Households’ willingness to pay for the restoration of degraded forest: empirical evidence from Dengego model tree-based restoration project site, Haramaya District, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the study area.

Source: Own Arc GIS mapping, 2021

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for continuous and discrete independent variables

Variables			Willing (n=196)		Non-willing (n=25)		t-value
	Max	Min	Mean	Std. Dev	Mean	Std. Dev
AgeHH	90	22	46.25	12.45	44	11.13	−0.86
EduHH	12^+5	0	1.33	3.04	1.68	2.82	0.54
FIncome	60000	1000	22092	10501.88	7116	7066.7	−6.93***
NFI	64500	0	4905.36	8047.99	39274	20525.76	15.88***
FreExt	12	0	2.37	2.66	0.48	1.66	−3.46***
FExperience	70	0	24.81	14.97	36.72	55.99	2.41**
YearsLvd	80	5	38.85	13.73	38.96	12.22	0.039
SofOLand	3.5	0.1	0.6	0.6	0.36	0.13	−2.04**
FamSizeinAE	9.52	0.75	3.63	1.22	7.24	2.42	12.16***
TLU	9.975	0	1.58	1.81	1.03	1.6	−1.45
Initial bid	500	50	158.47	124.68	444.4	132.42	10.72***

*** and ** shows significant variables at 1 and 5% probability levels

Source: Own survey result, 2021

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for dummy independent variables

Variables	Category	Willing (n=196)		Non-willing (n=25)		χ^2 - value
		N	%	N	%
SexHH	Male	184	88.46	24	11.54	0.18
	Female	12	92.31	1	7.69
MaritalStatHH	Married	177	88.06	24	11.94	0.87
	Single	19	95	1	5
CreditAccess	Yes	4	80	1	20	0.38
	No	192	88.89	24	11.11
Slope	Steep	126	90	14	10	0.66
	Not Steep	70	86.42	10	13.58
LandCert	Yes	161	90.45	17	9.55	2.83*
	No	35	81.40	8	18.60
AwareinAfforest	Yes	163	86.70	25	13.30	4.95**
	No	33	100.00	0	0.00

** and * shows significant variables at 5 and 10% probability levels, respectively

Source: Own survey result, 2021

Table 3. Patterns of response for the two offered bids

Possible outcome	Frequency	Percent
Yes – Yes	126	57.01
Yes – No	55	24.89
No – Yes	15	6.79
No – No	25	11.31

Source: Own survey result, 2021

Table 4. Reasons for accepting the offered bids

Possible reasons	Frequency	Percent
I think it worth’s that amount	30	13.57
I want to see the resource at its former beauty	51	23.08
The change will benefit me and my household	62	28.05
I am highly interested no matter what it costs	32	14.48
For the good of future generation	46	20.82
Total	221	100

Source: Own survey result, 2021

Table 5. Reasons for rejecting the offered bids and zero elicitation

Possible reasons	Frequency	Percent
I do not need the change to be made	0	00.00
I cannot afford to pay or contribute	0	00.00
The government should pay or contribute for it	0	00.00
Others should pay or contribute for it^2	5	100
Total	5	100

Source: Own survey result, 2021

Table 6. Seemingly unrelated bivariate probit parameter estimates

	Variable	Coefficient	Std. Err	$\mathrm{P}>\left|\mathrm{Z}\right|$
WTP1	Bid1	−0.0043815	0.0006985	0.000***
	Constant	1.952498	0.2129373	0.000***
WTP2	Bid2	−0.0024772	0.000422	0.000***
	Constant	1.071431	0.1510892	0.000***
	Athrho	0.621659	0.2022593	0.002***
	Rho/P***	0.552282	0.140567
Number of obs		221
Log likelihood		−202.88
Wald chi^2(2)		68.92
Prob > chi^2		0.0000
Likelihood-ratio test of rho = 0: chi^2(1) = 10.6717 Prob > chi^2 = 0.0011
Mean WTP = 439 ETB (445.6 to 432.5 ETB at 95% CI)
y = Pr (WTP1=1, WTP2=1) (predict, p11) = 0.64

***Significant at 1% probability levels

Source: Own survey result, 2021

Table 7. Determinants of households’ WTP for forest restoration

Variables	WTP1		WTP2		Joint marginal effect
	Coefficient	Robust Std. err.	Coefficient	Robust Std. err.
Bid1	−0.0046***	0.0011	−0.0053***	0.0009	−0.0022
AgeHH	0.0258	0.0213	−0.0041	0.0120	0.0008
SexHH	4.5535	967.51	1.8194**	0.7334	0.6910
MaritalStatusHH	−5.0209	967.51	−0.1691	0.6313	−0.1553
EduHH	0.0181	0.0617	0.0213	0.0372	0.0087
Credit	−0.6795	0.7940	0.5133	0.8029	0.0390
FreExt	−0.1059*	0.0556	0.0213**	0.0372	0.0273
FIncome	7.75e-06	0.0000	1.80e-06	0.0000	1.27e^−06
NFI	−0.000044***	0.000015	−0.000018*	0.00001	−9.89e^−06
SofOLand	−0.1112	0.3670	−0.7225***	0.1839	−0.2527
Slope	0.8438**	0.3977	0.0025	0.2629	0.0884
LandCertificate	1.4797***	0.4489	1.1001***	0.3261	0.5175
TLU	0.0587	0.0781	0.1585**	0.0703	0.0584
FamSizeinAE	−0.0283	0.1146	0.0665	0.0868	0.0200
YearsLvd	−0.0171	0.0209	0.0050	0.0118	0.0002
FExperience	−0.0343*	0.0180	−0.0023	0.0084	−0.0037
AwareAfforest	0.0544	0.4219	0.2574	0.3133	0.0941
cons	4.8324	6.1592	−3.7726	3.4970
Number of observation = 221 Log pseudo likelihood = −136.58 Wald chi^2 (34) = 113.41 Prob > chi^2 = 0.0000		Rho = −0.05 Wald test of rho=0: chi^2 (1) = 0.0656 Prob > chi^2 = 0.0798 y = Pr (WTP1=1, WTP2=1) (predict, p11) = 0.64

***, ** and * shows significant variables at 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels, respectively

Source: Own survey result, 2021

Table 8. Aggregate WTP of Biftu Geda Kebele and Haramaya district

Kebele and District	Total HHs (X)	Sampled HHs	Valid response	% protest (A)	Expected protest (Y)^3	Expected valid response (Z)^4	Mean WTP	Aggregate WTP
Biftu - Geda	752	226	221	2.21	17	735	439	322,665
Haramaya	54,204	226	221	2.21	1,198	53,006	439	23,269,634

Source: Own survey result, 2021