Willingness of payment for forest environmental services: a systematic literature review for determinants

References

• Acharya RP, Maraseni TN, Cockfield G. 2021. Estimating the willingness to pay for regulating and cultural ecosystem services from forested Siwalik landscapes: perspectives of disaggregated users. Ann For Sci. 78(2):51. doi: 10.1007/s13595-021-01046-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aguilar FX, Obeng EA, Cai Z. 2018. Water quality improvements elicit consistent willingness-to-pay for the enhancement of forested watershed ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv. 30:158–171. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amarnath D, Komagal M. 2014. An economic analysis of sago pollution in Tamil Nadu, India. J Int Acad Res Multidiscip. 2(7):150–17.
   Google Scholar
• Ariyo OC, Okojie LO, Ariyo MO. 2018. Villagers willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. Asian J Agric Ext Econ Sociol. 23(4):1–14. doi: 10.9734/AJAEES/2018/40142.
   Google Scholar
• Arriagada RA, Sills EO, Pattanayak SK, Ferraro PJ. 2009. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate participation in Costa Rica’s program of payments for environmental services. Journal Of Sustainable Forestry. 28(3–5):343–367. doi: 10.1080/10549810802701192.
   Google Scholar
• Aslam U, Termansen M, Fleskens L. 2017. Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems. Ecosyst Serv. 27:103–112. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asmare E, Bekele K, Fentaw S. 2022. Households’ willingness to pay for the rehabilitation of wetlands: evidence from Gudera wetland, Northwest Ethiopia. Heliyon. 8(1):e08813. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08813.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bamwesigye D, Hlavackova P, Sujova A, Fialova J, Kupec P. 2020. Willingness to pay for forest existence value and sustainability. Sustainability. 12(3):891. doi: 10.3390/su12030891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borzykowski N, Baranzini A, Maradan D. 2018. Scope effects in contingent valuation: does the assumed statistical distribution of WTP matter? Ecol Econ. 144:319–329. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bremer LL, Farley KA, Lopez-Carr D. 2014. What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador’s SocioPáramo program. Land Use Policy. 36:122–133. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson RT. 2012. Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren’t available. Journal Of Economic Perspectives. 26(4):27–42. doi: 10.1257/jep.26.4.27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson RT, Groves T. 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Environ Res Econ. 37(1):181–210. doi: 10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Center for People and Forests. 2015. Equity in forests and REDD+: an analysis of equity challenges as viewed by forestry decision-makers and practitioners in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam. Bangkok, Thailand. Equity in forests and REDD+.pdf (snrd-asia.org).
   Google Scholar
• Chen M-F. 2014. An examination of the value-belief-norm theory model in predicting pro-environmental behaviour in Taiwan. Asian J Soc Psychol. 18(2):145–151. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.12096.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi H, Jang J, Kandampully J. 2015. Application of the extended VBN theory to understand consumers’ decisions about green hotels. Int J Hosp Manage. 51:87–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.08.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Climate Focus. 2015. Progress on the New York declaration on forest – an assessment framework and initial report. Prepared by climate focus, in collaboration with the alliance for clean cookstoves, environmental defense fund, forest trends, the global canopy.
   Google Scholar
• Cranford M, Mourato S. 2014. Credit-based payments for ecosystem services: evidence from a choice experiment in Ecuador. World Dev. 64:503–520. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.06.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dardanoni V, Guerriero C. 2021. Young people’s willingness to pay for environmental protection. Ecol Econ. 179:106853. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106853.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Groot JIM, Steg L. 2008. Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav. 40(3):330–354. doi: 10.1177/0013916506297831.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond PA, Hausman JA. 1994. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect. 8(4):45–64. doi: 10.1257/jep.8.4.45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD. 1978. The “new environmental paradigm”. J Environ Educ. 9(4):10–19. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE. 2000. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues. 56(3):425–442. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endalew B, Assefa WB, Li F. 2019. Determinants of households’ willingness to pay for the conservation of church forests in northwestern Ethiopia: a contingent valuation study. Cogent Environ Sci. 5(1):1570659. doi: 10.1080/23311843.2019.1570659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farley J, Costanza R. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol Econ. 69(11):2060–2068. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher AC. 2005. Investment under uncertainty and option value in environmental economics: reply. Resour Energy Econ. 27(1):89. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2004.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher B, Kulindwa K, Mwanyoka I, Turner RK, Burgess ND. 2010. Common pool resource management and PES: lessons and constraints for water PES in Tanzania. Ecol Econ. 69(6):1253–1261. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. J Res Dev Manage. 46:46–61.
