Investigating the Factors Effecting the Economic Value of Hyrcanian Forests Ecosystem Services (Case Study: The Value of Flooding Control)

مجله اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی

Article 1, Volume 37, Issue 1 - Serial Number 58, April 2023, Pages 1-16   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jead.2023.73761.1102

Authors

H. Amirnejad^{* 1}; S. Hosseini²

¹Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran

²Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Flood is a phenomenon that occurs almost in most regions of the world and causes significant damage to human life and ecosystem. Forests are one of the necessary things to prevent damages caused by floods, but the conditions are not enough. Therefore, it is important to use an economic tool to manage and protect the Hyrcanian forest ecosystem in order to reduce flood damage in the coming years. Currently, there are various tools in this field that must be carefully chosen and it is not possible to use one tool in all ecosystems of the world. Payment for forest ecosystem services (PES) is one of the economic tools of forest management and protection by providing direct incentives to stakeholders to improve its ecosystem functions and services. Therefore, in comparison with other market instruments of environmental protection such as environmental taxes which may cause a reduction in the production of various economic sectors and as a result reduce the income of producers and finally lose their motivation. The Payment for Forest Ecosystem Services (PES) program not only does not reduce income, but also increases income for the beneficiaries of forest ecosystem services and thus creates incentives. Payment for ecosystem services is a two-way transaction and is completely voluntary. In this transaction, there must be at least one buyer and one ecosystem service provider provided that the ecosystem service provider continues to offer that service. The logic of PES schemes is that the beneficiaries (people who benefit from ecosystem services) are asked to protect the providers of ecosystem services (such as public or private organizations) who work to protect, restore and natural ecosystem management is to pay for better management and protection of these ecosystems. This payment may take place at the local, national and global level. Studies show that among the various factors influencing the occurrence of floods, excessive exploitation of forests and changes in the use of forest lands are the main causes of floods. But few studies have been conducted on the role of PES plans to protect natural ecosystems to prevent natural hazards such as floods. Therefore, considering the importance and extraordinary value of natural forests in the region in reducing flood damage, the purpose of this study is to investigate the preferences of residents affected by recent floods in Mazandaran province in the form of payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme and to identify the factors affecting the acceptance of PES scheme to reduce flood damage by conservation the Hyrcanian forests ecosystem using the choice modeling approach (Choice Experiment (CE) and the multinomial econometric model. The Choice Experiment is one of the methods of valuing stated preferences, which is very suitable for analyzing the importance of different features of a product or a policy.
Materials and Methods
To achieve this goal, the Choice Experiment method and multinomial logit econometric model were used. The features studied in this method include forest management, watershed management, land use management (preventing forest land use change), payment method, contract duration and payment amount (price). Also, the statistical population of the study includes the affected-floods residents in three parts of the center, east and west of Mazandaran province. Research data were obtained by field survey, random sampling and 110 choice experiment questionnaires in summer 2020. Socio-economic variables in the study include age, gender, job, education, PES awareness, expenses and income of the affected-floods residents.
Results and Conclusion
Based on the study results, the willingness to pay of households affected by floods for conserving the Hyrcanian forest ecosystem to reduce flooding through land use management is as follows: for changing the status quo, it is 36,140 Rial per month; for improvement status, it is 68,910 Rial per month. Additionally, for contract duration and payment method, the willingness to pay is 150,150 Rial per month. The study findings also indicate that affected-floods residents prefer to make cash payments in the long-term to conserve the forest ecosystem and mitigate flooding. Furthermore, when examining the impact of various socio-economic variables on the residents' willingness to pay, it was found that age, gender, education, expenses, income, and awareness of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) have a direct positive effect on their willingness to pay. Considering these results, it is recommended that forest conservation programs in the Northern provinces place importance on the mentioned factors to encourage people's participation in forest conservation projects. This will facilitate the implementation of the PES scheme and enhance the success of forest conservation efforts.

