| Original Full Text | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, on the condition that users give exact credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if they made any changes. Willingness to Pay for the Protection and Conservation of Forest Ecosystems in the Abra River Basin, Philippines Nover M. Matso Department of Forestry, Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology, Philippines Heherson B. Ong College of Environmental Management and Forestry, Isabela State University, Philippines Emerson V. Barcellano College of Environmental Management and Forestry, Isabela State University, Philippines Abstract: The forest ecosystems of the Abra River basin, Philippines, provide various ecosystem goods and services that are important to the wellbeing of its residents. This study used the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to estimate the willingness to pay (WTP) of local residents for the protection and conservation of forest ecosystems within the basin. A total of 368 households were involved in the survey. The result showed that 78.26% of the respondents were willing to pay for forest protection and conservation activities. The estimated mean WTP (MWTP) using binary logistic regression is PhP 5.13/month/household. The MWTP was significantly influenced by marital status and bid amount. Further, the respondents showed awareness of the various goods and services provided by forest ecosystems, especially provisioning services. Keywords: forest ecosystem services, contingent valuation method, willingness to pay, Philippines. Introduction Forest ecosystem services (FES) are benefits offered by forests essential for human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005; Aznar-Sanchez et al., 2018; Roces-Díaz et al., 2018; Jo et al., 2021). Forest ecosystem services are broadly classified into four types: (1) provisioning, which includes the production of timber, food, and water; (2) regulating, which includes the control of climate, flood, and disease; (3) supporting, which includes nutrient cycles and crop pollination; and (4) cultural, which includes spiritual and recreational benefits. Quantifying and valuing forest ecosystem services has received a lot of attention (Xie et al., 2010). Economic valuation of forest ecosystem services is critical for developing and implementing effective sustainable forest management options and policies at national, continental, and global scales (Kornatowska and Sienkiewicz, 2018). Forest economic valuation seeks to calculate the total economic worth of forest ecosystems. The entire economic value of forests is calculated by adding the use and non-use values (Gebben, 2013). The CVM is a survey-based method for determining how much a person is ready to pay for forest resource amenities in a hypothetical market (Nicosia et al., 2014; Schutgens et al., 2019; Halkos et al., 2020). Thus, the value of Suggested Citation Matso, N.M., Ong, H.B. & Barcellano, E.V. (2024). Willingness to Pay for the Protection and Conservation of Forest Ecosystems in the Abra River Basin, Philippines. European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, 2(2), 648-658. DOI: 10.59324/ejtas.2024.2(2).56 www.ejtas.com EJTAS 2024 | Volume 2 | Number 2 649 products and services is determined by the simulated market provided to respondents (Rahmatian, 2005). CVM surveys ask respondents to express their maximum WTP or minimum willingness to accept (WTA) for a hypothetical decrease in the degree of availability of forest ecosystem goods or services (Yu et al., 2018; Uyan, 2020). CVM extracts vital information regarding an individual's WTP in response to changes in the amount or quality of products or services, as well as the effect of numerous factors on WTP (Iqbal et al., 2022). Many researchers employ contingent valuation as the method of assessing non-market forest ecosystem services by determining the WTP of the respondents. CVM has been used to determine the WTP in various areas such as coastal and marine ecosystems restoration (Mamat et al., 2013; Pham et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2018), forest and watershed restoration and conservation (Tao et al.,2012; Haltia, 2015; Lalika et al., 2017; Agundez et al., 2018; Jo et al., 2021), protected areas preservation and conservation (e.g. national parks, world heritage sites, and other tourism sites) (Samdin, 2008; Kamri, 2013; Akinyemi and Mushunje, 2017; Jin et al., 2019; Hassin et al., 2020; Kubak et al., 2020; ) and biodiversity conservation (Ezebilo, 2016; Schutgens et al., 2019). In