Research on World Agricultural Economy

The The Economic Value of Forest Services in the Keffa Zone, Ethiopia: Discrete Choice Experiment Approach

Seyfe Fikre Hailu

Department of Development Studies, University of South Africa (UNISA), P. O. Box 392, Unisa, Pretoria 0003, South Africa

Stanley Osezua Ehiane

Department of Development Studies, University of South Africa (UNISA), P. O. Box 392, Unisa, Pretoria 0003, South Africa; Department of Political and Administrative Studies, University of Botswana, Gaborone PMB 0022, Botswana

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v6i4.1361

Received: 3 October 2024 | Revised: 29 October 2024 | Accepted: 31 October 2024 | Published Online: 2 September 2025

---

Abstract

The value of forests encompasses both direct market benefits and non-market advantages related to nature conservation. The value of forests, including timber, lumber, pulp, and paper, is exchanged through markets. However, many of the benefits of forests do not pass through the market. The study was carried out to estimate the non-market economic value of forest resources in the Keffa Zone, Ethiopia. To address the objective, a cross-sectional research survey was conducted among 343 households, with face-to-face interviews serving as the primary data collection method. The study was conducted on five forest attributes: harvested forest products, rainfall attraction, soil conservation, tourism-generated employment, and the use of the forest for future generations, representing the non-market value of the forest.  The discrete choice experiment estimate, based on multinominal logistic regression, was used to analyse the data and estimate the economic value of the forest. The study estimates that households would pay an average of $7.71/year/hectare for forest conservation to achieve 20% more additional rainfall and water availability. The households are also willing to pay an average of $2.32/year/hectare for the forest’s conservation to avoid 20% soil loss. The households in Keffa would annually pay an average of $9.10/year/hectare and $ 1.31/year/hectare for the forest’s conservation, receiving 10% and 20%, respectively, more tourism-generated income and employment. The estimated results suggest that the local community supports the conservation of the forest, and households are willing to contribute considerable resources for the proposed conservation programme in the study area. 

---

References

[1] FAO, 2020. Global forest resource assessment: report, Ethiopia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy.

[2] FAO, 2010. Global forest resource assessment: country report Ethiopia. Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy.

[3] Abdeta, D., Ayana, A.N., Bekele, Y., 2023. Willingness to pay for forest conservation: evidence from a contingent valuation survey analysis in Southwest Ethiopia. Global Ecology and Conservation. 46, e02551. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02551

[4] Moges, Y., Zewudu, E., Sisay, N., 2010. Ethiopia forest resources: current status and future management options in view of access to carbon finances. Ethiopian Climate Research and Networking and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

[5] MoEFCC, 2017. Strategic environmental and social assessment (SESA) for the implementation of REDD+ in Ethiopia. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

[6] Diafas, I., 2014. Estimating the economic value of forest ecosystem services using stated preference methods: the case of Kakamega forest, Kenya [PhD Thesis]. Goettingen, Germany: Georg-August-University.

[7] Nordlund, A., Westin, K., 2011. Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests. 2(1), 30–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f2010030

[8] Babulo, B., Muys, B., Mathijs, E., 2006. Economic valuation methods of forest rehabilitation in exclosures. Journal of the Drylands. 1(2), 165–170.

[9] Negasi, S., Hishe, H., Annang, T., et al., 2018. Forest cover change, key drivers and community perception in WujigMahgoWaren forest of northern Ethiopia. Land. 7(1), 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land7010032

[10] Tao, Z., Yan, H., Zhan, J., 2012. Economic valuation of forest ecosystem services in Heshui Watershed using contingent valuation method. Procedia Environmental Science. 13(2011), 2445–2450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.233

[11] Kerr, G.N., Sharp, B.M.H., 2010. Choice experiment adaptive design benefits: A case study. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 54(4), 407–420 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2010.00507.x

[12] DeShazo, J.R., Carson, R.T., Schwabe, K.A., et al., 2015. Designing and implementing surveys to value tropical forests. Journal of Tropical Forest Science. 27(1), 92–114.

[13] Hanley, N., Mourato, S., Wright, R.E., 2001. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys. 15(3), 436–455.

[14] Barnes, J.I., MacGregor, J.J., Nhuleipo, O., et al., 2010. The value of Namibia’s forest resources: preliminary economic asset and flow accounts. Development Southern Africa. 27(2), 159–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03768351003740373

[15] Riera, P., Signorello, G., Thiene, M., et al., 2012. Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: good practice guidelines. Journal of Forest Economics. 18(4), 259–270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2012.07.001

[16] Stellmacher, T., 2013. Local forest governance in Ethiopia: between legal pluralism and livelihood realities. ZEF Working Paper Series. No. 110. Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn: Bonn, Germany.

[17] Assfaw, A., 2023. Assessing land owner farmers willingness to participate in reforestation project in Ethiopia. Journal of Forest Research. 9(4), 244

[18] Seifu, T., Batu, M.M., Alemu, A., 2017. Economic valuation of natural forest: the case of Sheka Forest. Journal of Resources Development and Management. 37, 30–38.

[19] Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N., 2009. Using labels to investigate scope effects in stated preference methods. Environmental and Resource Economics. 44(4), 521–535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9299

[20] Hausman, J., 2012. Contingent valuation: From dubious to hopeless. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 26(4), 43–56.

[21] Hoyos, D., 2010. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics. 69(8), 1595–1603. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.011

[22] Carson, R.T., 1997. Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope. In: Kopp, R.J., Pommerehne, W.W., Schwartz, N. (eds.). Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods. Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands. pp. 127–163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5364-5_6

[23] Bishop, J.T., 1998. The economics of non-timber forest benefits: an overview. Development, EEP Gatekeeper. GK 98-01, November 1998.

[24] Johnston, R.J., Boyle, K.J., Adamowicz, W.V., et al., 2017. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. 4(2), 319–405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/691697

[25] Riechmann, D., 2007. Literature survey on biological data and research carried out in Bonga area, Kafa. Introduction of sustainable coffee production and marketing complying with international quality standards using the natural resources of Ethiopia (Unpublished report).

[26] Cochran, W.G., 1977. Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed. Wiley: New York, NY, USA.

[27] Freeman, A.M. III, Herriges, J.A., Kling, C.L., 2014. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and methods, 3rd ed. Resources for the Future Press: Washington, DC, USA.

[28] Adamowicz, W., Hanley, N., Wright, R.E., 1998. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics. 11, 413–428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A

[29] Vijverberg, W., 2011. Testing for IIA with the Hausman-McFadden test. IZA Discussion Papers No. 5826. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA): Bonn, Germany.

[30] Kipperberg, G., Dugstad, A., Lopes, A.F., et al., 2024. Scope effects in stated preference research: from construct validity to economic significance. ResearchGate. 1–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32171.62248

[31] Ayenew, B., Tesfay, Y., 2015. Economic valuation of forest ecosystems service’s role in maintaining and improving water quality. Economics. 4(5), 71–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11648/j.eco.20150405.11

[32] Mashayekhi, Z., Panahi, M., Karami, M., 2010. Economic valuation of water storage function of forest ecosystems: a case study of Zagros Forests, Iran. Journal of Forestry Research. 21, 293–300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-010-0074-3

[33] Brey, R., Riera, P., Mogas, J., 2007. Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: an application to Spanish forests. Ecological Economics. 64(2), 305–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.006