Effects of institutional distrust on value estimates of stated preference surveys in developing countries: a choice experiment on conserving biodiversity within agricultural landscapes in a biodiversity hotspot

Q open Pub Date : 2024-06-13 DOI:10.1093/qopen/qoae014
Henrique Manhique, Frank Wätzold
{"title":"Effects of institutional distrust on value estimates of stated preference surveys in developing countries: a choice experiment on conserving biodiversity within agricultural landscapes in a biodiversity hotspot","authors":"Henrique Manhique, Frank Wätzold","doi":"10.1093/qopen/qoae014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The use of stated preference surveys for the valuation of environmental goods in developing countries has to take into account that there is substantial public distrust towards institutions providing environmental goods under valuation. Thus, high protest responses and low-value estimates may indicate rejection/protest against the institutional setting of the survey, rather than the dislike or low welfare effects of these goods. In this context, we investigate the effects of institutional trust on value estimates by examining the performance of three different institutions—government, conservation NGO and farmers—in a case study aimed at eliciting preferences for conserving different types of biodiversity within orchards in the Cape Floristic Region—a biodiversity hotspot in South Africa threatened by the expansion and intensification of agriculture. We find that institutional trust has an effect on preferences and willingness-to-pay, with farmers leading to the highest level of trust and value estimates, followed rather closely by a conservation NGO and, with some distance, by the government with the lowest trust level and value estimates. In terms of preferences for biodiversity conservation, our results show that respondents prefer measures to conserve endangered and endemic species over measures primarily aimed at providing ecosystem services. For future studies in developing countries, we recommend selecting an institutional setting based on the study's purpose: institutions with high levels of trust should be prioritised for studies aiming to value a good per se, while existing institutions should be prioritised for studies valuing a policy to provide a good within an existing institutional framework.","PeriodicalId":87350,"journal":{"name":"Q open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Q open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoae014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of stated preference surveys for the valuation of environmental goods in developing countries has to take into account that there is substantial public distrust towards institutions providing environmental goods under valuation. Thus, high protest responses and low-value estimates may indicate rejection/protest against the institutional setting of the survey, rather than the dislike or low welfare effects of these goods. In this context, we investigate the effects of institutional trust on value estimates by examining the performance of three different institutions—government, conservation NGO and farmers—in a case study aimed at eliciting preferences for conserving different types of biodiversity within orchards in the Cape Floristic Region—a biodiversity hotspot in South Africa threatened by the expansion and intensification of agriculture. We find that institutional trust has an effect on preferences and willingness-to-pay, with farmers leading to the highest level of trust and value estimates, followed rather closely by a conservation NGO and, with some distance, by the government with the lowest trust level and value estimates. In terms of preferences for biodiversity conservation, our results show that respondents prefer measures to conserve endangered and endemic species over measures primarily aimed at providing ecosystem services. For future studies in developing countries, we recommend selecting an institutional setting based on the study's purpose: institutions with high levels of trust should be prioritised for studies aiming to value a good per se, while existing institutions should be prioritised for studies valuing a policy to provide a good within an existing institutional framework.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
制度不信任对发展中国家陈述偏好调查价值估计的影响:关于在生物多样性热点地区农业景观中保护生物多样性的选择实验
在发展中国家使用陈述偏好调查对环境商品进行估价时,必须考虑到公众对提供估价环境商品的机构存在很大的不信任。因此,高抗议响应和低价值估计可能表明对调查机构设置的拒绝/抗议,而不是对这些产品的不喜欢或低福利效应。在此背景下,我们通过考察三个不同机构(政府、非政府保护组织和农民)在一项案例研究中的表现,调查了机构信任对价值估计的影响,该案例研究旨在激发人们对保护开普花卉区果园内不同类型生物多样性的偏好,开普花卉区是南非受农业扩张和集约化威胁的生物多样性热点地区。我们发现,机构信任对偏好和支付意愿有影响,农民的信任度和价值估计值最高,紧随其后的是一个非政府保护组织,而政府的信任度和价值估计值最低,但也有一定距离。就保护生物多样性的偏好而言,我们的研究结果表明,受访者偏好保护濒危物种和特有物种的措施,而不是主要旨在提供生态系统服务的措施。对于今后在发展中国家开展的研究,我们建议根据研究目的选择机构环境:对于旨在评估物品本身价值的研究,应优先考虑信任度高的机构;而对于评估在现有机构框架内提供物品的政策的研究,则应优先考虑现有机构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Who Can Predict Farmers’ Choices in Risky Gambles? Socioeconomic impacts of land restoration in agriculture: a systematic review Unpacking Stakeholder Perceptions on Challenges for Increasing Adoption of Solar- Powered Irrigation Systems in India: A Q Methodology Study Are lessons being learnt from the replication crisis or will the revolution devour its children? Open Q science from the editor's perspective Effects of institutional distrust on value estimates of stated preference surveys in developing countries: a choice experiment on conserving biodiversity within agricultural landscapes in a biodiversity hotspot
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1