2016
DOI: 10.1177/1070496516655838
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Payment for Ecosystem Services in the Bolivian Sub-Andean Humid Forest

Abstract: The adoption of good practices for the economic valuation of environmental services (ES) has strong implications in the evaluation and design of a Payment for Environmental Services program. People’s willingness to pay for an ES is useful to evaluate whether money collected from users will be enough to cover both the providers’ opportunity costs and other costs generated by the institutional arrangements required for implementation. In this article, we use a numerical certainty scale to adjust answers to a val… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
(89 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, REDD+ programs and payments for ecosystem services have increasingly been explored as management options in mountains across Latin America (e.g. [101,103,104]), Asia (e.g. [105,106]) and Africa (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, REDD+ programs and payments for ecosystem services have increasingly been explored as management options in mountains across Latin America (e.g. [101,103,104]), Asia (e.g. [105,106]) and Africa (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the hypothetical nature of the survey conducted here, the respondents might have overstated their WTP for conservation. Indeed, a study conducted in Bolivia on the WTP for ecosystem services finds that correcting the hypothetical bias reduces the average WTP by approximately 70% [32]. If we were to conduct a very simple exercise and apply this percentage here, the WTP for the annual passport would be reduced from USD 35 to USD10.5.…”
Section: Willingness To Pay For Environmental Conservationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ordinal WTP responses were therefore recoded to '1' when respondents chose either "definitely willing to pay this amount" or "very likely pay this amount" and '0' when choice was "unsure, "probably not pay this amount" or "definitely not pay this amount" in conformity with referendum literature (Loomis &Ekstrand, 1997;Polasky, Gainutdinova & Kerkvliet, 1996). WTP elicitation questions were preceded by a cheap talk script to remind respondents about the financial implications of their answers (Blumeschein, Blomquist, Johannesson, Horn & Freeman, 2008;Ninan, 2014;Vásquez-Lavín, Ibarnegaray, Ponce Oliva, & Hernández Hernández, 2016). Figure 2.…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%