Citation:

Mohd Rusli Y, Mohd Parid M, Mukrimah, A, Nitanan Koshy M, Faizah S. "Public Preferences for a Payment for Ecosystem Services Scheme to Conserve Forest: A Choice Experiment Approach" International Research Journal of Economics and Management Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 598-606, 2023.

Abstract:

The conceptualization of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) is essential for sustainable financing mechanisms for the provision of environmental goods and services. Through the goal of PES programs, sustainable forest management can be achieved by securing forest-derived benefits to support conservation and sustainable livelihoods. Ultimately, PES development is one of the centers of attention of policymakers in Malaysia to fulfill the demands and concerns of a global community by managing the forest with a stronger focus on conservation and environmental protection. A Choice Experiment was conducted among 375 respondents in Terengganu to elicit their preferences for the presented attributes of the proposed PES program. Several attributes are proposed namely, Forest Landscape (FL), Flood Control (FC), Biodiversity of Fauna (BF), Recreational Facilities (RECC), Community Participation (COMM) and donation for annual conservation fees (PRICE). The conditional logit and mixed logit models were used for the analysis of the data, which were gathered between May and September of 2022. The findings revealed that the respondents are willing to pay significantly per year to improve the attributes of ecosystem services in Gunung Tebu Forest Reserve (GTFR), Terengganu, Malaysia. This finding shows that PES is a promising program to support forest conservation efforts. This study also enlightens the direction for policymakers to develop the future PES program to support forest conservation.

References:

[1] Alpizar, Francisco, Carlsson, Fredrik, and Martinsson, Peter. (2003). Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. ECONOMIC ISSUES-STOKE ON TRENT-, 8(1), 83-110.
[2] Barbier, Edward B. (2011). Pricing nature. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ., 3(1), 337-353.
[3] Christie, Mike, Hanley, Nick, Warren, John, Murphy, Kevin, Wright, Robert, and Hyde, Tony. (2006). Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological economics, 58(2), 304-317.
[4] Greene, William H, and Hensher, David A. (2013). Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model. Applied Economics, 45(14), 1897-1902.
[5] Hanley, Nick, Barbier, Edward B, and Barbier, Edward. (2009). Pricing nature: cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy: Edward Elgar Publishing.
[6] Hall, Jane, Viney, Rosalie, Haas, Marion, and Louviere, Jordan. (2004). Using stated preference discrete choice modeling to evaluate health care programs. Journal of Business Research, 57(9), 1026-1032.
[7] Hanley, Nick, Mourato, Susana, and Wright, Robert E. (2001). Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation? Journal of economic surveys, 15(3), 435-462.
[8] Hoyos, David. (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological economics, 69(8), 1595-1603.
[9] Khai, Huynh Viet, and Yabe, Mitsuyasu. (2014). Choice modeling: assessing the non-market environmental values of the biodiversity conservation of swamp forest in Vietnam. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 5(1), 1-8.
[10] Kragt, Marit E. (2013). Stated and inferred attribute attendance models: a comparison with environmental choice experiments. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(3), 719-736.
[11] Hanley, Nick, Mourato, Susana, and Wright, Robert E. (2001). Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin? Journal of economic surveys, 15(3), 435-462.
[12] McFadden, Daniel, and Train, Kenneth. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 447-470.
[13] Mazzotta, Marisa J, and Opaluch, James J. (1995). Decision making when choices are complex: a test of Heiner's hypothesis. Land Economics, 500-515.
[14] Mohd Rusli, Y., Ibrahim, M.S.,., Samdin,S., Ishak, M.Y and Abdullahi A. (2017), Economic Valuation for Improve Conservation of Yankari Game Reserve, Bauchi, Nigeria, International Journal of Scientific And Research Publications 7 (3), 198-205
[15] Nijkamp, Peter, Vindigni, Gabriella, and Nunes, Paulo ALD. (2008). Economic valuation of biodiversity: A comparative study. Ecological economics, 67(2), 217-231.
[16] Rolfe, John, and Bennett, Jeff. (2009). The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 1140-1148.
[17] Rolfe, John, Bennett, Jeff, and Louviere, Jordan. (2000). Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation. Ecological Economics, 35(2), 289-302.
[18] Train, Kenneth E. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation: Cambridge University Press.

Keywords:

Permanent Forest Reserve; Payment for Ecosystem Services; Choice Experiment; Attributes; Forest Policy; Malaysia.