At a Conservation Crossroad: The Bahoruco-Jaragua-Enriquillo Biosphere Reserve in the Dominican Republic
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The RBJBE Biosphere Reserve at Glance
1.2. The Conservation and Sustainable Development Crossroad
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Questionnaire Design and Sampling
2.2. Modeling the WTP
3. Results
3.1. Nonparametric Modeling of the WTP
3.2. Parametric Modeling of the WTP
4. Discussion: Hypothetical Valuation Scenarios
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Leon, Y.M.; Rupp, E.; Arias, Y.; Perdomo, L.; Incháustegui, S.J.; Garrido, E. Estrategia de Monitoreo para Especies Amenazadas de la Reserva de Biosfera Jaragua-Bahoruco-Enriquillo; Grupo Jaragua: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 2011; p. 80. [Google Scholar]
- Ishwaran, N.; Persic, A.; Hoang Tri, N. Concept and practice: The case of UNESCO biosphere reserves. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2008, 7, 118–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuong, C.V.; Dart, P.; Hockings, M. Biosphere reserves: Attributes for success. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 188, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO. Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy and the Statutory Framework of the World Network; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1996; p. 19. [Google Scholar]
- Castillo-Eguskitza, N.; Hoyos, D.; Onaindia, M.; Czajkowski, M. Unraveling local preferences and willingness to pay for different management scenarios: A choice experiment to biosphere reserve management. Land Use Policy 2019, 88, 104200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barbosa, A.; Martín, B.; Hermoso, V.; Arévalo-Torres, J.; Barbière, J.; Martínez-López, J.; Domisch, S.; Langhans, S.D.; Balbi, S.; Villa, F.; et al. Cost-effective restoration and conservation planning in Green and Blue Infrastructure designs. A case study on the Intercontinental Biosphere Reserve of the Mediterranean: Andalusia (Spain)—Morocco. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 652, 1463–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SISR. Lago Enriquillo. Available online: https://rsis.ramsar.org/es/about (accessed on 28 May 2021).
- Rupp, E.; Incháustegui, S.; Arias, Y. Preliminary Report of the Distribution and Situation of Cyclura ricordii on the Southern shore of Enriquillo Lake; Grupo Jaragua, Inc.: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 2006; p. 11. [Google Scholar]
- Perdomo, L.; Arias, Y. República Dominicana. In Priority Sites for Biodiversity Conservation; Devenish, C., Díaz Fernández, D.F., Clay, R.P., Davidson, I., Yépez Zabala, I., Eds.; BirdLife Conservation Series BirdLife International: Quito, Ecuador, 2009; Volume 16, pp. 171–178. [Google Scholar]
- Perdomo, L.; Arias, Y.; León, Y.; Wege, D. Areas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves en la República Dominicana; Grupo Jaragua, Inc.: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 2010; p. 84. [Google Scholar]
- Powell, R.; Ottenwalder, J.A.; Incháustegui, S.J.; Henderson, R.W.; Glor, R.E. Amphibians and reptiles of the Dominican Republic: Species of special concern. Oryx 2000, 34, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kennerly, R.J.; Nicoll, M.A.C.; Young, R.P.; Turvey, S.T.; Nuñez-Miño, J.M.; Brocca, J.L.; Buttler, S.J. The impact of habitat quality inside protected areas on distribution of the Dominican Republic’s last endemic non-volant land mammals. J. Mammal. 2019, 100, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Anonymous. Preliminary Report on Cyclura ricordi in the Barahona Peninsula; Grupo Jaragua, Inc.: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 2004; p. 17. [Google Scholar]
- Sheller, M.; León, Y.M. Uneven socio-ecologies of Hispaniola: Asymmetric capabilities for climate adaptation in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Geoforum 2016, 73, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendez-Tejeda, R.; Delanoy, R.A. Influence of Climatic Phenomena on Sedimentation and Increase of Lake Enriquillo in Dominican Republic, 1900–2014. J. Geogr. Geol. 2017, 9, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil Pichardo, F.D.; Lo Conte, L.; Regio, G. Alternativas Productivas a Mediano y Largo Plazo para las Familias Afectadas por la Crecida del Nivel del Lago Enriquillo; OXFAM International: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 2012; p. 75. [Google Scholar]
- PNUD. Cuando los Desastres se Quedan. Comprendiendo los Vínculos Entre la Pobreza, y los Choques Climáticos en el Lago Enriquillo, República Dominican. 2014, p. 66. Available online: https://www.do.undp.org/content/dam/dominican_republic/docs/Pobreza/publicaciones/pnud_do_cuandodesastresquedan.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2021).
- DGCP. Presidente Medina entrega Nuevo Boca de Cachón a sus pobladores. Available online: https://www.dgcp.gob.do/noticias/presidente-medina-entrega-nuevo-boca-de-cachon-a-sus-pobladores/ (accessed on 29 May 2021).
- León, Y.M.; Garrido, E.; Almonte, J. Monitoring and Mapping Broadleaf Mountain Forests of Southern Sierra de Bahoruco, Dominican Republic; Grupo Jaragua, Inc.: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 2013; p. 36. [Google Scholar]
- Wooding, B.; Morales, M.A. Migración y Sostenibilidad Ambiental en Hispaniola; OBMICA (Centro para la Observación Migratoria y el Desarrollo Social en el Caribe): Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 2014; p. 79. [Google Scholar]
- Sagawe, T. Mining as an agent for regional development: The case of the Dominican Republic. Geography 1989, 74, 69–71. [Google Scholar]
- Peña, M.; Lizardo, M. Extractive industry in the Dominican Republic: A history of growth, regression and recovery. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2018, 5, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Revuelta, O.; Leon, Y.M.; Feliz, P.; Godley, B.J.; Raga, J.A.; Tomas, J. Protected areas host important remnants of marine turtle nesting stocks in the Dominican Republic. Oryx 2012, 46, 348–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- León, Y.M.; Diez, C.E. Population structure of hawksbill turtles on a foraging ground in the Dominican Republic. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 1999, 3, 230–236. [Google Scholar]
- Presidencia_Dominicana. Decreto 724-20 Fideicomiso ProPedernales. Available online: https://presidencia.gob.do/decretos/724-20 (accessed on 29 May 2021).
- MITUR. Listo el Fideicomiso para Construir 10 mil Habitaciones en Pedernales. Available online: https://www.mitur.gob.do/listo-el-fideicomiso-para-construir-10-mil-habitaciones-en-pedernales/ (accessed on 29 May 2021).
- Loft, L.; Mann, C.; Hansjürgens, B. Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 16, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morillo Pérez, A. El Mapa de la Pobreza en la República Dominicana; Ministerio de Economía, Planificación y Desarrollo (MEPyD): Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 2014; p. 383. [Google Scholar]
- Pasachnik, S.A.; Carreras De León, R.; León, Y. Protected only on paper? Three case studies from protected areas in the Dominican Republic. Caribb. Nat. 2016, 30, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Holmes, G. Defining the forest, defending the forest: Political ecology, territoriality, and resistance to a protected area in the Dominican Republic. Geoforum 2014, 53, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmes, G. The Rich, the Powerful and the Endangered: Conservation Elites, Networks and the Dominican Republic. Antipode 2010, 42, 624–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, L.C. Enemies of the Trees? Subsistence Farmers and Perverse Protection of Tropical Dry Forest. J. For. 2001, 99, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kneese, A.V.; Schulze, W.D. Chapter 5 Ethics and environmental economics. In Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1985; Volume 1, pp. 191–220. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, A.; Dupuy, K. Deciding over nature: Corruption and environmental impact assessments. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 65, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carson, R.T.; Flores, N.E.; Martin, K.M.; Wright, J.L. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Econ. 1996, 72, 80–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, D. Contingent valuation and social choice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76, 689–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carson, R.T. Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative when Prices Aren’t Available. J. Econ. Perspect. 2012, 26, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ebert, U. Approximating WTP and WTA for environmental goods from marginal willingness to pay functions. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 270–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azadi, H.; Van Passel, S.; Cools, J. Rapid economic valuation of ecosystem services in man and biosphere reserves in Africa: A review. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 28, e01697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dehghani, M.; Farshchi, P.; Danekar, A.; Karami, M.; Aleshikh, A.A. Recreation Value of Hara Biosphere Reserve using Willingness-to-pay method. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2010, 4, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pham, T.D.; Kaida, N.; Yoshino, K.; Nguyen, X.H.; Nguyen, H.T.; Bui, D.T. Willingness to pay for mangrove restoration in the context of climate change in the Cat Ba biosphere reserve, Vietnam. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 163, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turvey, S.T.; Fernández-Secades, C.; Nuñez-Miño, J.M.; Hart, T.; Martinez, P.; Brocca, J.L.; Young, R.P. Is local ecological knowledge a useful conservation tool for small mammals in a Caribbean multicultural landscape? Biol. Conserv. 2014, 169, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, R.J.; Boyle, K.J.; Adamowicz, W.V.; Bennet, J.; Brouwer, R.; Cameron, T.A.; Hanemann, M.W.; Hanley, N.; Ryan, M.; Scarpa, R.; et al. Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2017, 4, 319–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Portney, P.R. The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care. J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Whittington, D. Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries. World Dev. 1998, 26, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carson, R.T.; Mitchel, R.C.; Hanemann, M.; Kopp, R.J.; Presser, S.; Ruud, P.A. Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 25, 257–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bishop, R.C.; Boyle, K.J.; Carson, R.T.; Chapman, D.; Hanemann, W.M.; Kanninen, B.; Kopp, R.J.; Krosnick, J.A.; List, J.; Meade, N.; et al. Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: The BP oil spill. Science 2017, 356, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Adams, C.; Seroa da Motta, R.; Arigoni Ortiz, R.; Reid, J.; Ebersbach Aznar, C.; de Almeida Sinisgalli, P.A. The use of contingent valuation for evaluating protected areas in the developing world: Economic valuation of Morro do Diabo State Park, Atlantic Rainforest, São Paulo State (Brazil). Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamowicz, W.; Boxall, P.; Williams, M.; Louviere, J. Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1998, 80, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Method. Analysis and Application, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Mahieu, P.-A.; Riera, P.; Kriström, B.; Brännlund, R.; Giergiczny, M. Exploring the determinants of uncertainty in contingent valuation surveys. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2014, 3, 186–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanemann, W.M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8, 19–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scheaffer, R.L.; Mendenhall III, W.; Ott, R.L.; Gerow, K.G. Elementary Survery Sampling, 7th ed.; Cengage Learning, Inc.: Florence, KY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Harrison, G.W.; Kristrom, B. On the interpretation of response to contingent valuation surveys. In Current Issues in Environmental Economics; Johansson, P.O., Kristrom, B., Maler, K.G., Eds.; Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK, 1995; pp. 35–57. [Google Scholar]
- Kriström, B. A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Econ. 1990, 66, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujii, S.; Kitamura, R.; Suda, H. Contingent valuation method can increase procedural justice. J. Econ. Psychol. 2004, 25, 877–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carson, R.T.; Louviere, J.J. A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 49, 539–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Creel, M.; Loomis, J. Semi-nonparametric Distribution-Free Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1997, 32, 341–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Valenzuela, V.; Alpízar, F.; Bonilla, S.; Franco-Billini, C. Mining conflict in the Dominican Republic: The case of Loma Miranda. Resour. Policy 2020, 66, 101614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crooker, J.R.; Herriges, J.A. Parametric and Semi-Nonparametric Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay in the Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Framework. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2004, 27, 451–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MEA. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis.; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; p. 69. [Google Scholar]
- Tao, Z.; Yan, H.; Zhan, J. Economic Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services in Heshui Watershed using Contingent Valuation Method. Procedia Environ. Serv. 2012, 13, 2445–2450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bengochea-Morancho, A.; Fuertes-Eugenio, A.M. A comparison of empirical models used to infer the willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Empir. Econ. 2005, 30, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chilton, S. Contingent valuation and social choices concerning public goods: An overview of theory, methods and issues. Rev. D’Économie Polit. 2007, 117, 655–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bateman, I.J.; Langford, I.H.; Munro, A.; Starmer, C.; Sugden, R. Estimating Four Hicksian Welfare Measures for a Public Good: A Contingent Valuation Investigation. Land Econ. 2000, 76, 355–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K. Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 1167–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-López, B.; Iniesta-Arandia, I.; García-Llorente, M.; Palomo, I.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; García Del Amo, D.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Palacios-Agundez, I.; Willaarts, B.; et al. Uncovering Ecosystem Service Bundles through Social Preferences. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nandagiri, J.L. Evaluation of Economic Value of Pilikula Lake using Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Methods. Aquat. Procedia 2015, 4, 1315–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamri, T. Willingness to Pay for Conservation of Natural Resources in the Gunung Gading National Park, Sarawak. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 101, 506–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- La Notte, A.; D’ Amato, D.; Mäkinen, H.; Paracchini, M.L.; Liquete, C.; Egoh, B.; Geneletti, D.; Crossman, N.D. Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 74, 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- de Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ONE. Proyección de Hogares 2010–2025; Oficina Nacional de Estadística (ONE): Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 2019; p. 41. [Google Scholar]
- Arkema, K.; Fisher, D.; Wyatt, K. Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Bahamian Marine Protected Areas; BREEF. The Nature Conservancy. Bahamas National Trust. Natural Capital Project. Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2017; p. 87. [Google Scholar]
- Czúcz, B.; Arany, I.; Potschin-Young, M.; Bereczki, K.; Kertész, M.; Kiss, M.; Aszalós, R.; Haines-Young, R. Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 145–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BCRD. Encuesta Nacional de Gastos e Ingresos de los Hogares ENGIH 2018; Banco Central de la República Dominicana: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 2020; p. 102. [Google Scholar]
- Han, F.; Yang, Z.; Wang, H.; Xu, X. Estimating willingness to pay for environment conservation: A contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 180, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egan, K.J.; Corrigan, J.R.; Dwyer, D.F. Three reasons to use annual payments in contingent valuation surveys: Convergent validity, discount rates, and mental accounting. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2015, 72, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, B.; Polasky, S.; Sterner, T. Conservation and Human Welfare: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 48, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catibog-Sinha, C.; Wen, J. Sustainable Tourism Planning and Management Model for Protected Natural Areas: Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve, South China. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2008, 13, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maikhuri, R.K.; Nautiyal, S.; Rao, K.S.; Saxena, K.G. Conservation policy–people conflicts: A case study from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (a World Heritage Site), India. For. Policy Econ. 2001, 2, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kušová, D.; Těšitel, J.; Matějka, K.; Bartoš, M. Biosphere reserves—An attempt to form sustainable landscapes: A case study of three biosphere reserves in the Czech Republic. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 84, 38–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obradović, S.; Stojanović, V.; Kovačić, S.; Jovanovic, T.; Pantelić, M.; Vujičić, M. Assessment of residents’ attitudes toward sustainable tourism development—A case study of Bačko Podunavlje Biosphere Reserve, Serbia. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2021, 35, 100384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norman, L.M.; Villareal, M.L.; Lara-Valencia, F.; Yuan, Y.; Nie, W.; Wilson, S.; Amaya, G.; Sleeter, R. Mapping socio-environmentally vulnerable populations access and exposure to ecosystem services at the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 34, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Hoffman, L.; Varady, R.G.; Flessa, K.W.; Balvanera, P. Ecosystem services across borders: A framework for transboundary conservation policy. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2010, 8, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arriagada, R.; Perring, C. Paying for International Environmental Public Goods. Ambio 2011, 798–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Van Cuong, C.; Dart, P. Using Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit for assessing management effectiveness of the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve. Int. J. UNESCO Biosph. Reserves 2017, 1, 56–76. [Google Scholar]
Variable | Categories |
---|---|
Gender | (0) Female; (1) Male |
Age and age group | (1) 8 to 30 |
(2) 31 to 45 | |
(3) 46 to 60 | |
