ASSESSING PREFERENCES FOR COMPENSATION PACKAGES USING THE DISCRETE CHOICE METHOD: THE CASE OF THE BOLSA FLORESTA PROGRAM IN AMAZONAS, BRAZIL

Essam Yassin Mohammed (), Ina Porras, Maryanne Grieg-Gran, Luiza Lima, Afriano Soares, João Tezza Neto and Virgilio Viana
Additional contact information
Essam Yassin Mohammed: International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK
Ina Porras: International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK
Maryanne Grieg-Gran: International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK
Luiza Lima: International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK
Afriano Soares: International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK
João Tezza Neto: International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK
Virgilio Viana: International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), 2013, vol. 15, issue 04, 1-20

Abstract: Natural ecosystems, including forest ecosystems, continue to be degraded or converted at an alarming rate. To complement or substitute regulatory approaches to ecosystem management, market-based instruments such as "payments for ecosystem services" (PES) have been introduced and are gaining popularity. One of the prominent PES schemes in the world is the Bolsa Floresta Program (BFP) in the State of Amazonas, Brazil. The BFP was established by the Government of the State of Amazonas through its Secretariat for Environment and Sustainable Development in 2006 and is implemented by the Amazonas Sustainable Foundation. The BFP, which is a voluntary program to reduce deforestation and promote sustainable development by rewarding the communities for changing their land use practices, has four main components: the Bolsa Floresta Income; Bolsa Floresta Social; Bolsa Floresta Family; and Bolsa Floresta Association. A study was conducted to assess the preferences of the participating households in three reserves, namely: Rio Negro, Juma, and Uatumã, for different payment packages with varying combinations of the bolsas relative to the status quo option. The discrete choice method and an open ended question format were used to elicit the preferences of the participant households. The discrete choice model results showed that the majority of the respondents (about 80 per cent) in the three reserves chose an alternative which offered a 20 per cent increase in direct cash payments to households as their most preferred alternative. On the other hand, the majority of respondents who were subjected to open question stated that they would like to see an increase in benefits that fall under the Bolsa Floresta Social category.

Keywords: Bolsa Floresta; preference; discrete choice (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S146433321350021X
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wsi:jeapmx:v:15:y:2013:i:04:n:s146433321350021x

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from

DOI: 10.1142/S146433321350021X

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM) is currently edited by Thomas Fischer

More articles in Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM) from World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Tai Tone Lim ().