the Philippines, few studies have been conducted to assess the economic value of non-market forest ecosystem services. For example, CVM was used to assess the WTP of local and foreign tourists for improved management and preservation of the Sagada recreational site (Abansi, 2012.); WTP for rice terraces conservation (Calderon et al., 2009); WTP for watershed conservation (Manlosa et al., 2013); WTP for improved watershed management (Carig et al., 2016) and WTP for mangroves’ coastal protection (Gagarin et al., 2022). Awareness of forest-based ecosystem services is critical for understanding the unique and significant role that forests play in supporting many aspects of rural livelihood strategies and results, as well as informing optimal management regimes. Studies on the awareness and estimation of forest ecosystem services within watersheds in the Philippine context are still limited. This study was then conducted to determine the awareness of forest ecosystem services and WTP of residents on the protection and conservation of forest ecosystems within the Abra River Basin. Materials and Methods Location of the Study Area The study was conducted at the three watersheds of the Abra River Basin covering 11 municipalities (Figure 1). The Abra River Basin is the sixth largest river basin in the Philippines. The river basin is a major source of environmental, economic, and social benefits. It also hosts diverse flora and fauna species. The total forest cover of the study area is 30,105.34 ha. It is geographically located in the Northern part of the Philippines with geographic coordinates of 17°35'08.60"N and 120°32'33.50" E. Research Design A semi-structured questionnaire was used to elicit data from the respondents. The respondents of the study were from the 11 municipalities covered by the study area. Cochran’s formula was used in determining the sample size of the study. In determining the sample size, a confidence interval of 95% and an error margin of 5% were used. Using Cochran’s formula, a total of 368 household sample sizes was computed. The questionnaire was pre-tested by administering it to 25 randomly selected respondents. The questionnaire was pre-tested to ensure that all of the questions were relevant and understandable. The questionnaire has three sections: a) the Socio-demographic profile of the respondents; b) the Perception of the respondents on the direct and indirect forest ecosystem services and c) the Contingent valuation question. The respondents were briefed on the objectives and purpose of the study before administering the questionnaire. Willingness to Pay Statistical Model Open-ended, bidding games, payment cards, single-bounded dichotomous choice, and double-bounded dichotomous choice are the www.ejtas.com EJTAS 2024 | Volume 2 | Number 2 650 major elicitation methods in contingent valuation surveys (Jara et al., 2021). Continuous or open-ended questions are the simplest; respondents are asked a direct question about how much they are willing to pay for a good or service. Discrete, dichotomous choice or referendum questions ask a respondent whether they are willing to pay or not. In the dichotomous choice method, the respondents Figure 1. Location of the Study Area can respond yes or no. If yes, the respondent will then be asked how much they would be willing to pay based on a specified amount. The dichotomous choice is a popular method of elicitation for CVM practitioners because of its simplicity (Carig et al., 2016; Jara et al., 2022). The bidding game method asks respondents if they are willing to pay a specific amount or not. The sums are raised (or reduced) depending on whether or not the respondent is willing to pay the previously proposed amount. It stops when the iterations have reached a point estimate of WTP (Jara et al., 2022). In this study, the WTP by the respondents was obtained using the payment card method. Adopted from the study of Idris et al. (2021), the following steps were undertaken to elicit information on the WTP of the respondent: (1) Establish the hypothetical market, (2) Getting an offer of the WTP value, (3) Estimate the average value of WTP and (4) Estimate the WTP. WTP Probability The binary logistic regression model best estimates the probability that an individual will pay a given amount because they respond with only a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer (Nicosia et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2018). The logistic regression model can be expressed as: 𝑃𝑃 (𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = 1𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼) = 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (𝑒𝑒,𝛽𝛽)1 + 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (𝑒𝑒,𝛽𝛽) (1) where P = probability of willingness by respondents x = explanatory variables (age, gender, marital status, duration of residence, educational level, family size, income, occupation, and amount) www.ejtas.com EJTAS 2024 | Volume 2 | Number 2 651 Estimation of Mean Willingness to Pay (MWTP) The MWTP was estimated using the following formula: Mean WTP = 1β1∙ ln (1 + exp (β0) (2) where β1= bid amount coefficient β0 = grand constant, the sum of the estimated constant plus the product of the other explanatory variables multiplied by their average value. Results Socio-Demographic Profile of the Respondents The socio-demographic profile of the respondents is presented in Table 1. In this study, a total of 368 respondents were surveyed and interviewed. The age ranges from 20 to 80 years old. 24.18% of the respondents are within the 41-50 age bracket while 23.10% are within the 51-60 age bracket. The average age of the respondents is 44.23 years old. In terms of ethnicity, 52.45% of the respondents belong to different ethnic tribes (Adasen, Banao, Binongan, Gubang, Inlaud, Mabaka, Maeng, Masadiit, Muyadan), while 47.55% belong to non-indigenous people group (Ilokano, Ilongo, Tagalog, and Visayas). More than half of the respondents are female; 67.39% are married. 32.88% of the respondents are high school graduates while 27.72% are college graduates. The average duration of residence of the respondents is 36.52 years. The longest duration of residence is 80 years. 27.17% of the respondents have resided in the area for more than 50 years while 11.41% resided in the area for less than 10 years. Most of the respondents are Roman Catholic. Regarding family size, 59.24% of the respondents have a family size of 4-6. Almost all of the respondents have a monthly income of less than 10,000.00 pesos. The respondents have varied occupations. One-third of the respondents are farmers, while the rest are barangay officials, housekeepers, vendors, government employees, tricycle drivers, church ministers, and some are retired government officials. Table 1. Socio-Demographic profile of the Respondents (n=368) Variable Response Frequency % Age 20-30 82 22.28 31-40 61 16.58 41-50 89 24.18 51-60 85 23.10 61 and over 51 13.86 Gender Male 216 58.70 Female 152 41.30 Marital Status Single 83 22.55 Married 248 67.39 Widow 28 7.61 Others 9 2.45 Religious Sect Roman Catholic 284 77.17 Jehovah’s Witnesses 11 2.99 Iglesia ni Cristo 13 3.53 Protestant 17 4.62 Evangelical 1 0.27 Islam 0 0.00 www.ejtas.com EJTAS 2024 | Volume 2 | Number 2 652 Others 42 11.41 Duration of Residence 0-10 42 11.41 11-20 48 13.04 21-30 57 15.49 31-40 50 13.59 41-50 71 19.29 51 and above 100 27.17 Educational Level Elementary 46 12.50 HS 121 32.88 SH 9 2.45 College Graduate 102 27.72 College Undergraduate 89 24.18 Graduate Studies 1 0.27 Family Size 1-3 80 21.74 4-6 218 59.24 7-9 44 11.96 10 and above 26 7.07 Monthly Income 10,000 and below 335 91.03 10,000 - 15,000 17 4.62 15,000-20,000 5 1.36 20,000-25,000 5 1.36 25,000 and above 6 1.63 Indigenous People Group Indigenous People (IP) 193 52.45 Non-IP 175 47.55 Awareness of Forest Ecosystem Services The awareness of the respondents on forest ecosystem services is shown in Table 2. The mean of each service was calculated based on the responses and the grand mean of the four services was also computed. The computed mean for regulating, cultural, provisioning, and supporting services is 3.89, 3.93, 4.47, and 3.97, respectively. The grand mean is 4.07 with a descriptive equivalent of ‘aware”. The results show that the level of awareness of the respondents on the regulating, cultural, and supporting services is “aware” while “very much aware” of provisioning services. Table 2. Awareness of Respondents on Forest Ecosystem Services Forest Ecosystem Services Mean DE A. Forest Regulating Services Water Purification and Regulation 3.94 Aware Regulation of Climate and Global Warming 3.90 Aware Pollination 3.77 Aware Minimize pests and diseases 3.82 Aware Air Purification 3.93 Aware Control soil erosion 4.01 Aware Mean for Forest Regulating Services 3.89 Aware B. Cultural Services Educational 4.01 Aware Aesthetic 3.87 Aware www.ejtas.com EJTAS 2024 | Volume 2 | Number 2 653 Cultural Heritage Values and Identity 3.85 Aware Recreation 3.94 Aware Tourism 4.05 Aware Spiritual Experiences 3.89 Aware Mean for Forest Cultural Services 3.93 Aware C. Provisioning Services