从恢复古代灌溉系统中评估生态系统服务:选择实验中劳动力与货币支付的比较应用

IF 1.3 Q3 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY Agricultural and Resource Economics Review Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1017/age.2023.24
S. Dissanayake, S. Vidanage
{"title":"从恢复古代灌溉系统中评估生态系统服务:选择实验中劳动力与货币支付的比较应用","authors":"S. Dissanayake, S. Vidanage","doi":"10.1017/age.2023.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The use of stated preference methods with monetary payments in developing countries can be problematic as barter and paying with labor are common in rural areas. In response, a growing number of stated preference studies explore using monetary and nonmonetary payment options. We contribute to this literature by exploring the impact of monetary vs. labor payment options on values elicited from choice experiment studies conducted in rural developing country settings. We also contribute to the literature by comparing data-gathering methods, specifically individual surveys vs. group information sessions. Our application is the restoration of an ancient irrigation system known as cascading tank systems in Sri Lanka. We conduct a choice experiment to understand the willingness to pay/willingness to contribute of rural households to restore these irrigation systems. We find that in the individual survey setting, there are no significant differences between monetary and labor payments. We also find that there is no difference between the group and individual survey settings for the monetary payment treatment. For the labor payment treatment, the group setting results in a positive payment coefficient for the labor payment attribute. This highlights that labor payments should be used cautiously in group evaluation settings.","PeriodicalId":44443,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural and Resource Economics Review","volume":"52 1","pages":"422 - 449"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Valuing ecosystem services from restoring ancient irrigation systems: An application comparing labor vs. monetary payments for choice experiments\",\"authors\":\"S. Dissanayake, S. Vidanage\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/age.2023.24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The use of stated preference methods with monetary payments in developing countries can be problematic as barter and paying with labor are common in rural areas. In response, a growing number of stated preference studies explore using monetary and nonmonetary payment options. We contribute to this literature by exploring the impact of monetary vs. labor payment options on values elicited from choice experiment studies conducted in rural developing country settings. We also contribute to the literature by comparing data-gathering methods, specifically individual surveys vs. group information sessions. Our application is the restoration of an ancient irrigation system known as cascading tank systems in Sri Lanka. We conduct a choice experiment to understand the willingness to pay/willingness to contribute of rural households to restore these irrigation systems. We find that in the individual survey setting, there are no significant differences between monetary and labor payments. We also find that there is no difference between the group and individual survey settings for the monetary payment treatment. For the labor payment treatment, the group setting results in a positive payment coefficient for the labor payment attribute. This highlights that labor payments should be used cautiously in group evaluation settings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agricultural and Resource Economics Review\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"422 - 449\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agricultural and Resource Economics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/age.2023.24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural and Resource Economics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/age.2023.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要发展中国家在货币支付中使用规定的优惠方法可能会产生问题,因为易货和用劳动力支付在农村地区很常见。作为回应,越来越多的既定偏好研究探索使用货币和非货币支付选项。我们通过探索货币与劳动力支付选项对在发展中国家农村环境中进行的选择实验研究得出的价值观的影响,为这篇文献做出了贡献。我们还通过比较数据收集方法,特别是个人调查和小组信息会议,对文献做出了贡献。我们的应用是修复斯里兰卡一个被称为级联水箱系统的古老灌溉系统。我们进行了一项选择实验,以了解农村家庭为恢复这些灌溉系统的支付意愿/贡献意愿。我们发现,在个人调查环境中,货币和劳动力支付之间没有显著差异。我们还发现,在货币支付待遇方面,团体和个人调查设置之间没有差异。对于劳务支付处理,组设置会导致劳务支付属性的支付系数为正。这突出表明,在组评估设置中应谨慎使用劳动报酬。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Valuing ecosystem services from restoring ancient irrigation systems: An application comparing labor vs. monetary payments for choice experiments
Abstract The use of stated preference methods with monetary payments in developing countries can be problematic as barter and paying with labor are common in rural areas. In response, a growing number of stated preference studies explore using monetary and nonmonetary payment options. We contribute to this literature by exploring the impact of monetary vs. labor payment options on values elicited from choice experiment studies conducted in rural developing country settings. We also contribute to the literature by comparing data-gathering methods, specifically individual surveys vs. group information sessions. Our application is the restoration of an ancient irrigation system known as cascading tank systems in Sri Lanka. We conduct a choice experiment to understand the willingness to pay/willingness to contribute of rural households to restore these irrigation systems. We find that in the individual survey setting, there are no significant differences between monetary and labor payments. We also find that there is no difference between the group and individual survey settings for the monetary payment treatment. For the labor payment treatment, the group setting results in a positive payment coefficient for the labor payment attribute. This highlights that labor payments should be used cautiously in group evaluation settings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of the Review is to foster and disseminate professional thought and literature relating to the economics of agriculture, natural resources, and community development. It is published twice a year in April and October. In addition to normal refereed articles, it also publishes invited papers presented at the annual meetings of the NAREA as well as abstracts of selected papers presented at those meetings. The Review was formerly known as the Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
期刊最新文献
Would consumers accept CRISPR fruit crops if the benefit has health implications? An application to cranberry products Information provision and preferences for more sustainable dairy farming: Choice experimental evidence from Sweden The distributional impact of FEMA’s community rating system AGE volume 52 issue 3 Cover and Front matter Tasting and consumer demand for wine: do peers and experts matter?
×
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