Evaluating the effects of a minimalist deliberative framework on the willingness to participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services program

Abstract

When compared with other stated preference valuation methodologies, deliberative valuation gives participants more time and information, potentially resulting in more valid and reliable estimations and higher participant confidence. However, it also has weaknesses, such as small sample sizes, lower participant diversity, and high costs. This paper proses a minimalist framework for deliberation that increases sample size and lowers the cost per participant through short, structured deliberative sessions and the use of deliberative sub-groups. A case study was conducted with 192 landholders in south-eastern Mexico, examining how participants' perceptions of benefits from communal forest lands would impact their willingness to accept (WTA) comparatively lower payments to participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) program. The results suggest that a majority of landholders would accept a lower payment level to participate in a PES program over a degradative alternative, with 45.5% of participants surveyed willing to accept a 45% reduction in payments to participate in the PES program. The minimalist framework had an impact on participants' rate of acceptance, with a 13.8% increase in the percentage of participants willing to accept the PES offer post-deliberation. The impact on participant confidence was stronger, with a 31.2% increase in the percentage of participants expressing confidence in their choice after deliberations.