Download
Cite as:
Hillmann, B. (2009): <b>Preferences of local and regional stakeholders of ecosystem services derived from the Podocarpus National Park (pilot study).</b> <i>Available online (http://www.tropicalmountainforest.org/data_pre.do?citid=607) from DFG-FOR816dw.</i>

Resource Description
Title: Preferences of local and regional stakeholders of ecosystem services derived from the Podocarpus National Park (pilot study)
Short Name: local and regional preferences
FOR816dw ID: 607
Publication Date: 2009-06-29
Last Update Date: 2010-11-29
License and Usage Rights: FOR816 data user agreement
Temporal Coverage:
Begin: 2009-03-03
End: 2009-03-19
Geographic Coverage:
Geographic Description: cities of Loja and Zamora, Corazon de Oro
Bounding Coordinates:
- lon/lat [degrees]
- WGS 84
max latitude: Max:
min longitude: max longitude: Elevation
min latitude: Min:
Dataset creator(s):
Individual: Boris Hillmann
Contact:
Abstract:
Ecosystem services dervied from the Podocarpus National Park provide benefits for local, regional, and global stakeholders. Different strategies concerning nature conservation, land-use and other biodiversity affecting activities will influenc the quality and quantity of ecosystem services in the region. Purpose of this (pilot) study is to assess the opinion and preferences of local and regional stakeholders of ecosystem service benefits from nature. Selected attributes (endemic plants, water quality, carbon uptake, proximity of forest) were presented in different levels and connected with prices (positive values indicate compensation, negative values indicate tax) in order to depict their monetary preferences and values they share with the presented ecosystem services. <br/> First analyses show that willingness-to-accept is more selected than willingness-to-pay-scenarios. The attribute "proximity to forest" is not significant. Results suggesting for the main study to use a wider range of monetary values offered and to provoke more the affirmations persons were asked to agree or disagree to.
Additional Infos:
Following information describes the codes and their meaning for each of the listed attributes:<br/> <br/> <br/> location<br/> 1 city (Loja or Zamora)<br/> 2 village (Corazon de Oro)<br/> <br/> person<br/> each person interviewed received a number from 1-109<br/> <br/> setblock<br/> the complete choice set with 27 choice cards is divided in three set blocks (interviews) (1-3), each containing 9 choices<br/> <br/> biodiver<br/> biodiversity attribute used in the study, 3 levels:<br/> ? 211 endemic plants (status quo scenario), level code 1 (status quo)<br/> ? 221 endemic plants, level code 2<br/> ? 201 endemic plants, level code 0<br/> <br/> water<br/> water attribute used in the study, 3 levels <br/> ? high contamination with bacteria, 2900 persons sick each year in Loja and associated part of Corazon de Oro, 600 persons sick each year in Zamora and associated part in Corazon de Oro, level code 1 (status quo)<br/> ? less contamination with bacteria, 2700 persons sick each year in Loja and associated part of Corazon de Oro, 400 persons sick each year in Zamora and associated part in Corazon de Oro, level code 2<br/> ? more contamination with bacteria, 3100 persons sick each year in Loja and associated part of Corazon de Oro, 800 persons sick each year in Zamora and associated part in Corazon de Oro, level code 0<br/> <br/> climate<br/> climate control attribute used in the study , 3 levels:<br/> ? no compensation of 2 tons of CO2, no additional emission of 2 tons CO2, no deforestation, no reforestation, level code 1 (status quo)<br/> ? compensation of 2 tons CO2 by reforestation of 20m x 25m, level code 2<br/> ? additional emission of 2 tons of CO2 by deforestation of 20m x 25m, level code 0<br/> <br/> proximit<br/> proximity of forest attribute used in the study, 3 levels:<br/> ? current distance, level code 1 (status quo)<br/> ? minus half of the current distance, level code 2<br/> ? plus half of the current distance, level code 0<br/> <br/> cost<br/> cost attribute used in the study, 7 levels:<br/> ? $0, level code 3 (status quo)<br/> ? $10, willingness to pay (WTP), level code 2<br/> ? $25, WTP, level code 1<br/> ? $45, WTP, level code 0<br/> ? -$10, willingness to accept (WTA), level code 4<br/> ? -$25, WTA, level code 5<br/> ? -$45, WTA, level code 6<br/> <br/> setno<br/> choice set number from 1-9 used in the interview<br/> <br/> set_card<br/> choice set number from 1-27 used in the study<br/> <br/> option_scenario<br/> options presented to the interviewed person of each of the 27 offered sets (scenarios) illustrated on the choice cards, indicated with 1, 2, and 3<br/> <br/> choice<br/> choice made by the interviewed person, indicated with 1 (not chosen scenarios indicated with 0)<br/> <br/> gender<br/> gender of the interviewed person, male 1, female 0<br/> <br/> age<br/> age of the interviewed person<br/> <br/> educatio<br/> education level of the interviewed person<br/> ? primary level 1<br/> ? secondary level 2<br/> ? university 3<br/> ? none 0<br/> <br/> income<br/> income classes from 1-10<br/> <br/> incomec<br/> average income of the interviewed person?s household per month<br/> <br/> hhmember<br/> number of members of the household of the interviewed person<br/> <br/> A1-A28<br/> Responses to the affirmations of the interview<br/> ? ?I agree? 1 ?very important? 1<br/> ? ?I rather agree? 2 ?rather important? 2<br/> ? ?neither nor? 3 ?neither nor? 3<br/> ? ?I rather do not agree? 4 ?rather not important? 4<br/> ? ?I do not agree? 5 ?not important? 5<br/> Affirmations:<br/> 1. I like the fact that many kinds of plants and animals exist here <br/> 2. Diversity of plants and animals is not concerning me very much<br/> 3. Many animals and plants are a nuisance. It is better if they disappear for ever.<br/> 4. I think our children and grandchildren should also enjoy nature<br/> 5. Maybe some of the wild plants or animals can be useful one day<br/> 6. I want to see many animals and plants when I go to the forests<br/> 7. I do not feel comfortable when I hear that plants or animals here would disappear<br/> 8. Each life on earth has the right to live.<br/> 9. It would be nice to have lot of types of plants or animals here, but I actually do not care too much about it<br/> 10. If many types of plants and animals disappear here it would affect my standard of living in a negative way<br/> 11. I want that many types of plants and animals can survive here in our region, even if I never see them<br/> 12. Water availability for me and my household is<br/> 13. Water quality for me and my household is<br/> 14. Water availability is not a problem for me and my household<br/> 15. Water quality is not a problem for me and my household<br/> 16. Climate change is not affecting me or my household<br/> 17. I think climate change is more a problem of the rich countries in this world<br/> 18. Climate change is everywhere and can be very dangerous if we do not do something against it<br/> 19. I can not do anything to stop climate change<br/> 20. The forests in our region are good against climate change<br/> 21. We need our forests here in our region to mitigate the effects of climate change<br/> 22. We need more forests here in our region to mitigate the effects of climate change<br/> 23. I spend a lot of my time working in the forest<br/> 24. I go to the forest for recreation<br/> 25. I do not feel very comfortable to live near a forest<br/> 26. I do not want to walk long distances to get to the next forest<br/> 27. I like to live near a forest<br/> 28. Having a forest close to home makes life more easy <br/> <br/> <br/> B2<br/> Evaluation of the confidence of the interviewed person<br/> ? ?confident? 1<br/> ? ?rather confident? 2<br/> ? ?neither nor? 3<br/> ? ?rather not confident? 4<br/> ? ?not confident? 5<br/> <br/> B2<br/> Evaluation of the understanding of the interviewed person by the interviewer<br/> ? ?understood well? 1<br/> ? ?rather understood? 2<br/> ? ?neither nor? 3<br/> ? ?rather not understood? 4<br/> ? ?not understood? 5<br/> <br/> B3<br/> Evaluation whether the interviewed person was in time pressure by the interviewer<br/> ? ?yes? 1<br/> ? ?rather yes? 2<br/> ? ?neither nor? 3<br/> ? ?rather no? 4<br/> ? ?no? 5<br/> <br/> B4<br/> Evaluation whether the interviewed person was emotionally involved with the topic by the interviewer<br/> ? ?yes? 1<br/> ? ?rather yes? 2<br/> ? ?neither nor? 3<br/> ? ?rather no? 4<br/> ? ?no? 5<br/>
Keywords:
| biodiversity | willingness-to-pay | willingness-to-accept | choice experiment | ecosystem services |
Associated entities to this dataset:
-------- 1 . data table entity --------
Table Name: local and regional preferences
Tech. Details ...
Attribute(s) ...
Metadata Provider:
Individual: Thomas Lotz
Contact:
Contact Person:
Individual: Boris Hillmann
Contact:
Online Distribution:
Download File: http://www.tropicalmountainforest.org/data_pre.do?citid=607
Data Publisher:
Organization: DFG-FOR816 Data Warehouse - University of Marburg, Department of Geography
Contact:


Quick search

  • Publications:
  • Datasets:

Keywords:

Datasets: / Publications:
Andes Biodiversity Birds climate change ECSF Ecuador elevational gradient land use change Newsletter nitrogen NUMEX Oribatids Paramo phosphorus reforestation remote sensing South Ecuador Tabebuia Bulletins tree growth tropical montane forest

rnse logo

Radar Network Ecuador - Peru