4.6 Article

Willingness to Pay for Forest Existence Value and Sustainability

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su12030891

Keywords

contingent valuation method; forest existence values; preference; sustainability

Funding

  1. Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic [QK1820358]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Uganda is richly endowed with flora and fauna. Until the early 2000s, most of the types of vegetation have remained natural/virgin forests and shrubs until recent years, when human activities have damaged them. Understanding the different ways that people value such endangered forest resources is very important. The main hypothesis in our study is that willingness to pay (WTP) for forest existence value and sustainability depends on the preference for the same values. In addition, we examined socioeconomic characteristics, such as sex, education, and household incomes, which could influence the WTP for forest existence value and sustainability. We carried out field questionnaire interviews with the aim of ascertaining Willingness to Pay (WTP) for forest existence. The WTP values were in a range between 1 and 200 USD based on the contingent valuation method (CVM). A sample with a size of 203 was interviewed in selected towns and villages in Uganda, and the data collected were subjected to statistical analysis. The cross-tabulation of the expressed preferences illustrates that 8 1.9% of the representative sample are willing to pay for forest existence value and sustainability. We concluded that the willingness to pay for forest existence significantly depends on the preference for forest existence values and sustainability. Our results equally express that the mean WTP in this region is 15 USD per year and that over 60% are willing to pay this amount. The socioeconomic determinants' results demonstrate heterogeneity and that over 90% of the respondents are willing to pay for forest existence, conservation, and sustainability.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available