Towards pro-poor and voluntary PES: assessment of willingness to pay and willingness to accept PES contract in central Vietnam

References

• Adhikari, B., & Boag, G. (2013). Designing payments for ecosystem services schemes: Some considerations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, J., Gomez W, C., McCarney, G., Adamowicz, W., Chalifour, N., Weber, M., Elgie, S., & Howlett, M. (2010). Ecosystem service valuation, market-based instruments and sustainable forest management: A primer (pp. 25). State of Knowledge primer. Sustainable Forest Management Network.
   Google Scholar
• Arias-Arévalo, P., Martín-López, B., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2017). Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 22(4), 43. doi:10.5751/es-09812-220443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asia Development Bank. (2012). . Da Nang Water Supply Project - Initial environmental examination (Revised to include PFR2 Investment only) ADB PPTA No. 7144-VIE (Hanoi: ADB),Accessed 15 April 2022. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/73227/41456-033-vie-iee-04.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, D.E., Tager, I.B., Satariano, W.A., & Yaffe, K. (2004). The relationship between literacy and cognition in well-educated elders. The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 59(4), M390–M395. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/59.4.M390
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barreiro-Hurle, J., Espinosa-Goded, M., Martinez-Paz, J.M., & Perni, A. (2018). Choosing not to choose: A meta-analysis of status quo effects in environmental valuations using choice experiments. Economía Agraria Y Recursos Naturales - Agricultural and Resource Economics, 18(1), 79–109. 2174-7350 doi:10.7201/earn.2018.01.04
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bigger, P., & Dempsey, J. (2018). Reflecting on neoliberal natures: An exchange. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(1–2), 25–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618776864
   Google Scholar
• Bremer, L.L., Brauman, K.A., Nelson, S., Prado, K.M., Wilburn, E., & Fiorini, A.C.O. (2018). Relational values in evaluations of upstream social outcomes of watershed payment for ecosystem services: A review. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35 , 1–8. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton, M. (2010). Inducing strategic bias and its implications for choice modelling design Research Reports 95062. Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.95062
   Google Scholar
• Büscher, B., Dressler, W., & Fletcher, R. (Eds.). (2014). Nature™ inc: Environmental conservation in the neoliberal age. University of Arizona Press.
   Google Scholar
• Catacutan, D.C., Do, T.H., Simelton, E., Hanh, V.T., Hoang, T.L., Patton, I., Hairiah, K., Le, T.T., van Noordwijk, M., & Nguyen, M.P. (2017). Assessment of the livelihoods and ecological conditions of bufferzone communes in song thanh national reserve, quang nam province, and phong dien natural reserve, thua thien hue province. World Agroforestry (ICRAF): Hanoi, Vietnam.
   Google Scholar
• Chaikaew, P., Hodges, A.W., & Grunwald, S. (2017). Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach. Ecosystem Services, 23, 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costedoat, S., Koetse, M., Corbera, E., & Ezzine-de-Blas, D. (2016). Cash only? Unveiling preferences for a PES contract through a choice experiment in Chiapas, Mexico. Land Use Policy, 58, 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croson, R., & Uri, G. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Groot, M., Martin, D., & de Groot, W. (2011). Public Visions of the Human/Nature Relationship and their Implications for Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics, 33, 25–44. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics20113314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Do, T.H., Vu, T.P., Nguyen, V.T., & Catacutan, D. (2018). Payment for forest environmental services in Vietnam: An analysis of buyers’ perspectives and willingness. Ecosystem Services, 32, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., & Jones, R.E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastman, D., Catacutan, D.C., Do, T.H., Guarnaschelli, S., Dam, V.B., & Bishaw, B. (2013)). Stakeholder preferences over rewards for ecosystem services: Implications for a REDD+ benefit distribution system in Viet Nam. Working Paper 171. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program. 17p. https://doi.org/10.5716/WP13057.PDF
   Google Scholar
• Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Corbera, E., & Lapeyre, R. (2019). Payments for environmental services and motivation crowding: Towards a conceptual framework. Ecological Economics, 156, 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farley, J., & Constanza, R. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecological Economics, 69(11), 2060–2068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firth, D. (1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika, 80(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/80.1.27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher, R., & Breitling, J. (2012). Market mechanism or subsidy in disguise? Governing payment for environmental services in Costa Rica. Geoforum, 43(3), 402–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher, R., & Büscher, B. (2017). The PES conceit: Revisiting the relationship between payments for environmental services and neoliberal conservation. Ecological Economics, 132, 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.00
