Figure 1
Map of the study area Mae Sa watershed.
Figure 2
Conceptual framework of the CE design.
Figure 3
Example of a choice set for upstream farmers.
Figure 4
Example of a choice set for downstream farmers.
Figure 5
Proposed institutional framework for a PES scheme in Mae Sa watershed.
Table 1
Attributes and attribute levels in the choice experiments for upstream farmers.
| Attribute | Level |
|---|---|
| Application of bio-insecticides | (% increase of area) 30, 50, 70, 100 |
| Planting of vetiver grass strips | (% increase of area) 10, 20, 30, 40 |
| Installation of water saving irrigation system | 50% micro sprinkler, 100% micro sprinkler, 50% drip irrigation, 100% drip irrigation |
| Compensation | (Baht/rai/year) 300, 546, 1010, 1717 |
Note: 1 rai=0.16 ha.
Table 2
Attributes and attribute levels in the choice experiments for downstream farmers.
| Attribute | Level |
|---|---|
| Water for agriculture | Level 1: No water shortage Level 2: 1 month shortage Level 3: 2 months shortage (status quo) |
| Water for household consumption | Level 1: No water shortage Level 2: 1 month shortage Level 3: 2 months shortage (status quo) |
| Water quality | Level 1: Drinking and cooking Level 2: Household use Level 3: Cultivation (status quo) |
| Water fee (Baht/household/year) | 525, 440, 300, 150 (status quo) |
Table 3
Socio-economic characteristics of the upstream communities.
| Village | No. of sample house-holds | Major crops (in % of agricultural area) | Total household income (and average per capita income) (Baht/year) | No. of family members | Farm size (ha) | Ethnicity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buak Chan | 53 | Vegetables 62% Flowers 13% Fruit trees 9% | 119,352.92 (13,261.44) | 9 | 1.91 | Hmong |
| Buak Toei and Pang Lung | 30 | Flowers 50% Vegetables 20% Fruit trees 10% | 101,988.83 (14,569.83) | 7 | 1.33 | Hmong / Northern Thai |
| Pha Nok Kok | 52 | Vegetables 84% Flowers 6% Fruit trees 8% | 122,347.18 (20,391.20) | 6 | 1.50 | Hmong |
| Mae Sa Mai/Mae Sa Noi | 118 | Vegetables 52% Fruit trees 38% | 86,627.75 (10,828.47) | 8 | 1.49 | Hmong |
| Pong Krai | 23 | Vegetables 65% Flowers 34% | 80,523.91 (16,104.78) | 5 | 0.64 | Northern Thai |
| Pong Yang Nai | 44 | Vegetables 79% Flowers 16% | 113,569.32 (28,392.23) | 4 | 0.31 | Northern Thai |
| Muang Kam | 51 | Vegetable 75% Flowers 22% | 169,405.29 (42,351.32) | 4 | 0.39 | Northern Thai |
Source: Own survey 2007/2008.
Table 4
Model results of upstream farmers’ willingness to accept compensation for adopting environmental friendly practices.
| Coefficient | Z-statistics | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of bio-insecticides | –0.0017 | –1.8918** | 101.63 |
| Planting vetiver grass strips | –0.0070 | –2.8761*** | 423.63 |
| Installation of water saving irrigation system (50% of area under micro-sprinkler) | 0.1233 | 2.4925*** | – |
| Installation of water saving irrigation system (100% of area under micro-sprinkler) | –0.0450 | –0.7555 | – |
| Installation of water saving irrigation system (50% of area under drip irrigation) | 0.1041 | 2.2628** | – |
| Installation of water saving irrigation system (100% of area under drip irrigation) | 0.2863 | 5.8049*** | – |
| Compensation | 0.0001 | 1.7434* |
Note: Significance levels: ***1%, **5%, *10%.
Source: Own analysis.
Table 5
Regression results of socio-economic factors determining upstream farmers’ willingness to participate in a compensation scheme for environmental friendly agricultural practices.
| Socio-economic factors | Coefficient | Z-statistics | Marginal effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 0.2590 | 1.0651 | 0.04560 |
| Age of household head (years) | 0.0099 | 2.8251*** | 0.00175 |
| Education (years) | 0.0377 | 3.7109*** | 0.00664 |
| Vegetables as main crop (yes=1, no=0) | 0.2082 | 2.6567*** | 0.03719 |
| Family labour in agriculture (persons) | 0.0586 | 2.9943*** | 0.01032 |
| Household perceived as rich (yes=1, others=0) | –1.1442 | –4.2812*** | –0.25184 |
| Total household income (Baht/year) | –2.76E–07 | –1.1409 | –4.86E–08 |
| Ratio of agricultural income to household income | –0.0587 | –0.4149 | –0.0103 |
| Household perceived as medium wealthy (yes=1, others=0) | –0.4638 | –3.9463*** | –0.07554 |
| Past erosion experiences (yes=1, others=0) | 0.3076 | 2.9715*** | 0.05165 |
| Past household water shortage experiences (yes=1, no=0) | 0.4072 | 4.5109*** | 0.06932 |
| Past drought experiences (yes=1, no=0) | 0.4164 | 4.9670*** | 0.07363 |
| Be a member of environmental conservation group (yes=1, no=0) | 0.2704 | 2.9558*** | 0.04609 |
| Total income (Baht/year) | –2.76E–07 | –1.1409 | 0.00000 |
| Ratio of agricultural income to total income | –0.0587 | –0.4149 | –0.01033 |
| Log likelihood function | –2355.326 | ||
| Number of observations | 4,452 | ||
| Number of respondents | 371 |
Note: Significance levels: ***1%, **5%, *10%.
