[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ulaedd/91171.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Environmental Services Buyers Prefer Differentiated Rates? A Case Study from the Colombian Andes

Author

Listed:
  • Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio del Pilar
  • Maldonado, Jorge Higinio
  • Wunder, Sven
  • Borda, Carlos Andres
Abstract
Flat user fees in payment for environmental services (PES) schemes promote administrative ease, and are sometimes perceived as egalitarian. However, when environmental service (ES) buyers are heterogeneous in their income and water consumption levels, this may not be optimal, as total payments become too low and services are under-supplied. This paper identifies ES buyer preferences and estimates their willingness to pay (WTP) differentiated fees in an ongoing PES initiative in an Andean watershed in Colombia. Small, flat user payments have recently been introduced to implement incipient watershed protection upstream. Environmental service users fall into two highly heterogeneous categories: smallholder peasants and owners of recreational houses. We performed a contingent valuation analysis in a representative stratified sample of 218 user households. For improved water services, ES buyers on average were willing to pay a monthly US$1 premium over current flat PES rates. Owners of recreational houses were willing to pay about US$1.50 more; smallholders only US$0.5. 85% of ES buyers also agree to pay differentiated fees. Of these, 41% would prefer fees differentiated by water consumption, 23% by household income, 30% criteria combination, and 6% by other criteria. Spatial variables, such as distance to the water distribution point and to the town center, importantly influenced WTP. The results may help designing users-driven PES schemes in accordance with efficiency and equity objectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio del Pilar & Maldonado, Jorge Higinio & Wunder, Sven & Borda, Carlos Andres, 2009. "Do Environmental Services Buyers Prefer Differentiated Rates? A Case Study from the Colombian Andes," Documentos CEDE Series 91171, Universidad de Los Andes, Economics Department.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ulaedd:91171
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.91171
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/91171/files/CEDE%202009-23%20web.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.91171?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grieg-Gran, Maryanne & Porras, Ina & Wunder, Sven, 2005. "How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1511-1527, September.
    2. Wünscher, Tobias & Engel, Stefanie & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 822-833, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    3. Ina, Porras & Bruce, Alyward & Jeff, Dengel, 2013. "Monitoring payments for watershed services schemes in developing countries," MPRA Paper 47185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. George A Dyer & Robin Matthews & Patrick Meyfroidt, 2012. "Is There an Ideal REDD+ Program? An Analysis of Policy Trade-Offs at the Local Level," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-12, December.
    5. Campanhão, Ligia Maria Barrios & Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2019. "Guideline framework for effective targeting of payments for watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 93-109.
    6. Iván Pérez-Rubio & Daniel Flores & Christian Vargas & Francisco Jiménez & Iker Etxano, 2021. "To What Extent Are Cattle Ranching Landholders Willing to Restore Ecosystem Services? Constructing a Micro-Scale PES Scheme in Southern Costa Rica," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    7. Wendland, Kelly J. & Honzák, Miroslav & Portela, Rosimeiry & Vitale, Benjamin & Rubinoff, Samuel & Randrianarisoa, Jeannicq, 2010. "Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2093-2107, September.
    8. Hu, Yuan & Kuhn, Lena & Zeng, Weizhong & Glauben, Thomas, 2023. "Who benefits from payments for ecosystem services? Policy lessons from a forest carbon sink program in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    9. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa & Benjamin, Emmanuel & Lang, Hannes, 2019. "Determinants of the environmental conservation and poverty alleviation objectives of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 52-66.
    10. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    11. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    12. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    13. Araujo, Claudio & Bonjean, Catherine Araujo & Combes, Jean-Louis & Combes Motel, Pascale & Reis, Eustaquio J., 2009. "Property rights and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2461-2468, June.
    14. Melindi-Ghidi, Paolo & Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Fabbri, Giorgio, 2020. "Using environmental knowledge brokers to promote deep green agri-environment measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    15. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    16. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    17. Caiado, Nathália & Guarnieri, Patricia & Xavier, Lúcia Helena & de Lorena Diniz Chaves, Gisele, 2017. "A characterization of the Brazilian market of reverse logistic credits (RLC) and an analogy with the existing carbon credit market," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 47-59.
    18. Mayer, Alex & Jones, Kelly & Hunt, David & Manson, Robert & Carter Berry, Z. & Asbjornsen, Heidi & Wright, Timothy Max & Salcone, Jacob & Lopez Ramirez, Sergio & Ávila-Foucat, Sophie & Von Thaden Ugal, 2022. "Assessing ecosystem service outcomes from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: Future deforestation threats and spatial targeting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    19. Yergeau, Marie-Eve & Boccanfuso, Dorothée & Goyette, Jonathan, 2017. "Reprint of: Linking conservation and welfare: A theoretical model with application to Nepal," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 229-243.
    20. Tianran Ding & Wouter Achten, 2023. "Coupling agent-based modeling with territorial LCA to support agricultural land-use planning," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/359527, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development; Demand and Price Analysis; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ulaedd:91171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feandco.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.