Keywords

Choice experiment; Flooding; Multinomial logit; North forest; Payment for ecosystem services

References

1. Amirnejad, H., & Hosseini, S. (2020). Investigating the willingness to pay of rural communities for the protection of forest ecosystem services to prevent floods (Case study: Flood Damaged villages of Mazandaran province). The 12^th National Conference on Agricultural Economics.19pp. (In Persian)
2. (2017). Website of mazandaran crisis management office. https://www.ostan-mz.ir/bohran.
3. (2020). Website of general department of watershed management and natural resources of mazandaran province.
4. Arcidiacono, , Bayer, P., Blevins, J.R., & Ellickson, P.E. (2012). Estimation of dynamic discrete hoice models in continuous time, Working Paper, http://www. Nber. Org/papers/w18449. National Bureau of Economic Research, Massachusetts, Cambridge.
5. Atai, S. (2018). Designing a payment plan for ecosystem services (PES) in the agricultural sector of Qazvin plain. Ph.D Thesis in agricultural economics natural resources economics and environment. Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University. 139. (In Persian)
6. Bamwesigye, D., Hlavackova, P., Sujova, A., Fialova, J., & Kupec, P. (2020). Willingness to pay for forest existence value and sustainability. Sustainability 12(3): 891.  
7. Bao, T.Q. (2011). Effect of mangrove forest structures on wave attenuation in coastal Vietnam. Oceanology 53(3): 807–818. https://doi.org/10.5697/oc.53-3.807.
8. Benjamin, S., Thompson, D., & Friess, A. (2019). Stakeholder preferences for payments for ecosystem services (PES) versus other environmental management approaches for mangrove forests. Journal of Environmental Management 233: 636–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.032.
9. Bhattacharjee, K., & Behera, B. (2017). Forest cover change and flood hazards in India. Land Use Policy 67: 436–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.06.013.
10. Costedoat, S., Koetse, M., Corbera, , & Ezzine-de-Blas, D. (2016). Cash only? Unveiling preferences for a PES contract through a choice experiment in Chiapas, Mexico. Land Use Policy 58: 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.023.
11. Eduardo, , Carlos, R., Kahn, P., Layra, F., & Vásquez, W. (2016). An economic valuation of mangrove restoration in Brazil. Ecological Economics 120: 296-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.019.
12. Fiorini, A., Mullally, C., Swisher, M., & Putz, F. (2020). Forest cover effects of payments for ecosystem services: Evidence from an impact evaluation in Brazil. Ecological Economics 169: 106522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106522.
13. Gracia, C.A., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Oakley, J.A., & Williams, A. (2017). Use of ecosystems in coastal erosion management. Ocean & Coastal Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.07.009.
14. Grilli, G., Fratinia, R., Maronea, E., & Sacchellia, S. (2020). A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection. Forest Policy and Economics 111: 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102039.
15. Haghjou, , Hayati, B., Pishbahar, E., & Molaei, M. (2019). An application of choice experiment approach on total economic valuation of Arasbaran forests. Journal Forest Research & Devleopment 5(3): 449-467. (In Persian with English abstract)
16. Hajizadeh, H., Fallah, , & Hosseini, S. (2021). Evaluating native communities' preferences for conservation of forest ecosystem (Case Study: Shiyadeh and Diva Forests), Journal of Agricultural Economics & Development 36: 20. (In Persian with English abstract)
17. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., & Wright, R. (2001). Choice modeling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15(3): 435-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00145.
18. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., & Greene, W.H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610356.
19. Jaung, , Bull, G., Sumail, U., & Putzel, L. (2018). Estimating water user demand for certification of forest watershed, Services. Journal of Environmental Management 212: 469-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.042.
20. Johnson, R.M., & Orm, B.K. (1996). How many questions should you ask in choice-based conjoint studies? In Art Forum, Beaver Creek 1-23.
21. 1996. A new approach to consumer theory, Journal of Political Economy. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1828835.
