Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments
•Using a choice experiment we analyze the willingness to accept a mangrove-conservation policy.•We study total and discretionary exclusion for third parties to resources under concession.•Externally imposed rules about exclusion prevent/motivate users from participating in PES.•Preferences for accep...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | World development 2019-11, Vol.123, p.104619, Article 104619 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 104619 |
container_title | World development |
container_volume | 123 |
creator | Maldonado, Jorge H. Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio Henao-Henao, Juan P. Bruner, Aaron |
description | •Using a choice experiment we analyze the willingness to accept a mangrove-conservation policy.•We study total and discretionary exclusion for third parties to resources under concession.•Externally imposed rules about exclusion prevent/motivate users from participating in PES.•Preferences for accepting the conservation policy exhibits heterogeneity among users.•We contribute to the discussion on the determinants of participation in conservation schemes.
Payments for environmental services (PES) constitute a growing approach to achieve the sustainability of ecosystems and the benefits they provide to people. However, informal tenure and lack of capacity to enforce property rights impede implementation of PES initiatives. Such challenges are common for local communities in coastal and marine areas who overexploit Common-Pool Resources (CPR) under open access. Assigning property rights to organized users has been implemented as a solution, transforming a public good into a club good. Nevertheless, the nature of CPR makes it difficult to define and enforce use rights based on territorial criteria, which might generate equity concerns between organized users and their peers who lose rights. This paper investigates, using a choice experiment, the willingness of Ecuadorian mangrove resource users to accept a conservation policy that combines a concession for sustainable extraction and an economic incentive. Given that a collective concession for the sustainable use and management of CPR implies exclusion of other communities, we specifically analyze two different access levels: i. total exclusion, where the agreement defines that no one other than the concessionaires can access and extract the resources, and ii. discretionary exclusion, where the concessionaires can establish their own rules and conditions for allowing access and use of the resources by third parties. Our interest is to identify how externally imposed rules around exclusion prevent or motivate organized users from participating in approaches to CPR management based on allocation of property rights. We find that having the discretion to choose the level of exclusion matters to resource users when deciding whether to accept the proposed mangrove management strategy. Moreover, we show that preferences for accepting the conservation policy exhibits heterogeneity among users. We contribute to the discussion on the determinants of participation in incentive-based conservation programs. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104619 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2312515203</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0305750X19302657</els_id><sourcerecordid>2312515203</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-a0216e2f4c41dfa060ecebc9ea4e18efcd11698ea40529fe4890f2576595ebbe3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUEtOwzAQtRBIlMIVkCXWKbYTJ_UKqlI-UiU2ILGzXGfSumrjYDuBHoFb4xBYsxrNzPvMPIQuKZlQQvPr7eTDul1ZQjdhhIo4zHIqjtCITos04ULQYzQiKeFJwcnbKTrzfksI4akoRujrzoLH8Kl3rTe2xnsVAjhsaqxt7cF1KvRjtXYAe6iDv8EzrJUHbKsIrtfOdoDbiPQ9KWwAL3SrSuuM6jWUD3Fr6jVulAtGm0YF6w5Yb6zREI0bcOZH-BydVGrn4eK3jtHr_eJl_pgsnx-e5rNlotOChUQRRnNgVaYzWlaK5AQ0rLQAlQGdQqVLSnMxjS3hTFSQTQWpGC9yLjisVpCO0dWg2zj73oIPcmtbV0dLyVLKOOWMpBGVDyjtrPcOKtnEO5U7SEpkH7vcyr_YZR-7HGKPxNuBCPGHzoCTXhuoNZTGgQ6ytOY_iW_sCZMX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2312515203</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Maldonado, Jorge H. ; Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio ; Henao-Henao, Juan P. ; Bruner, Aaron</creator><creatorcontrib>Maldonado, Jorge H. ; Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio ; Henao-Henao, Juan P. ; Bruner, Aaron</creatorcontrib><description>•Using a choice experiment we analyze the willingness to accept a mangrove-conservation policy.•We study total and discretionary exclusion for third parties to resources under concession.•Externally imposed rules about exclusion prevent/motivate users from participating in PES.•Preferences for accepting the conservation policy exhibits heterogeneity among users.•We contribute to the discussion on the determinants of participation in conservation schemes.
