Understanding Contingent Valuation Method for Community-based Forest Protection

Community forestry has increasingly been recognized as a critical strategy for mitigating deforestation, conserving biodiversity, and fostering sustainable livelihoods, particularly in regions confronting acute forest degradation and unsustainable land-use practices. Notable examples of its implementation can be observed across Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, where community-based approaches have sought to balance ecological preservation with socio-economic benefits.

The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), a seminal contribution to environmental economics, offers a framework for assigning monetary value to non-market goods such as biodiversity, clean air, and ecosystem services. Initially conceptualized by Ciriacy-Wantrup (1947) in his analysis of soil conservation economics, CVM proposed the use of surveys to estimate individuals' willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental goods. Its practical formalization emerged in the 1960s, with further refinements during the 1970s and 1980s, culminating in Mitchell and Carson’s (1989) authoritative guidelines, which positioned CVM as a cornerstone of environmental valuation.

CVM facilitates community engagement in valuing forest resources by quantifying the benefits of sustainable land use. This approach not only aligns conservation efforts with local priorities but also enhances ownership, thereby contributing to the long-term viability of forest protection initiatives. Despite its practical utility, CVM has elicited scholarly debate. Proponents, rooted in neoclassical welfare economics, view it as a robust tool for integrating non-market values into cost-benefit analyses (Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1947; Davis, 1963; Mitchell and Carson, 1989). Critics, however, highlight limitations such as cognitive biases, hypothetical scenarios, and strategic misrepresentation (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). Further, scholars like Martinez-Alier (1990s) and Spash (2000s) argue that CVM overly simplifies ecological and cultural complexities by reducing them to monetary terms, neglecting intrinsic and relational values.

In line with these critiques, early insights from Ostrom (1990) and Sen (1970) advocate for participatory and deliberative methods that better capture communal and cultural preferences, thereby complementing or even substituting CVM in contexts where monetary valuation may be insufficient or inappropriate.?

CVM is viewed as an extension of market principles to non-market goods, aligning with welfare economics and cost-benefit analysis.?In the context of community forest management, CVM can be applied to the examination of?the economic value?of a forest as a natural resource and?the rural households' willingness to pay (WTP) for the forest conservation to derive monetary estimates of the non-market benefits provided by community-managed forests. The result can be used?to inform policy on sustainable forest management and community engagement by quantifying the perceived economic value of community forestry. Framed as a hypothetical payment into a community fund for instance, CVM evaluates the intrinsic and extrinsic values households place on forest conservation by estimating WTP or in some cases Willingness to Accept (WTA).

Despite wide-ranging schools of thought in support of the approach, some aspects of CVM remain hard to sell based on the following nuances:

(i) Hypothetical Nature of CVM Scenarios: While CVM is a widely used method for valuing non-market goods, its reliance on hypothetical scenarios can lead to hypothetical bias. Respondents may overstate or understate their WTP because they are not making actual payments. This issue can be a challenge in rural locations where cash income is limited, and resource valuation might differ significantly from real-world behaviors (Lee and Hwang, 2016; and Haab et al., 2020; Pemi eta la., 2021, and Opa?ak, 2022). Thus, the accuracy of the WTP estimates and their applicability to policy-making could be questioned.

?

(ii) Equity Implications of Payment Models: Proposing payment schemes for forest conservation risks marginalizing low-income households, who may perceive such initiatives as a financial burden despite recognizing the ecological value of forests (Bhattarai?et al., 2021 and Ribari??et al., 2024) . This tension between collective benefits and individual financial constraints may not be adequately resolved in natural resources management.

?

(iii) Cultural and Contextual Relevance: Translating abstract concepts like "payment for conservation" into culturally relevant terms for rural households is inherently difficult. Communities with limited exposure to monetary transactions or conservation funding may struggle to understand the CVM framework fully (Eregae?et al., 2021; Assumma?and Luca, 2024). This could affect the validity of the results, as respondents might express preferences influenced by misunderstandings rather than genuine valuation.

CVM is very useful in quantifying the non-market benefits of community-based forest protection processes, bridging the gap between economic valuation and environmental policy. By linking WTP to forest conservation, local communities perceive their natural resources' economic and ecological importance. The approach also provides a richer understanding of the factors influencing community engagement in forestry initiatives including the socio-economic determinants of valuation, such as education, forest dependency, and household income. Through this approach, there is a richer understanding of the factors that influence community engagement in forestry initiatives, which must not be overlooked because of the policy implications that these can have. The results have direct implications for designing community-based payment schemes and incentivizing sustainable forest management. By demonstrating that rural households assign economic value to forest conservation, CVM provides a compelling argument for integrating community-based forest management into national and sub-national environmental policies.

