Keywords
econometric model
Pixquiac
hydrological sub-basin
contingent valuation
How to Cite
##article.highlights##
- Willingness to pay (WTP) of drinking water users in the Pixquiac sub-basin was established.
- This population (92.04 %) has a monthly WTP of 10.23 MXN per household for forest conservation.
- Annual WTP of drinking water service users in Xalapa amounts to 17 243 032.08 MXN.
- Income, source of income, educational level and age are positively related to WTP.
Abstract
Introduction: The city of Xalapa, Veracruz, faces a drinking water supply problem that increases every year due, among other factors, to deforestation and population growth.
Objective: To determine the willingness to pay (WTP) of domestic water users for forest conservation, taking into account the recharge zones of the Pixquiac sub-basin.
Materials and methods: A structured survey was designed and randomly applied to a representative sample of 113 households in Xalapa. The information was analyzed using an econometric model identifying the main social, economic and environmental aspects related to WTP for hydrological service for domestic use.
Results and discussion: The potential annual WTP amounts to 17 243 032.08 MXN by domestic water service users in Xalapa, Veracruz; 92.04 % of the population has an average monthly WTP of 10.23 MXN for the conservation of forest areas. This value is considered high in relation to other studies whose average contribution per person is 5.00 MXN and may be due to the high level of awareness that exists in the region about the importance of forests. Income, source of income, educational level and age are significant variables positively related to WTP.
Conclusion: There is WTP by users that can be used to encourage forest conservation in water recharge zones in the study area.
References
Aguilar, F. X., Obeng, E. A., & Cai, Z. (2018). Water quality improvements elicit consistent willingness-to-pay for the enhancement of forested watershed ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 30(A), 158‒171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.012
Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Moreno, C. E., & Galán-Acevedo, C. (2017). La ecología del paisaje en México: Logros, desafíos y oportunidades en las ciencias biológicas. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 88, 42‒51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmb.2017.10.004
Bergstrom, J. C., & Loomis, J. B. (2017). Economic valuation of river restoration: An analysis of the valuation literature and its uses in decision-making. Water Resources and Economics, 17, 9‒19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2016.12.001
Bleeker, S., & Vos, J. (2019). Payment for ecosystem services in Lima’s watersheds: power and imaginaries in an urban-rural hydrosocial territory. Water International, 44(2), 224‒242. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2019.1558809
Börner, J., Schulz, D., Wunder, S., & Pfaff, A. (2020). The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 12(1), 45‒64. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703
Carrie, R. H., Stringer, L. C., Van Hue, L. T., Hong, N., Van Tan, D., Hackney, C. R., Thanh, N. P. T., & Quinn, C. H. (2022). Social differences in spatial perspectives about local benefits from rehabilitated mangroves: insights from Vietnam. Ecosystems and People, 18(1), 378‒396. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2083237
Chu, X., Zhan, J., Wang, C., Hameeda, S., & Wang, X. (2020). Households’ willingness to accept improved ecosystem services and influencing factors: Application of Contingent Valuation Method in Bashang Plateau, Hebei Province, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 255, 109925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109925
Clarke, B., Thet, A. K., Sandhu, H., & Dittmann, S. (2021). Integrating cultural ecosystem services valuation into coastal wetlands restoration: A case study from South Australia. Environmental Science & Policy, 116, 220‒229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.11.014
Comisión Municipal de Agua Potable y Saneamiento (CMAS). (2021). Tarifas del mes de Noviembre (P11/2021). https://cmasxalapa.gob.mx/pdf/tarifas/tarifas_11_2021.pdf
Córdoba, D., Pischke, E. C., Selfa, T., Jones, K. W., & Avila-Foucat, S. (2021). When payment for ecosystem services meets culture: A culture theory perspective. Society & Natural Resources, 34(4), 505‒523. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1849482
Cristeche, E., & Penna, J. A. (2008). Métodos de valoración económica de los servicios ambientales. Estudios Socioeconómicos de la Sustentabilidad de los Sistemas de Producción y Recursos Naturales, 3. https://inta.gob.ar/sites/default/files/script-tmp-metodos_doc_03.pdf
Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S., & Schulze, W. D. (1986). Valuing environmental goods: a state of the arts assessment of the contingent valuation method. Roweman and Allanheld.