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, X., Xu, W., Hou, Y., & Ouyang, Z. (2020). Market-based instruments for ecosystem services: Framework and case study in Lishui City, China. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 6(1), 1835445. https://doi.org/10.1080/20964129.2020.1835445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez-Baggethun, E, Muradian, R., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2015). In markets we trust? Setting the boundaries of market-based instruments in ecosystem services governance. Ecological Economics, 117, 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoang, P.B.N., Takahiro, F., Iwanaga, S., & Sato, N. (2021). Participation of local people in the payment for forest environmental services program: A case study in central Vietnam. Sustainability, 13 (22), 1–13. MDPI https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoevenagel, R. 1994. An assessment of the contingent valuation method. in valuing the environment: methodological and measurement issues. Ed R. Pethig. 348. Valuing the Environment: Methodological and Measurement Issues. Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Hoynes, H., & Schanzenbach, D.W. (2009). Consumption responses to in-kind transfers: Evidence from the introduction of the food stamp program. American Economic Journal. Applied Economics, 1(4), 109–139. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.1.4.109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaczan, D., Pfaff, A., Rodriguez, L., & Shapiro-Garza, E. (2017). Increasing the impact of collective incentives in payments for ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 86, 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaczan, D., Swallow, B.M., & Adamowicz, W.L., (Vic). (2013). Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: An assessment of payment approaches. Ecological Economics, 95, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, J., Haase, D., & Krueger, T. (2021). Payments for ecosystem services: A review of definitions, the role of spatial scales, and critique. Ecology and Society, 26(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12307-260212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan, S.U., Khan, I., Zhao, M., Khan, A.A., & Ali, M.A.S. (2019). Valuation of ecosystem services using choice experiment with preference heterogeneity: A benefit transfer analysis across inland river basin. Science of the Total Environment, 679, 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.049
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolinjivadi, V., Adamowski, J., & Kosoy, N. (2014). Recasting payments for ecosystem services (PES) in water resource management: A novel institutional approach. Ecosystem Services, 10, 144–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolinjivadi, V.K., & Sunderland, T. (2012). A review of two payment schemes for watershed services from China and Vietnam: The interface of government control and PES theory. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05057-170410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolinjivadi, V., Van Hecken, G., Almeida, D.V., Dupras, J., & Kosoy, N. (2019). Neoliberal performatives and the ‘making’ of payments for ecosystem services (PES). Progress in Human Geography, 43(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517735707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopnina, H. (2017). Commodification of natural resources and forest ecosystem services: Examining implications for forest protection. Environmental Conservation, 44(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kravchenko, A.V. (2021). Information technologies, literacy, and cognitive development: An ecolinguistic view . Language Sciences, 84(2021), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2021.101368
   Google Scholar
• Lan, L.N, Wichelns, D., Florence, M., Chu, H., & Nguyen, P. (2016). Household opportunity costs of protecting and developing forest lands in Son La and Hoa Binh Provinces, Vietnam. International Journal of the Commons, 10(2), 902–928. http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lan, L.N., Wichelns, D., Milan, F., Hoanh, C., & Phuong, N. (2016). Household opportunity costs of protecting and developing forest lands in Son La And Hoa Binh Provinces, Vietnam. International Journal of the Commons, 10(2), 10.18352/ijc.620. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le, N.D., Loft, L., Tjajadi, J.S., Pham, T.T., & Wong, G.Y. (2016). Being equitable is not always fair: An assessment of PFES implementation in dien bien, Vietnam. Working Paper 205. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006167
   Google Scholar
• Lliso, B., Arias-Arévalo, P., Maca-Millán, S., Engel, S., & Pascual, U. (2022). Motivational crowding effects in payments for ecosystem services: Exploring the role of instrumental and relational values. People and Nature, 4(2), 312–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10280
   Google Scholar
• Lindhjem, H. & Mitani, Y. (2012). Forest Owners’ Willingness to Accept Compensation for Voluntary Conservation: A Contingent Valuation Approach. Journal of Forest Economics, 18(4), 290–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2177598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loft, L., Gehrig, S., Le, D.N., & Rommel, J. (2019). Effectiveness and equity of payments for ecosystem services: real-effort experiments with Vietnamese land users. Land Use Policy, 86, 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere, J.J., Flynn, T.N., & Carson, R.T. (2010). Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling, 3(3), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70014-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere, J.J., Flynn, T.N., & Carson, R.T. (2010). Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling, 3(3), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70014-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElwee, P., Bernhard, H., & Nguyen, T.H.V. (2020). Hybrid outcomes of payments for ecosystem services policies in Vietnam: Between theory and practice. Development and Change, 51(1), 253–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/DECH.12548
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElwee, P., Nghiem, T., Le, H., Vu, H., & Tran, N. (2014). Payments for environmental services and contested neoliberalisation in developing countries: A case study from Vietnam. Journal of Rural Studies, 36, 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden, D. (1986). The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing Science, 5(4), 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.5.4.275
   Google Scholar
• Midway, S., Robertson, M., Flinn, S., & Kaller, M. (2020). Comparing multiple comparisons: Practical guidance for choosing the best multiple comparisons test. PeerJ, 8, e10387. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10387
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills, N., & Porras, I. (2002). Silver Bullet or Fools’ Gold? A Global Review of Markets for Forest Environmental Services and their Impact on the Poor. International Institute for Environment and Development. https://pubs.iied.org/9066iied
   Google Scholar
• Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B., Agarwal, B., Corbera, E., Ezzine de Blas, D., Farley, J., Froger, G., Garcia-Frapolli, E., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gowdy, J., Kosoy, N., Le Coq, J.F., Leroy, P., May, P., Méral, P., Mibielli, P. … Urama, K. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters, 6(4), 274–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263x.2012.00309.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., & May, P.H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1202–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, M.R., Theilade, I., Meilby, H., Nui, N.H., & Lam, N.T. (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, Vietnam. Land Use Policy, 79, 822–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordén, A. 2014. Payment types and participation in payment for ecosystem services programs: Stated preferences of landowners. Working Papers in Economics No 591. School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg. Göteborg, Sweden: https://hdl.handle.net/2077/35726
   Google Scholar
• Pham, T.T., Bennet, K., Vu, T.P., Brunner, J., Le, N.D., & Nguyen, D.T. (2013). Payments for forest environmental services in Vietnam: From policy to practice. In Occasional Paper (Vol. 93). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 78.
   Google Scholar
• Pham, T.T., Loft, L., Bennett, K., Le, N.D., Brunner, J., & Vu, T.P. (2015). Monitoring and Evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From Myth to Reality. Ecosystem Services, 16, 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham, T.T., Wong, G., Le, N.D., & Brockhaus, M. (2016). The distribution of payment for forest environmental services (PFES) in Vietnam: Research evidence to inform payment guidelines. Occasional paper, no. (163) , Center for International Forestry Research https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006297,
   Google Scholar
• Roth, R.J., & Dressler, W. (2012). Market-oriented conservation governance: The particularities of place. Geoforum, 43(3), 363–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SAS Institute Inc. (2013). JMP® 11 discovering JMP.
   Google Scholar
• Simelton, E., & Dam, V.B. (2014). Farmers in NE viet nam rank values of ecosystems from seven land uses. Ecosystem Services, 9, 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommerville, M.M., Jones, J.P.G., & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2009). A revised conceptual framework for payments for environmental services. Ecology and Society, 14 (2), 34. URL. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art34/.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suhardiman, D., Wichelns, D., Lestrelin, G., & Thai Hoanh, C. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services in Vietnam: Market-based incentives or state control of resources? Ecosystem Services, 5, 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, A., & Theokritoff, E. (2021). Debt-for-climate swaps for small islands. Nature Climate Change, 11(11), 889–891. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01194-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurstone, L.L. (1927). A law of comparative judgement. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288
   Google Scholar
• To, X.P., & Dressler, W. (2019). Rethinking ‘Success’: The politics of payment for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam. Land Use Policy, 81, 582–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• To, X.P., Dressler, W.H., Mahanty, S., Pham, T.T., & Zingerli, C. (2012). The prospects for payment for ecosystem services (PES) in Vietnam: A look at three payment schemes. Human Ecology, 40(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9480-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trieu, V.H., Pham, T.T., & Dao, T.L.C. (2020). Vietnam forestry development strategy: Implementation results for 2006–2020 and recommendations for the 2021–2030 strategy. In Occasional paper (Vol. 213). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 68. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007879
   Google Scholar
• Van Noordwijk, M., & Leimona, B. (2010). Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing environmental services in Asia: Payments, compensation or co-investment? Ecology and Society, 15(4), 17. (Accessed 12 June 2013) https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, P., & Wolf, S.A. (2019). A targeted approach to payments for ecosystem services. Global Ecology and Conservation, 17, e00577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00577
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wedgwood, A & Sansom, K. (2003). Willingness-to-pay surveys: A streamlined approach: Guidance notes for small town water services. WEDC
   Google Scholar
• Wunder, S. (2005). . Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42 , (Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)). https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wunder, S. (2015). Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 117, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanella, M.R, Schleyer, C., & Speelman, S. (2014). Why do farmers join payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes? An assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil. Ecological Economics, 105, 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar