Using the Contingent Valuation Method to Assess Communities’ Willingness to Accept Compensation for Waterbird Nest Protection in the 3S Rivers, Cambodia

  • Phat Chandara
  • Seak Sophat
  • Andrea H. Claassen
Part of the Advances in Global Change Research book series (AGLO, volume 64)


Anthropogenic impacts are the greatest threat to survival of plant and animal populations worldwide. The importance of involving local communities in conservation is evident, yet poverty and livelihood concerns may preclude community participation in conservation, especially in developing countries. Payment for ecosystem services (PES) may enable local participation. However, payments need to be acceptable to communities while remaining within project budgets. Contingent valuation (CV) can be useful for establishing a community’s willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for participation in conservation activities and for associated opportunity costs. In the Sekong, Sesan, and Srepok (3S) River basin of Cambodia, a community-based nest protection program utilizing PES is being implemented for six waterbird species. This scheme employs local communities to prevent human exploitation (harvest of eggs and chicks) and disturbance at nesting sites. The program provides guard salaries as an incentive to local communities to report nest sites and ensure their success, rather than harvesting their contents. This study aimed to establish an appropriate level of conservation incentives for local communities to take part in conservation activities. We used CV methods to assess community WTA compensation for participating in conservation activities. Specifically, this chapter evaluates the acceptability of different payment levels by community respondents. This information will be useful for future implementation of the waterbird nest protection program in the 3S River basin, as well as for other conservation projects in Cambodia. Moreover, our approach to assessing communities’ WTA compensation for participating in the conservation project can be applied to other similar participatory, community-based conservation programs.


Biodiversity conservation Cambodia Conservation incentive Contingent valuation Payment for ecosystem services 



We would like to thank the Cambodian Forestry and Fisheries Administrations and the Ministry of Environment, as well as the Stung Treng and Ratanakiri provincial Forestry and Fisheries Cantonments. We would like to register our profound appreciation to local communities and district and commune authorities for administrative support and facilitation of project implementation. Also, we are grateful to our partner organizations: BirdLife International, 3S River Protection Network, Culture and Environment Preservation Association, and Wildlife Conservation Cambodia. We would like to acknowledge the dedication of our project team, including Sok Samet, Yen Run, Ouch Mara, Pheung Sophea, and Leang Sovichea. Financial support for this project was generously provided by the MacArthur Foundation and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Finally, we express our sincere thanks to the local communities along the 3S Rivers for their support and participation in the nest protection program.


  1. Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1995). The survey research handbook: Guidelines and strategies for conducting a survey (2nd ed.). Chicago: Irwin.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, B. D., & Merton, D. V. (2002). Critically endangered bird populations and their management. In K. Norris (Ed.), Conserving bird biodiversity (pp. 105–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berbés-Blázquez, M. (2012). A participatory assessment of ecosystem services and human wellbeing in rural Costa Rica using photo-voice. Environmental Management, 49(4), 862–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyle, K. J. (2003). Contingent valuation in practice. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A primer on non-market valuation (pp. 111–169). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bush, G., Hanley, N., Moro, M., & Rondeau, D. (2013). Measuring the local costs of conservation: A provision point mechanism for eliciting willingness to accept compensation. Land Economics, 89(3), 490–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Claassen, A. H. (2004). Abundance, distribution, and reproductive success of sandbar nesting birds below the Yali Falls hydropower dam on the Sesan River, Northeastern Cambodia. Phnom Penh: WWF, Danida, WCS and BirdLife International.Google Scholar
  7. Claassen, A. H., Sok, K., Arnold, T. W., & Cuthbert, F. J. (2017). Effectiveness of direct payments to increase reproductive success of sandbarnesting river birds in Cambodia. Bird Conservation International, 27(4), 495–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clements, T., Rainey, H., An, D., Rours, V., Tan, S., Thong, S., Sutherland, W. J., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2013). An evaluation of the effectiveness of a direct payment for biodiversity conservation: The bird nest protection program in the Northern Plains of Cambodia. Biological Conservation, 157, 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferraro, P. J., & Kiss, A. (2002). Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science, 298(5599), 1718–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferraro, P. J., & Gjertsen, H. (2009). A global review of incentive payments for sea turtle conservation. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 8(1), 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gruber, J. S. (2010). Key principles of community-based natural resource management: A synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons. Environmental Management, 45(1), 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gjertsen, H., & Niesten, E. (2010). Incentive-based approaches in marine conservation: Applications for sea turtles. Conservation and Society, 8(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  14. IUCN. (2017). The IUCN red list of threatened species, version 2017.1. Accessed 19 Aug 2017.
  15. Lindhjem, H., & Mitani, Y. (2012). Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach. Journal of Forest Economics, 18(4), 290–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manel, S., Berthier, P., & Luikart, G. (2002). Detecting wildlife poaching: Identifying the origin of individuals with Bayesian assignment tests and multilocus genotypes. Conservation Biology, 16(3), 650–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Milne, S., & Chervier, C. (2014). A review of payments for environmental services (PES) experiences in Cambodia. Kota Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
  18. Minten, B. (2009). Compensation for biodiversity conservation. Review on Business Economic Literature, 54(3), 362–383.Google Scholar
  19. MRC. (2010). State of the basin report 2010. Vientiane: Mekong River Commission.Google Scholar
  20. NCDD. (2010). Commune database online. Accessed 5 June 2017.
  21. Phat, C., & Seak, S. (2015). Contribution of local ecological knowledge and practices to waterbirds conservation along the Sekong and Sesan Rivers IBA, Cambodia (draft report). Cambodia: Department of Natural Resource Management and Development, Royal University of Phnom Penh.Google Scholar
  22. Piman, T., Cochrane, T. A., Arias, M. E., Green, A., & Dat, N. D. (2013). Assessment of flow changes from hydropower development and operations in Sekong, Sesan and Srepok rivers of the Mekong basin. Joural of Water Resources Planning and Management, 139(6), 723–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L., Cowlishaw, G., & Mace, G. M. (2000). Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 267(1456), 1947–1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  25. Sok, K., Claassen, A. H., Wright, H. L., & Ryan, G. E. (2012). Waterbird nest protection on the Mekong River: A preliminary evaluation, with notes on the recovery and release of white-shouldered ibis Pseudibis davisoni chicks. Cambodian Journal of National History, 2012, 29–41.Google Scholar
  26. Suich, H. (2013). The effectiveness of economic incentives for sustaining community based natural resource management. Land Use Policy, 31, 441–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Timmins, R. J., & Men, S. (1998). A wildlife survey of the Tonle San and Tonle Srepok River basins in northeastern Cambodia. Phnom Penh: Fauna and Flora International Indochina Program, Wildlife Protection Office, Department of Forestry.Google Scholar
  28. van Belle, G. (2011). Statistical rules of thumb. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Whittington, D. (2002). Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Environmental Development Economics, 22(2), 233–367.Google Scholar
  30. Wright, H. L., Collar, N. J., Lake, I. R., Rours Vann, R., Sok, K., Phearun, S., & Dolman, P. M. (2013). Experimental test of a conservation intervention for a highly threatened waterbird. Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(8), 1610–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wunder, S. (2007). The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ziv, G., Baran, E., So, N., Rodríguez-Iturb, I., & Levina, S. A. (2012). Trading-off fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin. Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences of the United States of America, 109(15), 5609–5614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phat Chandara
    • 1
  • Seak Sophat
    • 1
  • Andrea H. Claassen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resource Management and Development, Faculty of Development StudiesRoyal University of Phnom PenhPhnom PenhKingdom of Cambodia
  2. 2.Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations