Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-45ctf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T08:27:23.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valuing biodiversity protection: Payment for Environmental Services schemes in Lao PDR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2019

Gabriela Scheufele  and
Jeff Bennett
Gabriela Scheufele*
Affiliation:
Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra ACT, Australia
Jeff Bennett
Affiliation:
Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra ACT, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: gabriela.scheufele@anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The design of a Payment for Environmental Services (PES) scheme that involves setting a ‘pseudo market price’ per unit of environmental service requires the estimation of demand and supply. This paper presents the results of discrete choice experiments aimed at estimating the demand for environmental and social services generated by a wildlife protection PES scheme in two protected areas in Lao PDR. The discrete choice experiments targeted international tourists sampled at Vientiane airport and the urban Lao population sampled in Vientiane City as potential buyers of the environmental and social services provided by the PES scheme. The survey was customised to a developing country context to address diversity in respondents' literacy levels, language limitations of the interviewers, socio-cultural conventions, and limited trust in confidentiality and anonymity of the survey process. The marginal benefits of the environmental services so estimated were used to inform the development of a PES scheme.

Keywords

anti-poaching patrolsbiodiversity protectiondiscrete choice experimentsLao PDRnon-market valuationpayments for environmental services (PES) schemes

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , August 2019 , pp. 376 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bennett, J and Birol, E (2010) Choice Experiments in Developing Countries. Implementation, Challenges and Policy Implications. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Blamey, RK, Bennett, J and Morrison, MD (1999) Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics 75, 126–141.Google Scholar
Bliemer, MCJ and Rose, JM (2005) Efficiency and sample size requirements for Stated Choice Studies. Report ITLS-WP-05–08, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Sydney.Google Scholar
Carson, R, Hanemann, M and Steinberg, D (1990) A discrete choice contingent valuation estimate of the value of Kenai King Salmon. Journal of Behavioral Economics 19, 53–68.Google Scholar
Chaikaew, P, Hodges, AW and Grunwald, S (2017) Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: a choice experiment approach. Ecosystem Services 23, 228–237.Google Scholar
Dias, V and Belcher, K (2015) Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: a choice experiment approach. Ecosystem Services 15, 35–44.Google Scholar
Doherty, E, Murphy, G, Hynes, S and Buckley, C (2014) Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: results from a discrete choice experiment. Ecosystem Services 7, 89–97.Google Scholar
Ferrini, S and Scarpa, R (2007) Designs with a-priori information for non-market valuation with choice experiments: a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53, 342–363.Google Scholar
Government of Lao PDR (2016) Results of the Population and Housing Census 2015. Government of Lao PDR, Vientiane, Lao PDR.Google Scholar
Hanley, N and Barbier, E (2009) Pricing Nature: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Hay, E, Kragt, M, Renten, M and Vongkhamheng, C (2017) Modelling the effects of anti-poaching patrols on Wildlife Diversity in the Phou Chomvoy Provincial Protected Area. Research Report 11, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
IUCN (2016) Red-List of Threatened Species. Available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/.Google Scholar
Krinsky, I and Robb, AL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics 68, 715–719.Google Scholar
Lancaster, K (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74, 132–157.Google Scholar
Lew, DK and Wallmo, K (2017) Temporal stability of stated preferences for endangered species protection from choice experiments. Ecological Economics 131, 87–97.Google Scholar
Louviere, J and Hensher, D (1982) On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transportation Research Records 890, 11–17.Google Scholar
Louviere, J and Woodworth, G (1983) Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice experiments or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research 20, 350–367.Google Scholar
McFadden, D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Zarembka, P (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. vol. 1, New York: Academic Press, pp. 105–142.Google Scholar
McFadden, D (1980) Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. Journal of Business 53, 13–29.Google Scholar
Mejía, CV and Brandt, S (2015) Managing tourism in the Galapagos Islands through price incentives: a choice experiment approach. Ecological Economics 117, 1–11.Google Scholar
Rai, RK, Shyamsundar, P, Nepal, M and Bhatta, LD (2015) Differences in demand for watershed services: understanding preferences through a choice experiment in the Koshi Basin of Nepal. Ecological Economics 119, 274–283.Google Scholar
Renton, M, Scheufele, G, Kragt, M and Vongkhamheng, C (2017) Modelling the effects of anti-poaching patrols on Green Peafowl populations in the Phou Khao Kouay National Protected Area. Research Report 12, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Revelt, D and Train, K (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics 80, 647–657.Google Scholar
Sándor, Z and Wedel, M (2001) Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. Journal of Marketing Research 38, 430–444.Google Scholar
Scheufele, G (2016) Payments for environmental services. In Bennett, J (ed.), Protecting the Environment, Privately. London: World Scientific Press, pp. 183–202.Google Scholar
Scheufele, G and Bennett, J (2017) Can payment for ecosystem services schemes mimic markets? Ecosystem Services 23, 30–37.Google Scholar
Scheufele, G and Bennett, J (2018) Costing biodiversity protection: payments for environmental services schemes in Lao PDR. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 7, 386–402.Google Scholar
Scheufele, G, Bennett, J and Kyophilavong, P (2018) Pricing biodiversity protection: payments for environmental services schemes in Lao PDR. Land Use Policy 75, 284–291.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 34, 273–280.Google Scholar
Tourism Development Department (2016) 2015 Statistical Tourism in Laos. Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism, Government of Lao PDR, Vientiane.Google Scholar
Train, K (1998) Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 74, 230–239.Google Scholar
Tran, HT and Navrud, S (2009) Applying the dissonance-minimizing formats to value cultural heritage in developing countries. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 53, 327–343.Google Scholar
Villalobos, P and Huenchuleo, C (2010) Ecosystem service valuation of Ruil (Nosthofagus Alessandrii) forests in Central Chile: an application of the choice experiment method. In Bennett, J and Birol, E (eds). Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Implementation, Challenges and Policy Implications. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 151–170.Google Scholar
Wang, X, Bennett, J, Xie, C and Zhang, Z (2010) Estimating the non-market environmental benefits of land use change in China. In Bennett, J and Birol, E (eds). Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Implementation, Challenges and Policy Implications. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 89–106.Google Scholar