Despite these strengths, employing complementary methods, such as choice experiments or revealed preference approaches, could strengthen the validity of CVM. The method's emphasis on monetary valuation potentially overlooks non-monetary values such as spiritual, cultural, or intrinsic connections to forests. These dimensions are often crucial in rural contexts, where forests play a multifaceted role, especially in community identity and resilience.

Linking Results to Action

The results of deploying CVM can guide decision-making which can be beneficial to the community and for the state:

• Designing Incentives: Use WTP data to develop mechanisms like Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) to compensate households for conservation efforts.
• Mobilizing Resources: Establish community forest protection funds based on community contributions.
• Advocacy: Multistakeholder platforms can use the valuation results to advocate for increased budgetary allocations by governments such as the example of MSP advocacy activities under NISCOPS in Nigeria. Funding can also be sourced from NGOs to support forest conservation activities at community levels.

References

Assumma, V. and De Luca, C., 2024, July. Assessing the Value of Cultural Landscapes Through the Integration of Biophysical-Economic Valuation, Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis. In?International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications?(pp. 78-93). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Bhattarai, B.R., Morgan, D. and Wright, W., 2021. Equitable sharing of benefits from tiger conservation: Beneficiaries’ willingness to pay to offset the costs of tiger conservation.?Journal of Environmental Management,?284, p.112018.

Carson, R., 2012.?Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V., 1956. Concepts used as economic criteria for a system of water rights.?Land Economics,?32(4), pp.295-312.

Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V., 1947. Capital returns from soil-conservation practices.?Journal of farm economics,?29(4), pp.1181-1196.

Eregae, Justus E., Paul Njogu, Rebecca Karanja, and Moses Gichua, 2021. "Economic valuation for cultural and passive ecosystem services using a stated preference (Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)) case of the elgeyo watershed ecosystem, Kenya."?International Journal of Forestry Research?2021, no. 1 (2021): 5867745.

Ghanian, M., Ghoochani, O.M., Noroozi, H. and Cotton, M., 2022. Valuing wetland conservation: A contingent valuation analysis among Iranian beneficiaries.?Journal for Nature Conservation,?66, p.126140.

Haab, T., Lewis, L.Y. and Whitehead, J., 2020. State of the art of contingent valuation.?Oxford research encyclopedia of environmental science.

Halkos, G., Leonti, A. and Sardianou, E., 2020. Assessing the preservation of parks and natural protected areas: A review of Contingent Valuation studies.?Sustainability,?12(11), p.4784.

Lee, J. and Hwang, U., 2016. Hypothetical bias in risk preferences as a driver of hypothetical bias in willingness to pay: Experimental evidence.?Environmental and Resource Economics,?65, pp.789-811.

Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T., 2013.?Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Rff press.

Opa?ak, M., 2022. A review of theoretical and conceptual foundations for consolidated analysis of CVM and CBA for natural and environmental resources. In?11th International Scientific Symposium Region Entrepreneurship Development?(pp. 531-548). Ekonomski fakultet.

Ostrom, E., 1990.?Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press.

Perni, á., Barreiro-Hurlé, J. and Martínez-Paz, J.M., 2021. Contingent valuation estimates for environmental goods: Validity and reliability.?Ecological Economics,?189, p.107144.

Pérez-Sánchez, D., Montes, M., Cardona-Almeida, C., Vargas-Marín, L.A., Enríquez-Acevedo, T. and Suarez, A., 2021. Keeping people in the loop: Socioeconomic valuation of dry forest ecosystem services in the Colombian Caribbean region.?Journal of Arid Environments,?188, p.104446.

Raihan, A., 2023. A review on the integrative approach for economic valuation of forest ecosystem services.?Journal of Environmental Science and Economics,?2(3), pp.1-18.

Ribari?, E., Veli?, I. and Bobinac, A., 2024. Monetary value of health—a practical decision-making framework combining equity considerations and WTP.?The European journal of health economics, pp.1-16.

Sen, A., 1970. The impossibility of a Paretian liberal.?Journal of political economy,?78(1), pp.152-157.

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., 1988. Rational choice and the framing of decisions.?Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions, pp.167-192.