Food (e.g. diro, anibong, pako, wildlife, wild fruits, mushroom) 4.57 Very Aware Medicine 4.48 Very Aware Timber, Fuelwood/Firewood 4.44 Very Aware Clean Water 4.50 Very Aware Rattan and bamboo as raw material for weaving 4.38 Very Aware Mean for Forest Provisioning Services 4.47 Very Aware D. Supporting Services Provision of shelter and habitats for plant and animal species 4.07 Aware Water and Nutrient Cycling 3.96 Aware Soil Formation 3.89 Aware Mean for Forest Supporting Services 3.97 Aware Grand Mean 4.07 Aware Descriptive Equivalent: 1.00 -1.80-Not Aware at all, 1.81 – 2.60-Not Aware, 2.61 – 3.40-Somewhat Aware, 3.42-4.20-Aware, 4.21-5.0- Very Aware Mean Willingness to Pay Estimation Originally, 85.6% of the respondents voted yes to the WTP question. For those who voted “yes”, a follow-up question was asked about their certainty to pay with a scale of 1-5 (1 being not certain at all while 5 being certain). Those who voted yes but voted 1 and 2 on the certainty of payment were treated as a “no” response. This technique was also done by Carig et al. (2016) in their study to those respondents who voted “yes” but also voted “not sure” and “completely not sure”. In this study, 27 (8.57%) “yes” responses were converted as a “no” response. As shown in Table 3, the final number of “yes” votes is 288 (78.26%) while 80 (21.74%) for “no” responses. Table 3. Original and Adjusted Responses to the WTP Question Willingness to Pay Original Responses Adjusted Responses f % f % Yes 315 85.6 288 78.26 No 53 14.4 80 21.74 Total 368 100 368 100 Table 4 shows the regression results. Nine independent variables (age, gender, marital status, duration of residence, educational level, family size, income, occupation, and amount) were used as determinants of WTP in this study. The regression results showed that only two (marital status and amount) of the determinants were significant. Three of the nine variables (gender, family size, and monthly income) showed a negative relationship with WTP, while six variables showed a positive relationship (age, marital status, duration of residence, educational level, amount, occupation) with WTP. www.ejtas.com EJTAS 2024 | Volume 2 | Number 2 654 Table 4. Determinants of the WTP for Forest Protection and Conservation Variables Coefficient p value Age 0.003 0.873 ns Gender -0.149 0.693 ns Marital Status 0.830 0.043* Duration of Residence 0.006 0.662 ns Educational Level 0.027 0.840 ns Family Size -0.013 0.957 ns Monthly Income -0.155 0.562 ns Amount 0.246 0.000** Occupation 0.007 0.963 ns Constant -1.979 0.073 Discussion The respondents of this study are knowledgeable about the different forest ecosystem services, especially provisioning services. It is not surprising that the provisioning services had the highest mean because provisioning services are the direct and tangible benefits enjoyed by the respondents. Aside from food, the respondents also mentioned fuelwood, timber, and bamboo. Timber taken from the forest is mainly used for house construction. In addition, herbal plants are also taken from the forest and used as medicine. The very high awareness of respondents on the provisioning services of the forest ecosystem is attributed to the fact that the respondents are directly utilizing these goods and services in their daily lives for subsistence. This corroborates the study of Ahammad et al. (2019) in Bangladesh. In their study, they reported that provisioning services are more crucial for rural communities' subsistence needs than financial gains. The result of this study is also in agreement with the study of Quevedo et al. (2019) on the perception of local communities on ecosystem services provided by mangroves. The result of their study showed that respondents are extremely aware of the provisioning services of mangroves such as the source of fish. The result of the study of Gouwakinnou et al. (2019) also showed that respondents in their study identified provisioning services of forest ecosystems as the most important. In contrast, the study of Dehghani Pour et al. (2023) revealed that cultural services of forest ecosystems are the most important services identified by their respondents. Incorporating ecosystem services into decision-making processes has garnered significant interest from the scientific community recently, as these methods consider the relevance of these services for human well-being (Quevedo et al., 2019). Determining appropriate management strategies for a multifunctional forest ecosystem requires an understanding of the state and patterns of ecosystem services in a