22. Lawrencea, C., Pindilli, E., & Hogan, D.(2019). Valuation of the flood attenuation ecosystem service in Difficult Run, VA, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 231: 1056–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.023.
23. Liu, W., Zhan, J., Zhao, F., Yan, H., Zhang, F., & Wei, X. (2019). Impacts of urbanization-induced land-use changes on ecosystem services: A case study of the Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Region, China. Indicator 98: 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.10.054.
24. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D., Swait, J., & Adamowicz, W. (2000). Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831.
25. Maitra, B., Ghosh, S., Das, S.S., & Boltze, M. (2013). Effect of model specification on valuation of travel attributes: a case study of rural feeder service to bus stop. Journal of Transport Literature 7(2): 8-28. https://doi.org/1590/S2238-10312013000200002.
26. Markova-Nenova, N., & Watzold, F.(2017). PES for the poor? Preferences of potential buyers of forest ecosystem services for including distributive goals in the design of payments for conserving the dry spiny forest in Madagascar. Policy Econmics 80: 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.02.005.
27. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics, Zarembka, P., (ed.) New York: Academic press. 105-142.
28. Momeni, B., Farhadi, F., & Asgari, A. (2019). Analysis of Mazandaran province based on 42-hour rainfall statistics and field observations. Third National Conference on Coastal Water Resources Management. 15 p. (In Persian(
29. Noden, , Coria, J., Jonsson, A., Lagergern, F., & Lehsten, V. (2017). Divergence in stakeholder’s preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forst landscaps pereferences in Swedan. Ecological Economics 132: 179-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.032.
30. Randrianarison, , Ramiaramanana, J., & Watzold, F. (2017). When to pay? adjusting the timing of payments in PES design to the needs of poor land-users. Ecological Economics 138: 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.040.
31. Rezende, C.E., Kahn, J.R., Passareli, L., & Vasquez, W.F. (2015). An economic valuation of mangrove restoration in Brazil. Ecological Economic 120: 296-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.019.
32. Roth, D., & Winnubst, M. (2014). Moving out or living on a mound? Jointly planning a Dutch flood adaptation project. Land Use Policy 41: 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.001.
33. Ruggieroa, , Metzgera, J., Tambosia, L., & Nicholsa, E. (2019). Payment for ecosystem services programs in the Brazilian Atlantic forest: Effective but not enough. Land Use Policy 82: 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.054.
34. Sharzei, Gh., & Majed, V. (2015). Using choice experiment to value Zarinehroud’s environmental functions improvement. Enviromental Sciences 13(2): 133-144. (In Persian)
35. Temmerman, S., Meire, P., Bouma, T.J., Herman, P.M., Ysebaert, T., De & Vriend, H.J. (2013). Ecosystem-based coastal defense in the face of global change. Nature 504: 79–83.
36. Thang, N., Nguyen, H., & Hsu, W. (2020). Estimate the Impact of Payments for Environmental Services on Local Livelihoods and Environment: An Application of Propensity Scores. SAGE Open 11(3): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211040774.
37. Thompson, B., and Friess, D. (2019). Stakeholder preferences for payments for ecosystem services (PES) versus other environmental management approaches for mangrove forests.  Journal of Environmental Management 233: 636–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.032.
38. Vega, D.C., & Alpizar, F. (2011).The Case of the toro 3 hydroelectric project and the Recreo Verde tourist center in Costa Rica. Environment for Development: Discussion Paper.
39. Wunder, S. (2007). The Efficiency of payments for environmental services in Tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 21(1): 48–58. https://doi.org/1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00559.x.
40. Ziaei Javid, A. (2017). The role of the forest in controlling the natural of flood. The first national conference on the protection and preservation of Arasbaran forests. East Azerbaijan Agricultural Research and Training Center and Natural Resources. 7 p. (In Persian)