Payments for environmental services (PES) constitute a growing approach to achieve the sustainability of ecosystems and the benefits they provide to people. However, informal tenure and lack of capacity to enforce property rights impede implementation of PES initiatives. Such challenges are common for local communities in coastal and marine areas who overexploit Common-Pool Resources (CPR) under open access. Assigning property rights to organized users has been implemented as a solution, transforming a public good into a club good. Nevertheless, the nature of CPR makes it difficult to define and enforce use rights based on territorial criteria, which might generate equity concerns between organized users and their peers who lose rights. This paper investigates, using a choice experiment, the willingness of Ecuadorian mangrove resource users to accept a conservation policy that combines a concession for sustainable extraction and an economic incentive. Given that a collective concession for the sustainable use and management of CPR implies exclusion of other communities, we specifically analyze two different access levels: i. total exclusion, where the agreement defines that no one other than the concessionaires can access and extract the resources, and ii. discretionary exclusion, where the concessionaires can establish their own rules and conditions for allowing access and use of the resources by third parties. Our interest is to identify how externally imposed rules around exclusion prevent or motivate organized users from participating in approaches to CPR management based on allocation of property rights. We find that having the discretion to choose the level of exclusion matters to resource users when deciding whether to accept the proposed mangrove management strategy. Moreover, we show that preferences for accepting the conservation policy exhibits heterogeneity among users. We contribute to the discussion on the determinants of participation in incentive-based conservation programs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0305-750X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-5991</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104619</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Access ; Acquiescence ; Agreements ; Club goods ; Community ; Compromises ; Conservation ; Conservation contracts ; Conservation incentives ; Criteria ; Discretionary access ; Economic incentives ; Ecosystems ; Environmental policy ; Experiments ; Extraction ; Heterogeneity ; Local communities ; Local users ; Marine environment ; Participation ; Payment for environmental services ; Payments ; Peers ; Preference heterogeneity ; Property rights ; Resource conservation ; Resource management ; Sustainability ; Sustainable ecosystems ; Sustainable use ; Tenure</subject><ispartof>World development, 2019-11, Vol.123, p.104619, Article 104619</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright Pergamon Press Inc. Nov 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-a0216e2f4c41dfa060ecebc9ea4e18efcd11698ea40529fe4890f2576595ebbe3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-a0216e2f4c41dfa060ecebc9ea4e18efcd11698ea40529fe4890f2576595ebbe3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104619$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27866,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Maldonado, Jorge H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henao-Henao, Juan P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruner, Aaron</creatorcontrib><title>Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments</title><title>World development</title><description>•Using a choice experiment we analyze the willingness to accept a mangrove-conservation policy.•We study total and discretionary exclusion for third parties to resources under concession.•Externally imposed rules about exclusion prevent/motivate users from participating in PES.•Preferences for accepting the conservation policy exhibits heterogeneity among users.•We contribute to the discussion on the determinants of participation in conservation schemes.
Payments for environmental services (PES) constitute a growing approach to achieve the sustainability of ecosystems and the benefits they provide to people. However, informal tenure and lack of capacity to enforce property rights impede implementation of PES initiatives. Such challenges are common for local communities in coastal and marine areas who overexploit Common-Pool Resources (CPR) under open access. Assigning property rights to organized users has been implemented as a solution, transforming a public good into a club good. Nevertheless, the nature of CPR makes it difficult to define and enforce use rights based on territorial criteria, which might generate equity concerns between organized users and their peers who lose rights. This paper investigates, using a choice experiment, the willingness of Ecuadorian mangrove resource users to accept a conservation policy that combines a concession for sustainable extraction and an economic incentive. Given that a collective concession for the sustainable use and management of CPR implies exclusion of other communities, we specifically analyze two different access levels: i. total exclusion, where the agreement defines that no one other than the concessionaires can access and extract the resources, and ii. discretionary exclusion, where the concessionaires can establish their own rules and conditions for allowing access and use of the resources by third parties. Our interest is to identify how externally imposed rules around exclusion prevent or motivate organized users from participating in approaches to CPR management based on allocation of property rights. We find that having the discretion to choose the level of exclusion matters to resource users when deciding whether to accept the proposed mangrove management strategy. Moreover, we show that preferences for accepting the conservation policy exhibits heterogeneity among users. We contribute to the discussion on the determinants of participation in incentive-based conservation programs.</description><subject>Access</subject><subject>Acquiescence</subject><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Club goods</subject><subject>Community</subject><subject>Compromises</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Conservation contracts</subject><subject>Conservation incentives</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Discretionary access</subject><subject>Economic incentives</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environmental policy</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Extraction</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Local communities</subject><subject>Local users</subject><subject>Marine environment</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Payment for environmental services</subject><subject>Payments</subject><subject>Peers</subject><subject>Preference heterogeneity</subject><subject>Property rights</subject><subject>Resource conservation</subject><subject>Resource management</subject><subject>Sustainability</subject><subject>Sustainable ecosystems</subject><subject>Sustainable use</subject><subject>Tenure</subject><issn>0305-750X</issn><issn>1873-5991</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUEtOwzAQtRBIlMIVkCXWKbYTJ_UKqlI-UiU2ILGzXGfSumrjYDuBHoFb4xBYsxrNzPvMPIQuKZlQQvPr7eTDul1ZQjdhhIo4zHIqjtCITos04ULQYzQiKeFJwcnbKTrzfksI4akoRujrzoLH8Kl3rTe2xnsVAjhsaqxt7cF1KvRjtXYAe6iDv8EzrJUHbKsIrtfOdoDbiPQ9KWwAL3SrSuuM6jWUD3Fr6jVulAtGm0YF6w5Yb6zREI0bcOZH-BydVGrn4eK3jtHr_eJl_pgsnx-e5rNlotOChUQRRnNgVaYzWlaK5AQ0rLQAlQGdQqVLSnMxjS3hTFSQTQWpGC9yLjisVpCO0dWg2zj73oIPcmtbV0dLyVLKOOWMpBGVDyjtrPcOKtnEO5U7SEpkH7vcyr_YZR-7HGKPxNuBCPGHzoCTXhuoNZTGgQ6ytOY_iW_sCZMX</recordid><startdate>20191101</startdate><enddate>20191101</enddate><creator>Maldonado, Jorge H.