Determinants of Preferences of the Respondents for the Payment for Environmental Services among the Rural Farming Households in Oyo State Nigeria
Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science,
This study attempted to uncover the factors that influence preferences of the poor farming households for the attributes of Payment for environmental services (PES) in the Oyo State farm settlement Nigeria. Educational attainment, age of the respondents, previous knowledge of PES, land tenure, provision of micro credit, number of dependents, marital status and main occupation of the respondents. Dependent variable is preference for PES attributes.A multi-stage sampling technique was employed for this study.This study used exclusively Primary data.Which were collected through the use of a well-structured questionnaires and interview schedule for the literate and non-literate farmers respectivelyTotal sample of 395 out of 547respondents (i.e.72%) were drawn cumulatively. The regression results showed that previous knowledge of PES and provision of microcredit are significant at 5% each, while land ownership right is significant at 10% in the educational poverty group. In the consumption poverty group, previous knowledge of PES is significant at 5%, while land ownership right is positively significant at 1%, respectively. Housing/living standard poverty group; previous knowledge of PES and land ownership rights are significant at 5% each. From the findings of this study, it implies that if micro credit facilities are provided to these poor farming households, they will be willing to conserve the environmental resources (i.e. agricultural land). It therefore suggests that a well thought institutional arrangement with PES in view could be put up to enhance natural resource conservation and by extension reduction of poverty.
- Payment for environmental services
- resources conservation.
How to Cite
Adesiyan. Payment for environmental services, rural poverty reduction and rgricultural lan conservation in Oyo State Farm Settlements, Nigeria,Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia; 2016.
Niesten E, Rice R. Sustainable forest management and conservation incentive agreements.International Forestry Review. 2004;(6):56-60.
Scherr S, White A, Khare A. The current status and future potential of markets for the ecosystem services provided by tropical forest. International Timber Organisation Technical Services. 2004; 21.
Wunder S. Can payments for environmental services reduce deforestation and forest degradation? In: Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options (ed.Angelsen, A.). Pp.: 213–223. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research preliminary evidence”. Environment and Development Economics. 2009;13(3):279-297.
Wunder S. Payments for environmental services and poor:concepts and preliminary evidence.Environmental and development Economics. 2008;13(3).
Swinton SM, Quiroz R. Is poverty to blame for soil, pasture and forest degradation in Peru’s Altiplano?. World Development. 2003;31(11):1903-1919.
Pagiola S, Arecenas A, Platis G. Can Payment for Enivironmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America.World Development. 2005;(33): 237-253.
Anderson CL, Locker L, Nugent R. Microcredit, Social Capital, and Common Pool Resources. World Development. 2002; 30(1):95-105.
DOI: 10.1016/S0305- 750X(01)00096-1.
Wild M, Grieser J, Scha¨r C. Combined surface solar brightening and increasing greenhouse effect support recent intensification of the global land-based hydrological cycle, Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008;35:L17706.
Cranford, Matthew, Mourato, Susana. Credit-based payments for ecosystem services; 2014.
Mandel JT, Donlan CJ, Wilcox C, Cudney-Bueno R, Pascoe S, Tulchin D. Debt investment as a tool for value transfer in biodiversity conservation. evidence from a choice experiment in Ecuador. World Development. 2009;0305-750X.
Nickerson C, Hand M. Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers: Beginning, Limited-Resource, and Socially Disadvantaged Operators’ Enrollment Trends. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Economic Information Bulletin No. 62. Washington: USDA; 2009.
Van Eijk P, Kumar R. Bio-rights in theory and practice: A financing mechanism for linking poverty alleviation and environmental conservation. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wetlands International; 2009.
Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining Sample Size for Research Activities.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1970;30:607-610.
Ataguba J, Ichoku EH, Fonta WM. Multidimensional poverty assessment: applying the capability approach. International Journal of Social Economics. 2013;40v(4):331–354.
Bassey. The effects of land tenure on natural resource conservation in the Nigerian rainforest ecosystem, unpublished PhD thesis; 2003.
Bagherian AS, Bahaman AS, Asnarulkhadi, Shamsuddin A. Factors Influencing Local People’s Participation in Watershed Management Programs in Iran. American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci. 2009;6(5):532-538.
Mohamed N, Shamsudin MN, Ghani ANA, Radam A, Kaffashi S, Rahim NN, Bin Hassin NH. Willingness to Pay for Watershed Conservation at Hulu Langat, Selangor. Journal of Applied Sciences. 2012;(12):1859-1864.
Ojeda MI, Mayer AS, Solomon BD. Economic valuation of environmental services sustained by water flows in the Yaqui River Delta. Ecological Economics; 2007.
Suyanto S, Permana RP, khususiyah N, Joshi L. Role of land tenure in adopting agroforestry and reducing wildfire in a forest zone in Lampung-Sumatra. Agroforestry Systems. .2005;(65):1-11.
Warner K. The Concept of Application of Payment for Ecosystem Services,IUCN; 2008.
Abstract View: 73 times
PDF Download: 37 times