Desta, Y. (2018). Analysis of economic value of Lake Ziway: An application of contingent valuation method. Journal of Resources Development and Management, 40, 55‒66. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3373333
Dib, V., Nalon, M. A., Tavares Amazonas, N., Yuri Vidal, C., Ortiz-Rodríguez, I. A., Daněk, J., Formis de Oliveira, M., Alberti, P., Aparecida Da Silva, R., Salomão Precinoto, R., & Figueiredo Gomes, T. (2020). Drivers of change in biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Cantareira System Protected Area: A prospective analysis of the implementation of public policies. Biota Neotropica, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2019-0915
Diswandi, D., Fadliyanti, L., Afifi, M., & Hailuddin, H. (2021). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research vol. 556. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on Education and Social Science (ACCESS 2020). Tourism enterprises’ willingness to contribute to Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) program in Gili Matra, Indonesia (pp. 418-421). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210525.119
García-Cool, I. (2019). Estrategia para la gestión integrada del recurso hídrico de Xalapa. https://ayuntamiento.xalapa.gob.mx/documents/39684/3222173/27-02_GIRH.pdf/22e46337-d20f-c4f5-2a26-7acaec0d9a9b
Girma, H., Hugé, J., Gebrehiwot, M., & Van Passel, S. (2021). Farmers’ willingness to contribute to the restoration of an Ethiopian Rift Valley Lake: a contingent valuation study. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(7), 10646–10665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01076-3
Gupta, A. C., & Chatterjee, N. (2021). Economic values for the environment with special reference to the Contingent Valuation Method. In P. K. Sikdar (Ed.), Environmental management: Issues and concerns in developing countries (pp. 303–321). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62529-0_14
Hanemann, M. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 322–341. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). (2019). Agua potable y drenaje. Nivel de disponibilidad de agua renovable por habitante. Subdirección General de Administración del Agua. http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/territorio/agua/dispon.aspx?tema=T
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). (2020). Censo de población y vivienda 2020. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/ccpv/2020/default.html
Irawan, E. (2019). Contingent valuation of Lake Rawapening as a source raw drinking Water. Jurnal Ilmu Lingkungan, 17(3), 492–499. https://doi.org/10.14710/jil.17.3.492-499
Izko, X., & Burneo, D. (2003). Herramientas para la valoración y manejo forestal sostenible de los bosques Sudamericanos. UICN-Sur. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2003-008.pdf
Khan, I., Lei, H., Ali, G., Ali, S., & Zhao, M. (2019). Public attitudes, preferences and willingness to pay for river ecosystem services. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3707. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193707
Ko, H., & Son, Y. (2018). Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces: A case study in Gwacheon, Republic of Korea. Ecological Indicators, 91, 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.006
Leija, E. G., & Mendoza, M. E. (2021). Estudios de conectividad del paisaje en América
Latina: retos de investigación. Madera y Bosques, 7(1), https://doi.org/10.21829/myb.2021.2712032
Liu, Z., & Kontoleon, A. (2018). Meta-analysis of livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services programmes in developing countries. Ecological Economics, 149, 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.02.008
Luna, C. V. (2018). Esquemas de compensación y pago por servicios ambientales de los bosques nativos: Revisión de casos y marco legal en Argentina. Revista de Investigación Agraria y Ambiental, 9(2), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.22490/21456453.2278
Martínez-Austria, P. F., Díaz-Delgado, C., & Moeller-Chavez, G. (2019). Seguridad hídrica en México: Diagnóstico general y desafíos principales. Ingeniería del Agua, 23(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.4995/ia.2019.10502
Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingency valuation method. RFF Press.
Monroy Hernández, J. (2020). Análisis del paisaje de la microcuenca del río Fucha en la ciudad de Bogotá, Colombia. Diagnóstico para el mejoramiento de servicios ecosistémicos. Investigaciones Geográficas, (101), e59831. https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.59831
Montesinos-López, O. (2010). Muestreo estadístico: Tamaño de muestra y estimación de parámetros. Universidad de Colima.