</creator><creator>Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio</creator><creator>Henao-Henao, Juan P.</creator><creator>Bruner, Aaron</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Pergamon Press Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20191101</creationdate><title>Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments</title><author>Maldonado, Jorge H. ; Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio ; Henao-Henao, Juan P. ; Bruner, Aaron</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-a0216e2f4c41dfa060ecebc9ea4e18efcd11698ea40529fe4890f2576595ebbe3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Access</topic><topic>Acquiescence</topic><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Club goods</topic><topic>Community</topic><topic>Compromises</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Conservation contracts</topic><topic>Conservation incentives</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Discretionary access</topic><topic>Economic incentives</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environmental policy</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Extraction</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Local communities</topic><topic>Local users</topic><topic>Marine environment</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Payment for environmental services</topic><topic>Payments</topic><topic>Peers</topic><topic>Preference heterogeneity</topic><topic>Property rights</topic><topic>Resource conservation</topic><topic>Resource management</topic><topic>Sustainability</topic><topic>Sustainable ecosystems</topic><topic>Sustainable use</topic><topic>Tenure</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Maldonado, Jorge H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henao-Henao, Juan P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bruner, Aaron</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>World development</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Maldonado, Jorge H.</au><au>Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio</au><au>Henao-Henao, Juan P.</au><au>Bruner, Aaron</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments</atitle><jtitle>World development</jtitle><date>2019-11-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>123</volume><spage>104619</spage><pages>104619-</pages><artnum>104619</artnum><issn>0305-750X</issn><eissn>1873-5991</eissn><abstract>•Using a choice experiment we analyze the willingness to accept a mangrove-conservation policy.•We study total and discretionary exclusion for third parties to resources under concession.•Externally imposed rules about exclusion prevent/motivate users from participating in PES.•Preferences for accepting the conservation policy exhibits heterogeneity among users.•We contribute to the discussion on the determinants of participation in conservation schemes.
Payments for environmental services (PES) constitute a growing approach to achieve the sustainability of ecosystems and the benefits they provide to people. However, informal tenure and lack of capacity to enforce property rights impede implementation of PES initiatives. Such challenges are common for local communities in coastal and marine areas who overexploit Common-Pool Resources (CPR) under open access. Assigning property rights to organized users has been implemented as a solution, transforming a public good into a club good. Nevertheless, the nature of CPR makes it difficult to define and enforce use rights based on territorial criteria, which might generate equity concerns between organized users and their peers who lose rights. This paper investigates, using a choice experiment, the willingness of Ecuadorian mangrove resource users to accept a conservation policy that combines a concession for sustainable extraction and an economic incentive. Given that a collective concession for the sustainable use and management of CPR implies exclusion of other communities, we specifically analyze two different access levels: i. total exclusion, where the agreement defines that no one other than the concessionaires can access and extract the resources, and ii. discretionary exclusion, where the concessionaires can establish their own rules and conditions for allowing access and use of the resources by third parties. Our interest is to identify how externally imposed rules around exclusion prevent or motivate organized users from participating in approaches to CPR management based on allocation of property rights. We find that having the discretion to choose the level of exclusion matters to resource users when deciding whether to accept the proposed mangrove management strategy. Moreover, we show that preferences for accepting the conservation policy exhibits heterogeneity among users. We contribute to the discussion on the determinants of participation in incentive-based conservation programs.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104619</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0305-750X |
ispartof | World development, 2019-11, Vol.123, p.104619, Article 104619 |
issn | 0305-750X 1873-5991 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2312515203 |
source | PAIS Index; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Access Acquiescence Agreements Club goods Community Compromises Conservation Conservation contracts Conservation incentives Criteria Discretionary access Economic incentives Ecosystems Environmental policy Experiments Extraction Heterogeneity Local communities Local users Marine environment Participation Payment for environmental services Payments Peers Preference heterogeneity Property rights Resource conservation Resource management Sustainability Sustainable ecosystems Sustainable use Tenure |
title | Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T15%3A57%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20exclusion%20matter%20in%20conservation%20agreements?%20A%20case%20of%20mangrove%20users%20in%20the%20Ecuadorian%20coast%20using%20participatory%20choice%20experiments&rft.jtitle=World%20development&rft.au=Maldonado,%20Jorge%20H.&rft.date=2019-11-01&rft.volume=123&rft.spage=104619&rft.pages=104619-&rft.artnum=104619&rft.issn=0305-750X&rft.eissn=1873-5991&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104619&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2312515203%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2312515203&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0305750X19302657&rfr_iscdi=true |