How do people want to pay for e coystem and landscape services ?

Related KB1 (SELS) projects: How do people want to pay? Nico Polman, Arianne de Blaeij and Vincent Linderhof Aggregation of individual benefits; Arianne de Blaeij and Martijn van der Heide Social preferences for commercial wetlands; Arianne de Blaeij, Vincent Linderhof, Nico Polman and Stijn Reinhard

How do people want to pay for landscape services? Background: (new institutional) economics What is an appropriate scale of governance to pay for ecosystem and landscape services? Cash et al., (2006), identified three major scale challenges referred to as 1) ignorance, 2) mismatch and 3) plurality Central question presentation: What preference do people have for the level of governance for ecosystem and landscape services on agricultural land?

Choice model Governance level choice model: Consumers choose a payment level (governance structure) to pay for reed filters if the expected gains from doing so are greater than those of organising the transaction in some other way or having no transaction at all Opportunity costs related to alternative payment methods Opportunity costs related transaction activities

Empirical approach: agricultural reed filters National survey on reed filters with 960 respondents (linked to Lankheet project) About 80% of the respondents agrees on the necessity to compensate farmers for their loss in income if reed filters will be realized (761 out of 960) About 40% of the respondents who indicated that farmers should be compensated for sure, are not willing to pay for reed filters themselves EXTRA (299 out of 761).

Empirical approach: agricultural reed filters HOWEVER, Around 85% of the respondents whom think that farmers should be compensated (253 out of 299) BUT DO NOT WANT TO PAY EXTRA have a preference for realizing these filters WITHIN the existing budget for water management. Public scale payment preferences (n = 729): 11% via municipalities 60% via water boards 29% via national government Multinomial logit model

Empirical approach: results Water board versus local level Number of memberships of environmental org. + Water treatment most important (yes=1; no=0) + Water storage most important (yes=1; no=0) + WTP + Higher education + North - South -

Empirical approach: results National versus local level Sexe (male=1) + Number of memberships of environmental org. + Water treatment most important (yes=1; no=0) + Water storage most important (yes=1; no=0) + WTP - North -

Final remarks concerning scales / governance: What to do in the second half of 2009? Apply to landscape Distinguish different levels for different ecosystem and landscape services Include more governance levels Include more explaining factors Distance! Urban/ rural

Thank you! © Wageningen UR