Valuating intangible benefits from afforested areas: A case study in India

Authors

  • Avinash Jain Tropical Forest Research Institute
  • Girish Chandra Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education
  • Raman Nautiyal Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7201/earn.2017.01.04

Keywords:

Contingent valuation, India, Intangible benefits, Logit model, WTP

Abstract

Environmental compensation measures usually accompany energy projects. Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) for five intangible benefits derived from afforested areas of a compensatory afforestation programme of National Thermal Power Corporation Dadri are estimated. Conventional Contingent Valuation shows the average WTP € 2.1 per respondent per month with more than 43 % of total WTP for ‘soil conservation and remediation’ and ‘improvement in underground water level’. Logit model method depicts the same order of magnitude but differs significantly at 5 % level for all the benefits. More informed decisions upon energy projects and afforestation programs shall help in conserving forests and their ecosystem services.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Avinash Jain, Tropical Forest Research Institute

Division of Forest Ecology & Rehabilitation

Girish Chandra, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education

Division of Forestry Statistics

Raman Nautiyal, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education

Division of Forestry Statistics

References

Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Fu, T.T., Krupnick, A., Liu, J.T., Shaw, D. & Harrington, W. (1997). “Valuing health effects of air pollution in developing countries: The case of Taiwan”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 34(2), 107-126. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1997.1007.

Amiri, N., Emadian, S.F., Fallah, A., Adeli, K. & Amirnejad, H. (2015). “Estimation of conservation value of myrtle (Myrtus communis) using a contingent valuation method: A case study in a Dooreh forest area, Lorestan Province, Iran”. Forest Ecosystems, 2(30), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-015-0051-6.

Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R. & Schuman, H. (1993). “Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation”. Federal Register, 58(10), 4601-4614.

Bateman, I., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C. & Sugden, R. (1997). “Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation”. Economic Journal, 107(441), 322-332.

Bishop, J.T. (1999). Valuing forests: A review of methods and applications in developing countries. London, United Kingdom: IIED.

Breffle, W.S., Morey, E.R. & Lodder, T.S. (1998). “Using contingent valuation to estimate a neighbourhood’s willingness to pay to preserve undeveloped urban land”. Urban Studies, 35, 715-727.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hanna, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. (1997). “The value of the world’s ecosystems services and natural capital”. Nature, 387(May 15), 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00020-2.

Hanemann, W.M. (1984). “Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 332-341.

Hanemann, W.M. (1989). “Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response Data: Reply”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71(4), 1057-1061.

Hoehn, J. & Randall, A. (1989). “Too many proposals pass the benefit cost test”. American Economic Review, 79(3), 544-551.

Majumdar, S., Deng, J, Zhang, Y. & Pierskalla, C. (2011). “Using contingent valuation to estimate the willingness of tourists to pay for urban forests: A study in Savannah, Georgia”. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 10(4), 275-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.006.

Mantau, U., Merlo, M., Sekot, W. & Welcker, B. (2001). Recreational and environmental markets for forest enterprises. Wallingford, United Kingdom: CABI Publishing.

Mitchell, R.C. & Carson, R.T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Baltimore MD, United States: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Morales, D. (1980). “The contribution of trees to residential property values”. Journal of Arboriculture, 6(11), 305-308.

Ninan, K.N. & Inoue, M. (2013). “Valuing forest ecosystem services: Case study of a forest reserve in Japan”. Ecosystem Services, 5, 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.006.

Norris, P.E. & Batie, S.S. (1987). “Virginia farmers’ soil conservation decisions: An application of Tobit analysis”. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 19, 79-90.

Saastamoinen, O. (1997). “A framework for assessing the total value of forests in Finland”. In Saastamoinen, O. & Tikka, S. (ED.) Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, 95-405. Mekrijärvi, Finland: Scandinavian Forest Economics.

Tao, Z., Yan, H. & Zhan, J. (2012). “Economic valuation of forest ecosystem services in Heshui watershed using contingent valuation method”. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 13, 2445-2450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.233.

Tessema, W. & Holden, S. (2006). “Soil Degradation, Poverty, and Farmers Willingness to Invest in Soil Conservation: A case from a Highland in Southern Ethiopia”. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Ethiopian Economy, 2, 147-164. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ethiopian Economic Association.

White, P.C.L. & Lovett, J.C. (1999). “Public preferences and willingness to pay for nature conservation in the North York Moors National Park UK”. Journal of Environmental Management, 55(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1998.0250.

Whittington, D., Briscoe, J., Mu, X. & Barron, W. (1990). “Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: A case study of the use of contingent valuation surveys in southern Haiti”. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 38(2), 293-311.

Downloads

Published

2017-06-21

Issue

Section

Article