Estimating the willingness to pay for regulating and cultural ecosystem services from forested Siwalik landscapes: perspectives of disaggregated users

Abstract

Key messageWe assessed forest users' willingness to pay (WTP) for regulating and cultural forest services based on their socio-economic status (rich vs. poor), proximity to forests (nearby vs. distant), and forest management modalities (community forestry vs. collaborative forest management). As expected, a huge variation was found in WTP among these sub-groups. The wealthier households (HH) preferred 'cash' whereas poor HHs preferred 'labour' as a payment option.• Context Forest's ecosystem services (FES) research have largely concentrated on aggregated economic valuation, while minimal consideration has been paid to distributional issues of willingness to pay (WTP) of many regulating and cultural services such as water quality improvement (WQI), flood control (FC), and bequest and aesthetic values. • AimsWe assessed WTP of high-priority FES to the various sub-groups (nearby/distant, rich/poor and community/collaborative forest users) and explored the preferred payment options among the sub-groups in the Siwalik landscape of Nepal.• Methods We carried out contingent valuation survey of 253 households (ranging from 31 to 33 households from each of the sub-groups). We performed the generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) to analyse the data in RStudio.• Results Spatial distance and wealth levels of the respondents play a crucial role in WTP of FES. GLMM analysis indicated that WTP of non-marketed FES differed in terms of cash and labour format. Generally, the WTP is higher in wealthier subgroups as a cash option. WTP in-terms of labour is a better option for poor HH.• Conclusion Disaggregated WTP should be considered while designing future forest management interventions.

Exploring community preference for urban forest ecotourism in Palangka Raya: The role of ecosystem service awareness for sustainable city

“…For example, forests play an important role in regulating local and global climate, creating a favourable environment for ecotourism activities [21]. In addition, ecotourism often encourages forest conservation efforts, which in turn contribute to carbon capture [22]. However, it is important to remember that ecotourism must also a role in conserving these services, as overexploitation can result in ecosystem degradation that negatively impacts the environment and the ecotourism industry in the long run.…”

Variation of financial benefits from provisioning ecosystem services between nearby and distant users in Partnership Forest Management in Nepal

“…Forest ecosystem services (FES) are the benefits from the use and non-use values obtained from the forest (Lamsal et al 2018) which include their importance in influencing air quality, climate and hydrology, in addition to social benefits such as spiritual, landscape beauty and education (De Groot et al 2002). FES are vital for sustaining the livelihood of rural people in low-income countries as research shows that 75% of the people having low income are dependent on these services (Acharya et al 2021, Bhatta et al 2014.…”

“…2002). FES are vital for sustaining the livelihood of rural people in low-income countries as research shows that 75% of the people having low income are dependent on these services (Acharya et al . 2021, Bhatta et al .…”

Payments for environmental services in Mangrove Forests: A review and recommendations

“…In addition to the mentioned studies, a review of the overall list of studies on WTP for mangrove environmental services includes (i) improving the quality of water services in temperate forests (Obeng and Aguilar 2021), (ii) restoring degraded tropical rainforests (Obeng et al 2019), (iii) enhancing selective ecosystem services from upstream forests (Aguilar et al 2018), and research on factors influencing WTP for environmental services based on the value-belief-norm model (Obeng and Aguilar 2018). The remaining related studies focus on exploring WTP for specific environmental services: mangrove conservation and restoration (Ariyo et al 2018), improving water quality in vulnerable areas (Acharya et al 2021), conserving sustainable forest values (Bamwesig et al 2020), and mitigating the impact of climate change (Tran et al 2017).…”