High Public Good Values for Ecosystem Service Attributes of on-farm Quinoa Diversity Conservation in Peru
-
Published:2024-01-22
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:0300-7839
-
Container-title:Human Ecology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Hum Ecol
Author:
Drucker Adam G.,Pradel Willy,Scott Craig,Elmes Sarah,Arpazi Valero Kleny G.,Zander Kerstin K.
Abstract
AbstractAgrobiodiversity is associated with a range of important but poorly quantified public good ecosystem services, the conservation of which requires public support. With a view to determining the general public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for such conservation, we organised interviews with 491 adult Peruvian residents in three regions a stated preference choice experiment (CE) to elicit the value they place on crop genetic resources conservation, using quinoa cultivation as a case study. Responses revealed strong support for the conservation of quinoa diversity particularly when conservation was framed in terms of conserving national cultural identity or food security. Respondents were willing to make a one-off donation of US$31.79 to an in situ on-farm quinoa crop diversity conservation programme, placing the highest values on programme attributes related to securing bequest/existence and option values, followed closely by stable landscape conservation. WTP was higher when the public was reminded that conservation also contributed to national cultural identify or food security. A conservative aggregation of the WTP estimates to the population of the three regions results in an estimated total WTP for quinoa conservation of US$24.18 m and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.22. Findings demonstrate the significant and frequently ignored social welfare benefits associated with non-market agrobiodiversity-related public good ecosystem services, in this case equivalent to just over a quarter of market production values. Such information can be used to design and prioritise quinoa genetic diversity conservation programmes with an emphasis on such attributes.
Funder
Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT Charles Darwin University
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Environmental Science (miscellaneous),Anthropology,Ecology
Reference78 articles.
1. Aslam, U., Termansen, M., & Fleskens, L. (2017). Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems. Ecosystem Services, 27, 103–112. 2. Banerji, A., Birol, E., Karandikar, B., & Rampal, J. (2016). Information, branding, certification, and consumer willingness to pay for high-iron pearl millet: Evidence from experimental auctions in Maharashtra, India. Food Policy, 62, 133–141. 3. Bateman, I. J., Day, B. H., Georgiou, S., & Lake, I. (2006). The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics, 60, 450–460. 4. Bellon, M. R., Kotu, B. H., Azzarri, C., & Caracciolo, F. (2020). To diversify or not to diversify, that is the question. Pursuing agricultural development for smallholder farmers in marginal areas of Ghana. World Development, 125, 104682. 5. Bergstrom, J., Stoll, J., & Randall, A. (1990). The impact of information on environmental commodity valuation decisions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72, 614–621.
|
|