Nava-López, M., Selfa, T. L., Cordoba, D., Pischke, E. C., Torrez, D., Ávila-Foucat, S., Halvorsen, K. E., & Maganda, C. (2018). Decentralizing payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: Challenges and implications for long-term sustainability. Society & Natural Resources, 31(12), 1389–1399. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1463420
Navrud, S., & Strand, J. (2018). Valuing global ecosystem services: what do European experts say? Applying the Delphi Method to Contingent Valuation of the Amazon Rainforest. Environmental and Resource Economics, 70, 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-017-0119-6.
Pereira, P., Bogunovic, I., Muñoz-Rojas, M., & Brevik, E. C. (2018). Soil ecosystem services, sustainability, valuation and management. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 5, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2017.12.003.
Perni, Á., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & Martínez-Paz, J. M. (2021). Contingent valuation estimates for environmental goods: Validity and reliability. Ecological Economics, 189, 107144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107144
Ramos-Álvarez, M. de J., Larqué-Saavedra, B. S., Hernández-Ortíz, J., Monroy-Hernández, R., & Hernández-Álvarez, Z. (2021). Valoración económica para la conservación del bosque de la cuenca de Tecocomulco, Hidalgo. Revista Iberoamericana de Bioeconomía y Cambio Climático, 7(13), 1558–1575. https://doi.org/10.5377/ribcc.v7i13.11421
Randall, A., Ives, B. C., & Eastman, C. (1974). Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(74)90010-2
Resende, F. M., Fernandes, G. W., Andrade, D. C., & Néder, H. D. (2017). Economic valuation of the ecosystem services provided by a protected area in the Brazilian Cerrado: application of the contingent valuation method. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 77(4), 762–773. https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.21215
Secretaría de Gobernación (SEGOB). (2022). Reglas de Operación 2023 del Programa Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable para el Bienestar. https://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5676155&fecha=29/12/2022#gsc.tab=0
Sistema de Información Estadística y Geográfica del estado de Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave (SIEGVER). (2020). Cuadernillos municipales Xalapa. http://ceieg.veracruz.gob.mx/2020/12/03/cuadernillos-municipales-2020/
Talero-Cabrejo, S., & Salcedo-Silva, E. M. (2020). Aportes para el diseño de esquemas de pagos por servicios ambientales en la cuenca del lago de Tota, Colombia. Apuntes del Cenes, 39(69), 269–298. https://doi.org/10.19053
Taye, F. A., Vedel, S. E., & Jacobsen, J. B. (2018). Accounting for environmental attitude to explain variations in willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services using the new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(4), 420–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2018.1467346
Tinch, R., Beaumont, N., Sunderland, T., Ozdemiroglu, E., Barton, D., Bowe, C., Börger, T., Burgess, P., Nigel Cooper, C., Faccioli, M., Filler, P., Gkolemi, I., Kumar, R., Longo, A., McVittie, A., Morris, J., Park, J., Ravenscroft, N., Schaafsma M., … Ziv, G. (2019). Economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services: a review for decision makers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(4), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2019.1623083
Thapa, S., Shrestha, S., Adhikari, R. K., Bhattarai, S., Paudel, D., Gautam, D., & Koirala, A. (2021). Residents’ willingness-to-pay for watershed conservation program facilitating ecosystem services in Begnas watershed, Nepal. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 7811–7832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01759-5
Wang, P., Poe, G. L., & Wolf, S. A. (2017). Payments for ecosystem services and wealth distribution. Ecological Economics, 132, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.10.009
Von-Thaden, J., Manson, R. H., Congalton, R. G., López-Barrera, F., & Jones, K. W. (2021). Evaluating the environmental effectiveness of payments for hydrological services in Veracruz, México: A landscape approach. Land Use Policy, 100, 105055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105055
Zavaleta, E., León, C., Leiva, F., Gil, L., Rodríguez, A., & Bardales, C. (2020). Valoración económica del servicio ambiental hídrico del Santuario Nacional de Calipuy. Arnaldoa, 27(1), 335–350. http://doi.org/10.22497/arnaldoa.271.27121
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Universidad Autónoma Chapingo