causes of landslides and floods, and were also perceived as such by the study
farmers. About half of the respondents said they had experienced a landslide
between 2002 and 2007, of which 58 % said they had experienced income losses
amounting to an average of 6 % of their annual household income. Nearly all the
households (92 %) in the study said they were quite or very worried about future
landslides.
The above study sought to elicit farmers’ utility by estimating their willingness
to contribute personally to the implementation of a landslide prevention program
that would involve reforestation, changes in land use practices and the stabilization
of slopes, as well as other measures used to combat soil erosion. Farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) was elicited through a Contingent Valuation style questionnaire,
whereby respondents, after being exposed to a realistic project scenario, were asked
about the maximum amount they would be willing to pay to get this project up and
running. The results indicate first that nearly all households confronted with the
scenario agreed that such a project should be carried out. On average, the maximum
amount respondents were willing to contribute was 55,000 VND per year (equivalent to approximately 1.2 days of agricultural wage labor in the area) over a period
of 3 years. The study then explored, through a probit model, the determinants of
farmers’ WTP for the implementation of such a program. Among other significant
determinants, farmers’ wealth levels, proxied by the total value of their assets,
positively influenced their WTP. This result, as expected, indicates that the poor are
less likely to participate in such long term natural resource maintenance programs,
and that a strong reliance on this sector of the population is unlikely to yield
successful outcomes.
5.5 Conclusions and Policy Implications
Literature on the linkage between agriculture, poverty and the environment tends to
emphasize a population approach, one in which poverty is the main cause of
environmental degradation, and according to this approach, a reduction in poverty
levels should also yield more sustainable resource use. The results of our analysis
both support and contradict the population-degradation hypothesis. First, the
hypothesis is supported by our findings, as we found that poorer households
participate less in long-term investments in soil conservation techniques, have
higher discount rates and are more risk averse than wealthier households. However,
this hypothesis is also contradicted by our findings, as we found no difference with
respect to the degree of soil-eroding maize specialization activities carried out by
the poor and wealthy farmers, and that even relatively wealthy farmers would not
invest in soil conservation methods unless they were compensated through direct
support given by the government.
The literature also highlights a market-based approach, one that could lead to
poverty reduction and more land-saving technologies, thereby allowing higher
incomes from less agricultural land and saving land for biodiversity, water
5 Linkages Between Agriculture, Poverty and Natural Resource Use. . .
207
farmers. About half of the respondents said they had experienced a landslide
between 2002 and 2007, of which 58 % said they had experienced income losses
amounting to an average of 6 % of their annual household income. Nearly all the
households (92 %) in the study said they were quite or very worried about future
landslides.
The above study sought to elicit farmers’ utility by estimating their willingness
to contribute personally to the implementation of a landslide prevention program
that would involve reforestation, changes in land use practices and the stabilization
of slopes, as well as other measures used to combat soil erosion. Farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) was elicited through a Contingent Valuation style questionnaire,
whereby respondents, after being exposed to a realistic project scenario, were asked
about the maximum amount they would be willing to pay to get this project up and
running. The results indicate first that nearly all households confronted with the
scenario agreed that such a project should be carried out. On average, the maximum
amount respondents were willing to contribute was 55,000 VND per year (equivalent to approximately 1.2 days of agricultural wage labor in the area) over a period
of 3 years. The study then explored, through a probit model, the determinants of
farmers’ WTP for the implementation of such a program. Among other significant
determinants, farmers’ wealth levels, proxied by the total value of their assets,
positively influenced their WTP. This result, as expected, indicates that the poor are
less likely to participate in such long term natural resource maintenance programs,
and that a strong reliance on this sector of the population is unlikely to yield
successful outcomes.
5.5 Conclusions and Policy Implications
Literature on the linkage between agriculture, poverty and the environment tends to
emphasize a population approach, one in which poverty is the main cause of
environmental degradation, and according to this approach, a reduction in poverty
levels should also yield more sustainable resource use. The results of our analysis
both support and contradict the population-degradation hypothesis. First, the
hypothesis is supported by our findings, as we found that poorer households
participate less in long-term investments in soil conservation techniques, have
higher discount rates and are more risk averse than wealthier households. However,
this hypothesis is also contradicted by our findings, as we found no difference with
respect to the degree of soil-eroding maize specialization activities carried out by
the poor and wealthy farmers, and that even relatively wealthy farmers would not
invest in soil conservation methods unless they were compensated through direct
support given by the government.
The literature also highlights a market-based approach, one that could lead to
poverty reduction and more land-saving technologies, thereby allowing higher
incomes from less agricultural land and saving land for biodiversity, water
5 Linkages Between Agriculture, Poverty and Natural Resource Use. . .
207