   Google Scholar
• Ghazali EM, Nguyen B, Mutum DS, Yap S-F. 2019. Pro-environmental behaviours and value-belief-norm theory: assessing unobserved heterogeneity of two ethnic groups. Sustainability. 11(12):3237. doi: 10.3390/su11123237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greiner R, Bliemer M, Ballweg J. 2014. Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation. J Choice Model. 10:34–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jocm.2014.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haile KK, Tirivayi N, Tesfaye W. 2019. Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: the case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia. Ecosyst Serv. 39:100964. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100964.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ha L, Mai N, Hung L, Hitoshi S. 2023. Implementation of payment for forest environmental services and its influence on the livelihood of ethnic minorities in Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. Trees For People. 13:100404. doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2023.100404.
   Google Scholar
• Han H, Hwang J. 2015. Norm-based loyalty model (NLM): investigating delegates’ loyalty formation for environmentally responsible conventions. Int J Hospitality Manage. 46:1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica. 47(1):153–161. doi: 10.2307/1912352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoang CT, Kirby M, Tran LD. 2022. User willingness to pay for natural resource conservation at Bach Long Vy Island, Vietnam. Vietnam J Earth Sci. 44:239–256. doi: 10.15625/2615-9783/16969.
   Google Scholar
• Hung VT, Thanh VN, Simioni M. 2020. Willingness to pay for mangrove preservation in Xuan Thuy National Park, Vietnam: do household knowledge and interest play a role? J Environ Econ Policy. 9(4):402–420. doi: 10.1080/21606544.2020.1716854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iqbal MH. 2020. Valuing ecosystem services of Sundarbans mangrove forest for improved conservation: approach of randomized conjoint experiment. For Econ Rev. 2(1):117–132. doi: 10.1108/FER-04-2020-0008.
   Google Scholar
• Iranah P, Lal P, Wolde BT, Burli P. 2018. Valuing visitor access to forested areas and exploring willingness to pay for forest conservation and restoration finance: the case of small island developing state of Mauritius. Jf Environ Manage. 223:868–877. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jindal R, Kerr JM, Ferraro PJ, Swallow BM. 2013. Social dimensions of procurement auctions for environmental service contracts: evaluating tradeoffs between cost-effectiveness and participation by the poor in rural Tanzania. Land Use Policy. 31:71–80. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston RJ, Boyle KJ, Adamowicz W, Bennett J, Brouwer R, Cameron TA, Hanemann WM, Hanley N, Ryan M, Scarpa R, et al. 2017. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ. 4(2):319–405. doi: 10.1086/691697.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones KW, Foucat SA, Pischke EC, Salcone J, Torrez D, Selfa T, Halvorsen KE. 2019. Exploring the connections between participation in and benefits from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz State, Mexico. Ecosyst Serv. 35:32–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones KW, Powlen K, Roberts R, Shinbrot X. 2020. Participation in payments for ecosystem services programs in the Global South: a systematic review. Ecosyst Serv. 45:101159. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaczan D, Swallow BM, Adamowicz WL. 2013. Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: an assessment of payment approaches. Ecol Econ. 95:20–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaczan DJ, Swallow BM, Adamowicz WL. 2016. Forest conservation policy and motivational crowding: experimental evidence from Tanzania. Ecol Econ. 156:444–453. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.002.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser FG, Hubner G, Bogner FX. 2005. Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 35:2150–2170. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02213.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellen A, Robert K, Vincent BM, John RS, Tabuti DS. 2020. Determinants of participation in state and private PES projects in Uganda. Sci Afr. 8:e00370. doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00370.
   Google Scholar
• Kiatkawsin K, Han H. 2017. Young travelers’ intention to behave pro-environmentally: merging the value-belief-norm theory and the expectancy theory. Tourism Manage. 59:76–88. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.06.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee CY, Heo H. 2016. Estimating willingness to pay for renewable energy in South Korea using the contingent valuation method. Energy Policy. 94:150–156. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y. 2020. The willingness to pay for ecosystem services on the tibetan plateau of China. Geogr Sustainability. 1(2):141–151. doi: 10.1016/j.geosus.2020.06.001.
   Google Scholar
• Loft L, Le D, Thuy P, Yang A, Tjajad J, Wong G. 2017. Whose equity matters? National to local equity perceptions in Vietnam’s payments for forest ecosystem services scheme. Ecol Econ. 135:164–175. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez-Mosquera N, Sanchez M. 2012. Theory of planned behavior and the value- belief-norm theory explaining willingness to pay for a suburban park. Journal Of Environmental Management. 113:251–262. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer M, Woltering M. 2018. Assessing and valuing the recreational ecosystem services of Germany’s national parks using travel cost models. Ecosyst Serv. 31:371–386. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mojiol AR, Hong KY, Saleh E. 2019. Willingness to pay for mangroves conservation by the local communities in Salut Mengkabong Lagoon, Tuaran Sabah. Trofical For J. 14(1):1–9. doi: 10.36873/jht.v14i1.310.
   Google Scholar
• Muradian R, Arsel M, Pellegrini L, Adaman F, Aguilar B, Agarwal B, Corbera E, Ezzine de Blas D, Farley J, Froger G, et al. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win–win solutions. Conserv Lett. 6(4):274–279. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muradian R, Corbera E, Pascual U, Kosoy N, May PH. 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ. 69(6):1202–1208. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musa F, Fozi NM, Mohd DDH. 2020. Coastal communities’ willingness to pay for mangrove ecotourism in Marudu Bay, Sabah, Malaysia. J Sustain Sci Manag. 15(4):130–140. doi: 10.46754/jssm.2020.06.013.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen MR, Theilade I, Meilby H, Nui NH, Lam NT. 2018. Can PES and REDD+ match willingness to accept payments in contracts for reforestation and avoided forest degradation? The case of farmers in upland Bac Kan. Land Use Policy. 79:822–833. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyongesa JM, Bett HK, Lagat JK, Ayuya OI. 2016. Estimating farmers’ stated willingness to accept pay for ecosystem services: case of Lake Naivasha watershed Payment for Ecosystem Services scheme-Kenya. Ecol Processes. 5:1–15. doi: 10.1186/s13717-016-0059-z.
   Google Scholar
• Obeng EA, Aguilar FX. 2018. Value orientation and payment for ecosystem services: perceived detrimental consequences lead to willingness-to-pay for ecosystem services. Journal Of Environmental Management. 206:458–471. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.059.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ojea E, Loureiro M. 2007. Altrustic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay for wildlife. Ecol Econ. 63(4):807–814. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham TD, Kaida N, Yoshino K, Nguyen XH, Nguyen HT, Bui DT. 2018. Willingness to pay for mangrove restoration in the context of climate change in the Cat Ba biosphere reserve, Vietnam. Ocean Coast Manag. 163:269–277. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.07.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poudyal B, Upadhaya S, Acharya S, Khanal Chhetri BB. 2021. Assessing socio-economic factors affecting the implementation of payment for ecosystem services (PES) mechanism. World. 2(1):81–91. doi: 10.3390/world2010006.
   Google Scholar
• Rakotomahazo C, Razanoelisoa J, Ranivoarivelo NL, Todinanahary GGB, Ranaivoson E, Remanevy ME, Ravaoarinorotsihoarana LA, Lavitra T. 2021. Community perceptions of a payment for ecosystem services project in Southwest Madagascar: a preliminary study. Land 2021. 10(6):597. doi: 10.3390/land10060597.
   Google Scholar
• Rochon PA, Bero LA, Bay AM. 2002. Comparison of review articles published in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals. JAMA. 287(21):2853–2856. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachin SM, Yadav VK, Pal S, Karmakar S, Bharti VS. 2020. Survey based economic evaluation of ecosystem services of mangrove from Uttar Kannada district of Karnataka, India. J Environ Biol. 41(5):980–986. doi: 10.22438/jeb/41/5/MRN-1216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salzman J, Bennett G, Carroll N, Goldstein A, Jenkins M. 2018. The global status and trends of payments for ecosystem services. Nat Sustain. 1(3):136–144. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saptutyningsih E, Diswandi D. 2019. Application of choice modelling on mangrove forest valuation in West Lombok, Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci. 398(1):012012. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/398/1/012012.
   Google Scholar
• Sardana K. 2019. Tourists’ willingness to pay for restoration of traditional agro-forest ecosystems providing biodiversity: evidence from India. Ecol Econ. 159:362–372. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH. 1970. Elicitation of moral obligation and self-sacrificing behavior: an experimental study of volunteering to be a bone marrow donor. J Pers Soc Psychol. 15(4):283–293. doi: 10.1037/h0029614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 25:1–65. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH. 1996. Value priorities and behaviour: applying a theory of integrated value systems. Psychol Values. 8:119–144.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH, Howard JA. 1981. A normative decision-making model of altruism. In: Rushton J, and Sorrentino RM, editors. Altruism and helping behavior: social, personality, and developmental perspectives. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum; p. 89–211.
   Google Scholar
• Smith S, Rowcroft P, Everard M, Couldrick L, Reed M, Rogers H, Quick T, Eves C, White C. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services: a best practice guide. London: Defra.
   Google Scholar
• Spash CL. 2006. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Econ. 82(4):602–622. doi: 10.3368/le.82.4.602.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spash CL, Urama K, Burton R, Kenyon W, Shannon P, Hill G. 2009. Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in water ecosystems: economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecol Econ. 68(4):955–964. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefano P. 2011. Using PES to implement REDD. Latin America and Caribbean sustainable development department. Washington (DC) (USA): World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W. 2005. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J Environ Psychol. 25(4):415–425. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steg L, Vlek C. 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol. 29(3):309–317. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steigenberger C, Flatscher-Thoeni M, Siebert U, Leiter M. 2022. Determinants of willingness to pay for health services: a systematic review of contingent valuation studies. Eur J Health Econ. 23(9):1455–1482. doi: 10.1007/s10198-022-01437-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern PC. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues. 56(3):407–424. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol. 6(2):81–97.
   Google Scholar
• Stern PC, Kalof L, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. 1995. Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects 1. J Appl Soc Psychol. 25(18):1611–1636. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02636.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunoto YN, Ponrahono Z, Osman MM. 2020. Profiling the perceived mangrove forest use value and community’s willingness to pay for mangrove conservation. Plann Malays. 18(13):229–240. doi: 10.21837/pm.v18i13.788.
   Google Scholar
• Taye FA, Vedel SE, Jacobsen JB. 2018. Accounting for environmental attitude to explain variations in willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services using the new environmental paradigm. J Environ Econ Policy. 7(4):420–440. doi: 10.1080/21606544.2018.1467346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The BD, Ngoc HB. 2008. Payments for environmental services in Vietnam: an empirical experiment in sustainable forest management. ASEAN Econ Bull. 25(1):48–59. doi: 10.1355/AE25-1E.
   Google Scholar
• Tran YL, Siry JP, Bowker JM, Poudyal NC. 2017. Atlanta households’ willingness to increase urban forests to mitigate climate change. Urban For Urban Greening. 22:84–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuan TH, My NHD, Anh LTQ, Toan NV. 2014. Using contingent valuation method to estimate the WTP for mangrove restoration under the context of climate change: a case study of Thi Nai lagoon, Quy Nhon city, Vietnam. Ocean Coast Manag. 95:198–212. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.04.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Forum on Forests Secretariat. 2021. The Global Forest Goals Report 2021.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]. 2016. The Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/parisagreement_publication.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Van Riper CJ, Kyle GT, Sherrouse BC, Bagstad KJ, Sutton SG. 2017. Toward an integrated understanding of perceived biodiversity values and environmental conditions in a national park. Ecol Indic. 72:278–287. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vietnam Forest Protection and Development Fund [VNFF]. 2014. Payments for forest environmental services (PFES) in Vietnam findings from three years of implementation. Hanoi: VNFF. Online available at: 5066-factsheets.pdf (cifor.org).
   Google Scholar
• Whitehead JC. 2018. A comment on “Three reasons to use annual payments in contingent valuation”. J Environ Econ Manag. 88:486–488. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2016.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wunder S. 2015. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ. 117:234–243. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie B, Zhao W. 2018. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Tianjin, China: based on the contingent valuation method. Energy Policy. 114:98–107. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.067.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiong K, Kong F, Zhang N, Lei N, Sun C. 2018. Analysis of the factors influencing willingness to pay and payout level for ecological environment improvement of the Ganjiang River Basin. Sustainability. 10(7):2149. doi: 10.3390/su10072149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaiton S, Huda-Farhana MM, Hasan-Basri B. 2019. Conservation of mangroves in Kuala Perlis, Malaysia – a case study of socio-economic attributes of fishermen driving valuation in sustaining livelihoods through forest management. J Trop For Sci. 31(4):433–442. doi: 10.26525/jtfs2019.31.4.433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar