Search

Forests are widely believed to provide a water purification service that reduces the cost of treating drinking water, but few empirical economic studies have investigated this service in developing countries, where deforestation rates and thus threats to the service tend to be higher than in developed countries. Even fewer studies have investigated the distribution of the benefits of this service, or any other regulating ecosystem service for that matter, in either developing or developed countries. Using quarterly panel data for 158 water utilities in Thailand during 2004–2014, we find robust evidence that forests significantly reduced the material cost of water treatment, but we find no evidence that the cost reductions were progressive in the sense of being larger in provinces with higher poverty rates. The economic justification for source water protection in Thailand appears to hinge purely on considerations of efficiency — does source water protection provide net benefits? — not on the distribution of those benefits between poorer and richer locations. Research in other countries is needed to determine if the absence of pro-poor distributional impacts of forest water purification is unique to Thailand or the norm and if interventions that enhance forest water purification significantly reduce poverty in locations served by treated drinking water systems.

This paper presents the first comprehensive estimates of the economic costs experienced by households in the 2011 Greater Bangkok flood. More generally, it contributes to the literature by presenting the first estimates of flood costs based on primary data collected from respondents of flooded homes using in-person interviews. Two rounds of interviews were conducted with 469 households in three of the most heavily affected districts of greater Bangkok. The estimates of economic costs include preventative costs, ex post losses, compensation received, and any new income generated during the flood. Median household economic costs were US$3089, equivalent to about half of annual household expenditures (mean costs were US$5261). Perhaps surprisingly given the depth and duration of the flood, most houses incurred little structural damage (although furniture, appliances, and cars were damaged). Median economic costs to poor and nonpoor households were similar as a percentage of annual household expenditures (53% and 48%, respectively). Compensation payments received from government did little to reduce the total economic losses of the vast majority of households. Two flood-related deaths were reported in our sample—both in low-income neighborhoods. Overall, ex post damage was the largest component of flood costs (66% of total). These findings are new, important inputs for the evaluation of flood control mitigation and preventive measures that are now under consideration by the Government of Thailand. The paper also illustrates how detailed microeconomic data on household costs can be collected and summarized for policy purposes.

The prime objective of this paper is to estimate from a cross-country perspective the willingness to pay for marine turtle conservation using the contingent valuation method. A secondary objective is to investigate two methodological issues about contingent valuation study: scope effect and payment vehicle effect. Using a uniform survey instrument and protocol, a sample of 3680 respondents from Beijing (China), Davao City (Philippines), Bangkok (Thailand) and Ho Chi Minh/Hanoi (Vietnam) were interviewed. Results indicate that the respondents in all cities have a positive willingness to pay for marine turtle conservation. The type of scope effect and payment vehicle effect considered did not seem to be significant in Beijing, Davao City and Bangkok. But some evidence show that there are scope effect and payment vehicle effect in Ho Chi Minh/Hanoi sample. Our study offers practical insights into Asian household preferences for marine turtle conservation.

Developing countries often face acute pressures to deal simultaneously with conflicting policy goals. In a debate over the proposed resettlement of the village of Ban Pa Kluay, located in Ob Luang National Park in Chiang Mai Province in the Northern Region of Thailand, cost-benefit analysis resulted in the discovery of a compromise option involving neither resettlement nor complete nonintervention by the national government. Where equity and environmental concerns conflict, cost-benefit analysis can improve the quality of policymaking, but for it to fulfill its promise, the usefulness of the technique will need to be more broadly recognized by the public and by political actors.

This paper looks at why people in Bangkok give money to wildlife charities, estimates how much people would be willing to pay for the conservation of some of Thailand's endangered animals and assesses what would be the best way to collect money for wildlife protection. The study used the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to determine the economic value of a group of Thailand's endangered animal species. Information was gathered through 955 face-to-face interviews conducted in Bangkok. The study finds that the majority of the respondents would vote to pass a referendum to impose a 250 Baht income tax surcharge to generate funds for conservation of a selected group of Thailand's endangered species. If this surcharge were imposed on the whole of Bangkok's population, it would raise significantly more money than is allocated to the current budget of Thailand's National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department. This potential income would allow the implementation of a comprehensive, integrated conservation programme across the country. The study therefore recommends that all policy-makers and organizations involved in wildlife conservation in Thailand seriously consider its findings and incorporate them in future plans to raise funds to save the country's endangered wildlife.

Marine turtles are important, not only for their economic and intrinsic value, but because an adequate population of marine turtles is often an indicator of healthy marine ecosystem. Of the seven species of marine turtles, four are critically endangered, while two are in the next-highest risk category.

If politicians are to make informed decisions about funding wildlife conservation, it is important that they know what the general public thinks about the issues involved, the factors that shape people's perceptions and how much individuals would be willing to pay to help wildlife. This study has looked into these issues and has found out what people in Bangkok think about wildlife conservation in the country and how much they would be willing to pay to support it.

This report presents and compares results from a large research project – Local WTP for the conservation of sea turtles across China, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam using the same contingent valuation (CV) instrument. Studies involved in this study are available elsewhere (e.g. Jianjun et al. 2006), and have described the survey themselves, thus these will not be described in this study. This benefit transfer study tests the validity and reliability of WTP values for the sea turtles across countries using both unit value transfer and functional transfer. For both unit value and functional transfer, we compare them country by country and from multiple (pooled) countries to a country as a policy site. The study attempts to investigate if any of the benefit transfer approaches could provide reasonably low transfer errors between pairs of countries and between a group of countries and country.

This study investigates whether farmers living in a village within the boundaries of one of Thailand's most important national parks should continue to live there or be resettled. It analyzes the costs and benefits of several scenarios for the future of the villagers. These include resettlement, "business-as-usual" and a compromise in which the villagers are involved in helping conserve the park. It finds that resettlement is not only unnecessary, but would actually cost more - environmentally and socially - than letting the farmers stay and help manage the park. In light of this, the study describes how the compromise scenario might be made to work and recommends that this approach be considered in other conflict resolution situations in Thailand.

One of the most active debates in the field of conservation is about whether people should be allowed to live and work within the boundaries of nature reserves. A new piece of research from Thailand has investigated this question in the context of one of the country's most important protected wilderness areas. The study found that re-settlement was not only unnecessary, but would actually cost more - environmentally and socially - than letting the farmers stay and help manage the park. This study investigate a long-running resettlement dispute among people living in and around a protected area in Chiang Mai province to find out the best way to resolve the conflict.