Source: Own analysis.
Table 6
Socio-economic characteristics of downstream resource managers.
| Socio-Economic Characteristics | Mean |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 57.43 |
| Education (years) | 5.05 |
| Farm size (ha/household) | 0.99 |
| Agricultural income from rice and soybean (Baht/household/year) | 38,754 |
| Non-agricultural income (Baht/household/year) | 138,452 |
Source: Own survey 2007/2008.
Table 7
Water sources of downstream resource managers.
| Water source | Non-food household use consumption | Drinking and cooking | Agriculture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community-based water system (pipes) | 118 (78%) | 38 (25%) | – |
| Pond | 24 (16%) | 21 (14%) | – |
| Groundwater | 9 (6%) | 5 (3%) | – |
| Bottled water | – | 87 (58%) | – |
| Mae Sa River only | – | – | 71 (86%) |
| Mae Sa River and Mae Tang Irrigation Dam | – | – | 12 (14%) |
Source: Own survey 2007/2008.
Table 8
Model results of downstream farmers’ willingness to pay for improved water resources.
| Coefficient | Z-statistics | and year) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficient water quantity for cultivation (no water shortage) | 0.7090 | 9.45*** | 377.59 | 737.42 |
| One-month water shortage for cultivation | 0.0007 | 0.0095 | – | – |
| Sufficient water quantity for household use (no water shortage) | 0.4590 | 5.12*** | 368.71 | 477.43 |
| One-month water shortage for household use | 0.0537 | 0.5327 | – | – |
| Good water quality for drinking | 0.7261 | 5.98*** | 238.71 | 755.19 |
| Good water quality for household use (e.g. laundry, bathing) | 0.1718 | 3.41*** | 89.34 | 178.68 |
| Water fee | –0.0019 | –2.01** |
Note: Significance levels: ***1%, **5%, *10%.
Source: Own analysis.
Table 9
Regression results of socio-economic factors determining downstream farmers’ willingness to participate in a payment scheme for water resource improvement.
| Socio-economic factors | Coefficient | Z-statistics | Marginal effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | –3.7701 | –3.3298*** | –0.14335 |
| Age of household head (year) | 0.0449 | 3.5542*** | 0.00171 |
| Education (year) | 0.0813 | 2.0147** | 0.00309 |
| Household member (person) | 0.0321 | 0.4244 | 0.00122 |
| Agricultural labor (person) | 0.0800 | 0.4763 | 0.00304 |
| Rice is the main crop (yes=1, no=0) | 1.0915 | 3.8863*** | 0.05497 |
| Size of land (rai) | 0.0897 | 3.0107*** | 0.00341 |
| Ownership right (owner=1, non-owner=0) | 0.2673 | 1.1038 | 0.01002 |
| Non-farm income (Baht/year) | –2.83E–06 | –3.3264*** | 0.00000 |
| Frequency of past drought experiences | 0.1505 | 2.5304*** | 0.00572 |
| Participation in environmental activities (yes=1, no=0) | 1.7206 | 4.1121*** | 0.04362 |
| Support of Mae Sa watershed improvement (yes=1, no=0) | 1.7293 | 5.8578*** | 0.12892 |
| Use water from Mae Sa river and Mae Taeng irrigation system (yes=1, no=0) | –0.4603 | –1.7899* | –0.01654 |
| Buy bottled water for drinking (yes=1, no=0) | 0.9873 | 3.9629*** | 0.04270 |
| Log likelihood function | –318.1640 | ||
| Number of observations | 1510 | ||
| Number of responders | 151 |
Note: Significance levels: ***1%, **5%, *10%; 1 rai=0.16 ha.
Source: Own analysis.
| Attribute-based model for upstream farmers | |
| Yij=f (VET, BIO, IRRDA, IRRMH, IRRMA, IRRDH, COMP) | (8) |
| Yij=1 if respondent j says ‘yes’, and 0 if ‘no’ to choice i | |
| VET: percentage of planting vetiver grass which are 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% | |
| BIO: percentage of area applying bio-insecticides which are 30%, 50%, 70%, and 100% | |
| IRRMH=1 for 50% of area under micro-sprinkler, =–1 for status quo, =0 for others | |
| IRRMA=1 for 100% of area under micro-sprinkler, =–1 for status quo, =0 for others | |
| IRRDH=1 for 50% of area under drip irrigation, =–1 for status quo, =0 for others | |
| IRRDA=1 for 100% of area under drip irrigation, =–1 for status quo, =0 for others | |
| COMP: compensation which are 300, 546, 1010, and 1717 Baht/rai | |
| Attribute-based model for downstream farmers | |
| Yij=f (AGRY, AGRI, CONSY, CONSI, QUALA, QUALL, WATFEE) | (9) |
| Yij=1 if respondent j says ‘yes’, and 0 if ‘no’ to choice i | |
| AGRY=1 for no water shortage for cultivation, =–1 for status quo (2-month shortage), =0 for others | |
| AGRI=1 for one month shortage for cultivation, =–1 for status quo (2-month shortage), =0 for others | |
| CONSY=1 for no water shortage for consumption, =–1 for status quo (2-month shortage), =0 for others | |
| CONSI=1 for one month shortage for consumption, =–1 for status quo (2-month shortage), =0 for others | |
| QUALA=1 for water quality for consumption, household uses and agriculture, =–1 for status quo (water quality for agriculture use), =0 for others | |
| QUALL=1 for water quality for household uses and agriculture, =–1 for status quo (water quality for agriculture use), =0 for others | |
| WATERFEE: water fee at the levels of 525, 440, 300, and 150 Baht/rai | |
| Note: 1 rai=0.16 ha. |