---|---|---|
Plan 1: No reaction. | No constains | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Plan 2: Establish a plan to control hunting for different types of birds and animals in some areas. | Control hunting of specific types of birds and for specific periods of time in the year. | 80 | 60 | 40 |
Plan 3: Improvement and protection of water sources (ponds, waterfalls, and springs) and the implementation of water harvesting techniques. | Limitation on the use of water sources for touristic purposes, besides preserving and maintain any water harvesting techniques established in their areas. | 300 | 200 | 150 |
Plan 4: Rehabilitation of grazing areas, natural vegetation, rangeland management, and firewood collection. | Control the open grazing in specific areas and periods around the year. Preserving and maintain any conservation interventions for rangeland. | 600 | 450 | 300 |
Plan 5: Enhancing eco-tourism services and activities. | Effective participation in the initiatives for establishing eco-tourism projects aligned with the restoration and ecosystem management plans. | 900 | 675 | 450 |
Priority 1 | Priority 2 | Priority 3 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Value JOD | Percentage | Value JOD * | Percentage | Value JOD * | Percentage | |
P1 | 0 | 11.1 | 0 | 8.8 | 0 | 9.1 |
P2 | 80 | 13.9 | 60 | 6.8 | 40 | 16.2 |
P3 | 300 | 31.1 | 200 | 29.4 | 150 | 17.2 |
P4 | 600 | 21.3 | 450 | 38.5 | 300 | 19.3 |
P5 | 900 | 22.6 | 675 | 15.9 | 450 | 38.2 |
Priority 1 | Priority 2 | Priority 3 | |
---|---|---|---|
Weighted average of estimated annual Value per HH (JOD) * | 435.74 | 338.77 | 261.89 |
Sample size | 296 | 296 | 296 |
Households | 820 | 820 | 820 |
Annual aggregate value for the study areas | 357,306.8 | 277,791.4 | 214,749.8 |
Discount rate (%) | 15 | 15 | 15 |
Time scale (year) | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Cumulative discount rate | 3.35 | 3.35 | 3.35 |
Present aggregate value of ES and benefits by the local community | 1,196,977.8 | 930,601.2 | 719,411.8 |
Variable | Variable Description |
---|---|
Monthly income (JOD) * | 1 = less than 200, 2 = 201–300, 3 = 301–400, 4 = 401−500, 5 = more than 501. |
Age | Years |
Ecotourism is contributes to investment promotion | (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = I do not agree, 3 = agree, 4 = Strongly Agree) |
Working as a tourist guide for climbing | Yes = 1, No = 0) |
Gender of the household head | (Male = 1, Female = 0) |
Grazing places are near | (Yes = 1, No = 0) |
The Biking is available | (Yes = 1, No = 0) |
Quantity of collectd willed plants | (annually)/Kg |
Do you collect firewood | (Yes = 1, No = 0) |
Camping is available | (Yes = 1, No = 0) |
Bird watching is available | (Yes = 1, No = 0) |
Hunting is available | (Yes = 1, No = 0) |
Depend on biking as a source of income | (Yes = 1, No = 0) |
Importance level of sand | 1 = not important, 10 = very important |
Importance level of photography | 1 = not important, 10 = very important |
Eco-tourism contributes to the definition of the region | Yes = 1, No = 0 |
The eco-tourism affected the general situation of the region | (Yes = 1, No = 0) |
Tourists come to Wadi Araba | (Yes = 1, No = 0) |
Variables | Priority 1 (n# = 296) | Priority 2 (n# = 296) | Priority 3 (n #= 296) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficients | SE | T | Coefficients | SE | T | Coefficients | SE | T | |
(Constant) | 952.60 *** | 256.142 | 3.71 | 1218.25 | 223.10 | 5.46 | 283.5 *** | 85.2 | 3.3 |
Gender of household head | −479.32 *** | 136.132 | −3.52 | - | - | - | −55.3 * | 30.0 | −1.8 |
Income | 139.94 ** | 67.058 | 2.08 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Age | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2.4** | 1.2 | 2.1 |
Collected wild plants | 664.54 *** | 201.262 | 3.30 | −1294.3 *** | 325.13 | −3.98 | - | - | - |
Grazing places are near | - | - | - | −215.59 ** | 96.92 | −2.22 | - | - | - |
Do you collect firewood | - | - | - | −487.94 *** | 153.93 | −3.17 | - | - | - |
Tourists come to Wadi Araba | - | - | - | - | - | - | −50.6 | 38.8 | −1.3 |
The Biking is available | - | - | - | 582.45 ** | 212.34 | 2.74 | - | - | - |
Bird watching is available | - | - | - | 487.94 * | 235.10 | 2.07 | - | - | - |
Hunting is available | - | - | - | −440.59 ** | 202.41 | −2.17 | - | - | - |
Camping is available | - | - | - | −262.94 | 153.93 | −1.70 | - | - | - |
Importance level of photography | - | - | - | - | - | - | −14.9 *** | 4.82 | −3.0 |
Depend on biking as a source of income | - | - | - | - | - | - | 71.1 *** | 26.9 | 2.6 |
Ecotourism is contributing to investment promotion | −349.54 *** | 105.305 | −3.32 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Eco-tourism contributes to the definition of the region | - | - | - | - | - | - | 15.7 | 22.0 | 0.7 |
The eco-tourism affected the general situation of the region | - | - | - | - | - | - | 54.9 *** | 20.7 | 2.6 |
R2 | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.29 | ||||||
F value (Sig.) | 12.751 (0.001) | 4.47 (0.01) | 7.621 (0.00) |
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
Al-Assaf, A.; Albalawneh, A.; Majdalawi, M.; Nowar, L.A.; Kabariti, R.; Hjazin, A.; Aljaafreh, S.; Hammour, W.A.; Diab, M.; Haddad, N. Local Communities’ Willingness to Accept Compensation for Sustainable Ecosystem Management in Wadi Araba, South of Jordan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5190. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095190
Al-Assaf A, Albalawneh A, Majdalawi M, Nowar LA, Kabariti R, Hjazin A, Aljaafreh S, Hammour WA, Diab M, Haddad N. Local Communities’ Willingness to Accept Compensation for Sustainable Ecosystem Management in Wadi Araba, South of Jordan. Sustainability. 2021; 13(9):5190. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095190
Chicago/Turabian StyleAl-Assaf, Amani, Abeer Albalawneh, Mohammad Majdalawi, Lana Abu Nowar, Rabab Kabariti, Amgad Hjazin, Safaa Aljaafreh, Wafa’a Abu Hammour, Mai Diab, and Nizar Haddad. 2021. "Local Communities’ Willingness to Accept Compensation for Sustainable Ecosystem Management in Wadi Araba, South of Jordan" Sustainability 13, no. 9: 5190. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095190