(4) 61 or more | |
Marital status | (1) Single |
(2) Married | |
(3) Separated | |
(4) Widow | |
Place of residence | (1) Urban zone; (2) Rural areas |
Macro-regions | (1) North; (2) South; (3) Santo Domingo Metropolitan area; (4) East |
Homeownership | Own |
Rented | |
Loaned | |
Other | |
Type of house | Single-family unit |
Apartment | |
Number of people living in the house | |
Educational level | Illiterate |
Primary education (K8) | |
Secondary education (K12) | |
Vocational education | |
College/university education | |
N/A (not applicable or no answer) | |
Economic activity | Unemployed |
Public worker | |
Private worker | |
Trader | |
Self-employed | |
Informal activities | |
N/A | |
Are you the only person working in the family? | No; (1) Yes |
Family month income level | ≤DOP 10 k…; (4) DOP 30 k–DOP 40 k…; (8) DOP 71 k–DOP 80 k…; (14) ≥DOP 151 k |
Membership to social or environmental organizations | No; (1) Yes |
Suggested Bids in DOP | Number of “Yes” Answers | The Proportion of Positive Answers |
---|---|---|
70.00 | 128 | 0.69 |
110.00 | 117 | 0.62 |
150.00 | 103 | 0.56 |
190.00 | 86 | 0.47 |
230.00 | 73 | 0.41 |
260.00 | 63 | 0.34 |
300.00 | 0 | 0.00 |
Coeff. | Independent Variables | Simple Model (i) | Semi-Full Model (ii) | Full Model (iii) |
---|---|---|---|---|
WTP of the Suggested Bids | ||||
Constant or intercept | 1.402 (0.000) *** | 0.414 (408) | 0.396 (0.498) | |
Suggested bids DOP (70|110|150|190|230|260) | −0.007 (0.000) *** | −0.008 (0.000) *** | −0.008 (0.000) *** | |
Living in the Enriquillo region | 0.200 (0.379) | 0.202 (0.378) | ||
Urban population | 0.080 (0.701) | −0.024 (0.908) | ||
Level of knowledge RBJBE (1−10, where 1 is the lowest level of information and 10 very well informed) | 0.292 (0.027) ** | 0.290 (0.032) ** | ||
Importance of the RBJBE (1–10, where 1 is the lowest level of importance and 10 de maximum level) | 0.038 (0.358) | 0.029 (0.505) | ||
Visits to protected areas (yes or no) | 0.283 (0.096) * | 0.234 (0.176) | ||
Membership to social or environmental organizations (yes or no) | 0.468 (0.111) | 0.570 (0.056) ** | ||
Income level (dummy variable: 1 = high; 0 = l) | 0.063 (0.099) * | 0.056 (0.143) | ||
The educational level of the interviewee (1–5, where 1 = illiterate and 5 = college education) | 0.202 (0.003) *** | 0.209 (0.002) *** | ||
Gender (male = 1; female = 0) | −0.129 (0.373) | −0.109 (0.457) | ||
Age range | −0173 (0.019) ** | −0.165 (0.027) ** | ||
Level of importance of the provisioning ecosystem services (dummy variable: 1 = high; 0 = low) | −0.293 (0.045) ** | |||
Importance of the regulating ecosystem services dummy variable: 1 = high; 0 = low) | −0.087 (0.693) | |||
Importance of the supporting ecosystem services dummy variable: 1 = high; 0 = low) | 0.641(0.001) *** | |||
Importance of the cultural ecosystem services dummy variable: 1 = high; 0 = low) | 0.103 (0.618) | |||
Significance of the model (H0: coefficients = 0) | p-value = 0.000 | p-value = 0.000 | ||
Number of observations | 1082 | 1082 | 1082 |
WTP for Selected Groups | Monthly Household Average WTP | Confidence Interval at the 95% |
---|---|---|
WTP for the simple model (i) | 177.14 | (162–193) |
WTP for the semi-full model (ii) | 181.81 | (166–198) |
WTP for the full model (iii) | 181.88 | (166–198) |
) | 204.23 | (151–257) |
198.82 | (176–221) | |
163.61 | (141–186) | |
270.16 | (192–348) | |
) | ||
) | ||
) | ||
) | ||
) | ||
) | ||
) | ||
166.21 | (145–188) | |
197.33 | (178–216) |
Valuation Scenarios | Monthly DOP WTP | Annual DOP WTP | Number of Households | Annual (Millions DOP) | Annual USD Millions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(i) Total number of national households | 181.88 | 2182.56 | 3,287,016 | 7,174,109,640.96 | ≈128,109,100.73 |
(ii) Number of households at national level | 187.35 | 2248.20 | 1,372,040 | 3,084,620,328.00 | ≈55,082,505.86 |
(iii) Total number of households in the Enriquillo region | 204.23 | 2450.76 | 106,899 | 261,983,793.24 | ≈4,678,282.02 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gómez-Valenzuela, V.; Alpízar, F.; Ramirez, K.; Bonilla-Duarte, S.; van Lente, H. At a Conservation Crossroad: The Bahoruco-Jaragua-Enriquillo Biosphere Reserve in the Dominican Republic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11030. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su131911030
Gómez-Valenzuela V, Alpízar F, Ramirez K, Bonilla-Duarte S, van Lente H. At a Conservation Crossroad: The Bahoruco-Jaragua-Enriquillo Biosphere Reserve in the Dominican Republic. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19):11030. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su131911030
Chicago/Turabian StyleGómez-Valenzuela, Víctor, Francisco Alpízar, Katerin Ramirez, Solhanlle Bonilla-Duarte, and Harro van Lente. 2021. "At a Conservation Crossroad: The Bahoruco-Jaragua-Enriquillo Biosphere Reserve in the Dominican Republic" Sustainability 13, no. 19: 11030. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su131911030