Smallholder households' willingness to pay for conservation of ecosystem services of Altash National Park of Ethiopia

Wassihun, Agerie Nega; Feleke, Fikeremaryam Birara; Nega, Yitayew Malede

doi:10.1016/j.ijgeop.2021.11.002

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, this study used the SUBP model in order to estimate the MWTOP of the respondents from the double‐bounded elicitation method. The econometric modeling for the formulation of double‐bounded data is given (Haab & Mcconnell, 2002; Wassihun et al, 2021):

WTOPij goodbreak= μi goodbreak+ εij

where WTOPij is the j th respondent's WTOP and i = 1, 2 denotes the primary and second responses; μ 1 , μ 2 = mean value for the primary and second answer; ε ij = unobservable random component.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The possibility of witnessing each possible two‐bid reply arrangement (yes‐yes, yes‐no, no‐yes, no‐no) is presented in order to hypothesize the probability function. The likelihood that the respondent j replies to the primary bid and the second bid is given by (Haab & Mcconnell, 2002; Wassihun et al, 2021)

\Pr ((),, yes, no) goodbreak= pr ((),, {italicWTOP}_{1 j \geq {normalt}^{1}}, {WTOP}_{2 j} < t^{2}) goodbreak= pr ((),, μ_{1} goodbreak+ ε_{1 j} \geq t^{1}, μ_{2} goodbreak+ ϵ_{2 j} < t^{2})

\Pr ((),, yes, yes) goodbreak= pr ((),, {italicWTOP}_{1 j > {normalt}^{1}}, {WTOP}_{2 j} \geq t^{2}) goodbreak= pr ((),, μ_{1} goodbreak+ ε_{1 j} > t^{1}, μ_{2} goodbreak+ ϵ_{2 j} \geq t^{2})

\Pr ((),, no, no) goodbreak= pr ((),, {italicWTOP}_{1 j < {normalt}^{1}}, {WTOP}_{2 j} < t^{2}) goodbreak= pr ((),, μ_{1} goodbreak+ ε_{1 j} < t^{1}, μ_{2} goodbreak+ ϵ_{2 j} < t^{2})

\Pr ((),, no, yes) goodbreak= pr ((),, {italicWTOP}_{1 j < {normalt}^{1}}, {WTOP}_{2 j} \geq t^{2})

…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, this study used the SUBP model in order to estimate the MWTOP of the respondents from the double-bounded elicitation method. The econometric modeling for the formulation of double-bounded data is given (Haab & Mcconnell, 2002;Wassihun et al, 2021):…”

Section: Econometric Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The possibility of witnessing each possible two-bid reply arrangement (yes-yes, yes-no, no-yes, no-no) is presented in order to hypothesize the probability function. The likelihood that the respondent j replies to the primary bid and the second bid is given by (Haab & Mcconnell, 2002;Wassihun et al, 2021) Pr yes, no…”

Section: Econometric Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…y 1j = 1 if the reply to the primary survey query is yes, else 0, y2j = 1 if the reply to the second query is yes, else 0, ρ = correlation coefficient, σ = standard deviation of the error. Once the regression run is complete using the dependent variable (yes/no indication), constant, and independent variable made up of the bid levels, the average WTOP value is calculated based on the normality assumption of WTOP distributions (Haab & Mcconnell, 2002;Wassihun et al, 2021):…”

Section: Econometric Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Rural household's willingness to pay for irrigation water use: An application of contingent valuation method, in the case of North Shewa zone, Ethiopia

Shenkute,

Getahun,

Moges

et al. 2023

World Water Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate household's willingness to pay (WTOP) for irrigation water use (IWU) per timad (0.25 ha) of the irrigable land per year and to analyze determinants of WTOP for IWU at individual households based on the contingent valuation method (CVM). The primary data collected for this study was from 120 households using two‐stage sampling techniques such as simple random sampling and purposive from four peasant associations of the Efratana Gidim and Kewit districts by semistructured questionnaire. The secondary dataset was collected from several sources. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive, inferential, and Tobit econometric models. In addition, a seemingly unrelated bivariate probit (SUBP) model was applied to calculate the average WTOP for IWU per timad/year. The CVM survey indicated that from the total sample collected data, 80% of the households showed WTOP for IWU, while the remaining 20% did not show WTOP. The econometric result of the Tobit model showed that the education level of the household, household family size, Irrigation experience, total annual income, and credit utilization influenced farmers' WTOP positively and significantly, while only initial bid price affected the farmer negatively and significantly. Hence, the above variables should be given high emphasis in designing irrigation water‐related projects in the districts. The SUBP model result revealed that the household's average annual WTOP was 854.74 Ethiopia Birr/0.25 ha/year. The estimated MWTOP for IWU is a huge amount of money. Hence, the concerned body has to collect money from households, which has to be used in the development of irrigation systems in the study area. This study recommends that different stakeholders of government should collaborate in raising revenue from the local community and apply it for the desired community development purposes, particularly for food security enhancement as the districts are highly dependent on rainfed agriculture.

show abstract