changing environment. Local communities' perspectives on ecosystem services are vital, particularly for evaluating the sociocultural aspect of these services and guaranteeing that behavior complies with management directives and policies (Ahammad et al., 2019). The estimated MWTP is 5.13 Philippine pesos per household per month (PhP 61.57/household/Year). Considering the total number of households in the study area which is 11,707, the aggregated MWTP is PhP 720,744.17/year. The estimated WTP is low as compared to other studies conducted in other developing countries such as Nepal (3.89 USD/hh/mo) and Ethiopia (0.64-0.75 USD/hh/mo) (Lamichhane, 2019; Getachew, 2018). The very low WTP does not mean that the local communities do not value the forests but have more pressing needs of money for education and food requirements. Most of the respondents are willing to pay a certain amount for the protection and conservation of their forests. This implies that they value their forest ecosystems and are willing to contribute a substantial amount of their monthly income for the protection and conservation of their forests. www.ejtas.com EJTAS 2024 | Volume 2 | Number 2 655 The respondents' estimated mean WTP can be used to determine a potential cash stream for forest ecosystem protection and conservation. The variables with significant influence on the WTP of respondents are marital status and bid amount. The bid amount usually has a negative relationship with WTP as reported in most studies. A negative coefficient indicates that a higher bid amount correlates with a lower likelihood of the responder agreeing to pay the bid amount for forest protection and conservation. For instance, the studies of Nicosia et al. (2014), Carig et al. (2016), Pham et al. (2018), Getachew (2018), Gagarin et al. (2022) reported a negative but significant correlation of bid amount to WTP. In this study, however, the variable “amount” showed a positive and significant relationship with WTP. This means that as the bid amount increases, the higher the chance of the respondent agreeing to pay the amount. This may imply that the respondents deeply care about their forest ecosystem and that they are willing to pay a higher amount for the protection and conservation of the forest. Another significant variable is marital status. This means that married couples are more willing to pay than single and widows. This finding conforms with the study of Carig et al. (2016) where marital status is an important factor. The main reason for the WTP is because they want the forest to be conserved to sustain forest ecosystem services. The second most cited reason is because they want future generations to enjoy the services provided by the forests. On the other hand, the main reason for not willing to pay is simply, they don’t have enough money. Conclusion This study was conducted to determine the awareness of residents about forest ecosystem services and their WTP for forest protection and conservation. The result of this study showed that the respondents are aware of the regulating, supporting, and cultural services of the forest. For provisioning services, the respondents are very aware. The estimated MWTP (PhP 5.13/month/household) is very low as compared to other studies conducted in the Philippines. The result of this study revealed the communities' awareness and their willingness to contribute part of their monthly income to financing forest protection and conservation initiatives. The findings of this study could be used as an initial basis for crafting a policy on collecting Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES). However, if PES is to be institutionalized, public consultations should be conducted before bid amounts are established, as the predicted MWTP is based on a hypothetical situation. Furthermore, the same study might be carried out in the study area's neighboring watersheds. Acknowledgement The authors would like to extend their gratitude primarily to the Commission on Higher Education-Region 2, Philippines for funding the study and to the reviewers for providing insightful comments and suggestions Conflict of interests The authors declare that there are no competing interests to any authors. References Agundez,D., Lawali,S., Mahamane,A., Alia,R. and Solino,M. (2018). Consumer Preferences for Baobab Products and Implication for Conservation and Improvement Policies of Forest Food Resources in Niger (West Africa). Economic Botany, 20(10), 2018,1–15 Ahammad, R., Stacey, N., & Sunderland, T. C. (2019). Use and perceived importance of forest ecosystem services in rural livelihoods of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. Ecosystem Services, 35, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.11.009 Akinyemi,B.E.and Mushunje,A. (2017). Willingness to Pay for Wild Coast Nature Reserves Conservation through Community- www.ejtas.com EJTAS 2024 | Volume 2 | Number 2 656 based Ecotourism Projects. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(16) Aznar-Sánchez, J., Belmonte-Ureña, L., López-Serrano, M., & Velasco-Muñoz, J. (2018). Forest Ecosystem Services: An Analysis of Worldwide Research. Forests, 9(8), 453. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9080453 Calderon, M.M., Dizon, J.T., Sajise, A.J.U., Andrada, R.T., Bantayan, N.C. & Salvador, M.G. (2009). Towards the Development of a Sustainable Financing Mechanism for the Conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Philippines. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA). Carig, E. T., Carig, J. G., & Vallesteros, A. P. (2016). Assessment of Willingness to Pay as a Source of Financing for the Sustainable Development of Barobbob Watershed in Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 04(03), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2016.43004 Dehghani Pour, M., Barati, A. A., Azadi, H., Scheffran, J., & Shirkhani, M. (2023). Analyzing forest residents’ perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation. Forest Policy and Economics, 146, 102866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102866 Ezebilo, E.E. (2006). Willingness to pay for biological diversity conservation in Simbu Province, Papua New Guinea Gagarin, W.S., Eslava, D.F., Ancog, R.C., Tiburan, C.L. & Ramos, N.T. (2022). Willingness to Pay for Mangroves’ Coastal Protection: A Case Study in Santo Angel, Calauag, Quezon, Philippines. Forest and Society, 6(1), 436-449. Gebben, D. J., Loomis, J. B., Seidl, A., Graff, G., & Goldstein, J. (2010). Examining Efficiency Gains Through Combining Revealed and Stated Preferences, And Issues Related to Scope With Contingent Valuation. Colorado State University. Getachew,T. (2018). Estimating Willingness to Pay for Forest Ecosystem Conservation: The Case of Wof-Washa Forest, North Shewa Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Resources Development and Management,46 Gouwakinnou, G. N., Biaou, S., Vodouhe, F. G., Tovihessi, M. S., Awessou, B. K., & Biaou, H. S. S. (2019). Local perceptions and factors determining ecosystem services identification around two forest reserves in Northern Benin. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0343-y Halkos, G., Leonti, A., & Sardianou, E. (2020). Assessing the Preservation of Parks and Natural Protected Areas: A Review of Contingent Valuation Studies. Sustainability, 12(11), 4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114784 Haltia, E. (2015). Contingent valuation and choice experiment of citizens’ willingness to pay for forest conservation in southern Finland. Dissertationes Forestales, 2015(204). https://doi.org/10.14214/df.204 Hassin, N. H., Koshy, N., Hambali, K., & Kumaran, J. V. (2020). Local Communities Willingness to Pay for Conservation of Ecotourism Resources at Gelam Forest, Kelantan, Malaysia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 549(1), 012090. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/549/1/012090 Iqbal, M. H., & Hossain, M. E. (2022). Tourists’ willingness to pay for restoration of Sundarbans Mangrove forest ecosystems: a contingent valuation modeling study. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(3), 2443–2464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02140-w Jara, O.G. (2021). Households Willingness to Pay for The Conservation of Noug: A Case Study. Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 24(2), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.15414/raae.2021.24.02.37-48 Jin, M., Juan, Y., Choi, Y., & Lee, C. K. (2019). Estimating the Preservation Value of World Heritage Site Using Contingent Valuation Method: The Case of the Li River, China. Sustainability, 11(4), 1100. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041100 www.ejtas.com EJTAS 2024 | Volume 2 | Number 2 657 Jo, J. H., Lee, C. B., Cho, H. J., & Lee, J. (2021). Estimation of Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for the Implementation of Payment for Local Forest Ecosystem Services: The Case of Taxes and Donations. Sustainability, 13(11), 6186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116186 Kamri,T. (2013). Willingness to Pay for Conservation of Natural Resources in the Gunung Gading National Park, Sarawak.Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences 101(2013), 506–515 Kornatowska, B., & Sienkiewicz, J. (2018). Forest ecosystem services – assessment methods. Folia Forestalia Polonica, 60(4), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.2478/ffp-2018-0026 Kubak, M., Gavurova, B., & Legutka, K. (2020). Economic Value Estimation of the Natural Heritage of the Tatra National Park. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 3032. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093032 Lalika, M. C., Meire, P., Ngaga, Y. M., & Sanga, G. J. (2017). Willingness to pay for watershed conservation: are we applying the right paradigm? Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 17(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2016.12.004 Lamichhane, R., Sedhain, A., & Maharjan, M. (2019). Economic value of community forest to local users : A case study from Barandabhar Protected Forest, Chitwan, Nepal. Banko Janakari, 29(2), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.3126/banko.v29i2.28096 Legesse, F., Degefa, S., & Soromessa, T. (2022). Valuation Methods in Ecosystem Services: A Meta-analysis. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1935778/v1 Mamat, M.P., Yacob, M.R., Radam, A., Ghani, A.N.A. & Fui, L.H. (2013). Willingness to pay for protecting natural environments in Pulau Redang Marine Park, Malaysia, Banko Janakari, 7(25), 2420-2426. Manlosa, A.O., Briones, N.D., Alcantara, A.J. & Florece, L.M. (2013). Willingness to Pay for Conserving Layawan Watershed for Domestic Water Supply in Oroquieta City, Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 16(2), 1-10. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Nicosia, K., Daaram, S., Edelman, B., Gedrich, L., He, E., McNeilly, S., . . . Gray, S. (2014). Determining the willingness to pay for ecosystem service restoration in a degraded coastal watershed: A ninth grade investigation. Ecological Economics, 104, 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.010 Pascual, U., & Muradian, R. (2010). The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. Pham, T. T., Yoshino, K., & Nguyen, T. M. Q. (2016). Correlation analysis between Enhance Vegetation Index and Wood Volume in Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. Tropics, 24(4), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.3759/tropics.24.181 Quevedo, J. M. D., Uchiyama, Y., & Kohsaka, R. (2019). Perceptions of local communities on mangrove forests, their services and management: implications for Eco-DRR and blue carbon management for Eastern Samar, Philippines. Journal of Forest Research, 25(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13416979.2019.1696441 Rahmatian,M. (2005). Contingent Valuation Method. California State University, Fullerton Roces-Díaz, J. V., Vayreda, J., Banqué-Casanovas, M., Díaz-Varela, E., Bonet, J. A., Brotons, L., . . . Martínez-Vilalta, J. (2018). The spatial level of analysis affects the patterns of forest ecosystem services supply and their relationships. Science of the Total Environment, 626, 1270–1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.150 Samdin,Z. (2008). Willingness to Pay in Taman Negara: A Contingent Valuation Method. International Journal of Economics and Management, 2(1), 81-94. www.ejtas.com EJTAS 2024 | Volume 2 | Number 2 658 Schutgens, M. G., Hanson, J. H., Baral, N., & Ale, S. B. (2018). Visitors’ willingness to pay for snow leopard Panthera uncia conservation in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Oryx, 53(4), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605317001636 Tao, Z., Yan, H., & Zhan, J. (2012). Economic Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services in Heshui Watershed using Contingent Valuation Method. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 13, 2445–2450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.233 Uyan, K. G. V. (2020). Estimation of Tourists’ Willingness to Pay Entrance Fees for a Forest Bathing Site in the Philippines. Journal of Management and Development Studies, 9(1), 30-47 Xie, G., Li, W., Xiao, Y., Zhang, B., Lu, C., An, K., . . . Wang, J. (2010). Forest ecosystem services and their values in Beijing. Chinese Geographical Science, 20(1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-010-0051-y Yu, B., Cai, Y., Jin, L., & Du, B. (2018). Effects on Willingness to Pay for Marine Conservation: Evidence from Zhejiang Province, China. Sustainability, 10(7), 2298. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072298 |
|---|