[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/107430.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Influence of payment modes on farmers’ contribution to climate change adaptation: understanding differences using a choice experiment in Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Khanal, Uttam
  • Wilson, Clevo
  • Lee, Boon
  • Managi, Shunsuke
Abstract
Adaptation has become a key priority in dealing with the climate change issues. However, successful implementation of climate change adaptation entails substantial financial investment. This study examines differences in Nepalese farming households’ willingness to contribute to the implementation of adaptation programs across monetary and non-monetary modes of payments. To this end, we undertake discrete choice experiments with monetary payment and labor contribution as the payment vehicles. We find that farmers are interested in participating in and financially supporting the implementation of climate change adaptation initiatives that increase the availability of climate adaptive crop varieties, improve soil quality, expand irrigation and build farmers’ capacity in terms of climate adaptive farming. Factors influencing farmers’ participation in adaptation programs include age, income, access to extension services, size of land holdings, number of farm parcels, climate change perception and climate change experience. Furthermore, the findings reveal significant heterogeneity in the farmers’ preferences across three agro-ecological regions in Nepal. Our findings also strengthen the methodological validity of the results of the choice experiment, which indicated that farmers are willing to pay significantly more when asked to make a payment in terms of a labor contribution compared to a monetary payment for the implementation of adaptation programs. Overall, the findings of this study justify the relevance of implementing agricultural adaptation programs in rural areas of Nepal.

Suggested Citation

  • Khanal, Uttam & Wilson, Clevo & Lee, Boon & Managi, Shunsuke, 2017. "Influence of payment modes on farmers’ contribution to climate change adaptation: understanding differences using a choice experiment in Nepal," MPRA Paper 107430, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:107430
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/107430/1/MPRA_paper_107430.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Seo, S. Niggol & Mendelsohn, Robert, 2008. "An analysis of crop choice: Adapting to climate change in South American farms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 109-116, August.
    2. Salvatore Di Falco & Marcella Veronesi & Mahmud Yesuf, 2011. "Does Adaptation to Climate Change Provide Food Security? A Micro-Perspective from Ethiopia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(3), pages 825-842.
    3. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    4. Asquith, Nigel M. & Vargas, Maria Teresa & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 675-684, May.
    5. Urvashi Narain & Sergio Margulis & Timothy Essam, 2011. "Estimating costs of adaptation to climate change," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 1001-1019, May.
    6. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    7. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick & Barberan, Ramon & Lazaro, Angelina, 2007. "Choice modeling at the "market stall": Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 743-751, February.
    8. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, September.
    9. J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
    10. Rajesh Kumar Rai & Mani Nepal & Priya Shyamsundar & Laxmi Dutt Bhatta, "undated". "Demand for Watershed Services: Understanding Local Preferences through a Choice Experiment in the Koshi Basin of Nepal," Working papers 89, The South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics.
    11. Clay, Edward J., 1986. "Rural public works and food-for-work: A survey," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 14(10-11), pages 1237-1252.
    12. Ruben, Ruerd & Pender, John, 2004. "Rural diversity and heterogeneity in less-favoured areas: the quest for policy targeting," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 303-320, August.
    13. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Robinson, Jackie & Kaneko, Shinji & Komatsu, Satoru, 2013. "Estimating the value of economic benefits associated with adaptation to climate change in a developing country: A case study of improvements in tropical cyclone warning services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 117-128.
    14. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Javier Calatrava‐Requena, 2005. "Designing Policy for Reducing the Off‐farm Effects of Soil Erosion Using Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 81-95, March.
    15. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    16. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    17. Joel B. Smith & Thea Dickinson & Joseph D.B. Donahue & Ian Burton & Erik Haites & Richard J.T. Klein & Anand Patwardhan, 2011. "Development and climate change adaptation funding: coordination and integration," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 987-1000, May.
    18. Jikun Huang & Yangjie Wang & Jinxia Wang, 2015. "Farmers' Adaptation to Extreme Weather Events through Farm Management and Its Impacts on the Mean and Risk of Rice Yield in China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(2), pages 602-617.
    19. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    20. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    21. Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), 2010. "Choice Experiments in Developing Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13208.
    22. Shyamsundar, Priya & Kramer, Randall A., 1996. "Tropical Forest Protection: An Empirical Analysis of the Costs Borne by Local People," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 129-144, September.
    23. Bhattarai, Basundhara & Beilin, Ruth & Ford, Rebecca, 2015. "Gender, Agrobiodiversity, and Climate Change: A Study of Adaptation Practices in the Nepal Himalayas," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 122-132.
    24. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Shyamsundar, Priya & Nepal, Mani & Bhatta, Laxmi Dutt, 2015. "Differences in demand for watershed services: Understanding preferences through a choice experiment in the Koshi Basin of Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 274-283.
    25. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2013. "Economic value of mitigation of plant invaders in a subsistence economy: incorporating labour as a mode of payment," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 225-244, April.
    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. Ekin Birol & Sukanya Das, 2010. "The Value of Improved Public Services : An Application of the Choice Experiment Method to Estimate the Value of Improved Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure in India," Development Economics Working Papers 23062, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Uttam Khanal & Clevo Wilson & Shunsuke Managi & Boon Lee & Viet-Ngu Hoang & Robert Gifford, 2018. "Psychological influence on survey incentives: valuing climate change adaptation benefits in agriculture," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(2), pages 305-324, April.
    4. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    5. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    6. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Kniivilä, Matleena & Pitiot, Maja & Horne, Paula, 2019. "Location of forest plantations in Mozambique: Gains and losses in water, firewood and land availability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    7. Meginnis, Keila & Hanley, Nick & Mujumbusi, Lazaaro & Lamberton, Poppy H.L., 2020. "Non-monetary numeraires: Varying the payment vehicle in a choice experiment for health interventions in Uganda," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    8. Nthambi, Mary & Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2021. "Quantifying Loss of Benefits from Poor Governance of Climate Change Adaptation Projects: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Farmers in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    9. Rajesh K. Rai & Mani Nepal & Laxmi D. Bhatta & Saudamini Das & Madan S. Khadayat & E. Somanathan & Kedar Baral, 2019. "Ensuring Water Availability to Water Users through Incentive Payment for Ecosystem Services Scheme: A Case Study in a Small Hilly Town of Nepal," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(04), pages 1-26, October.
    10. Vondolia, Godwin K. & Navrud, Ståle, 2019. "Are non-monetary payment modes more uncertain for stated preference elicitation in developing countries?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 73-87.
    11. Francisco Guijarro & Prodromos Tsinaslanidis, 2020. "Analysis of Academic Literature on Environmental Valuation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-14, March.
    12. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    13. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Shyamsundar, Priya & Nepal, Mani & Bhatta, Laxmi Dutt, 2015. "Differences in demand for watershed services: Understanding preferences through a choice experiment in the Koshi Basin of Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 274-283.
    14. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    15. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    16. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    17. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    18. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    19. Joan Mogas & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2009. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 535-551, August.
    20. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    agriculture; climate change adaptation; choice experiment; random parameter logit; willingness to pay;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • N5 - Economic History - - Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Extractive Industries
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    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:pra:mprapa:107430. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.