@article{MarkovaNenovaEnglerCordetal.2023, author = {Markova-Nenova, Nonka and Engler, Jan O. and Cord, Anna F. and W{\"a}tzold, Frank}, title = {Will passive acoustic monitoring make result-based payments more attractive? A cost comparison with human observation for farmland bird monitoring}, doi = {10.1111/csp2.13003}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Result-based payments (RBPs) reward land users for conservation outcomes and are a promising alternative to standard payments, which are targeted at specific land use measures. A major barrier to the implementation of RBPs, particularly for the conservation of mobile species, is the substantial monitoring cost. Passive acoustic monitoring may offer promising opportunities for low-cost monitoring as an alternative to human observation. We develop a costing framework for comparing human observation and passive acoustic monitoring and apply it to a hypothetical RBP scheme for farmland bird conservation. We consider three different monitoring scenarios: daytime monitoring for the whinchat and the ortolan bunting, nighttime monitoring for the gray partridge and the common quail, and day-and-night monitoring for all four species. We also examine the effect of changes in relevant parameters (such as participating area, travel distance and required monitoring time) on the cost comparison. Our results show that passive acoustic monitoring is still more expensive than human observation for daytime monitoring. In contrast, passive acoustic monitoring has a cost advantage for nighttime as well as day-and-nighttime monitoring in all considered scenarios.}, subject = {Performance-based payments; Monitoring costs; PAM; ARU; AudioMoth; Monitoringkosten; Ergebnishonorierung; Naturschutz; Landwirtschaft; Monitoring; V{\"o}gel; Erfolgshonorar; Kostenvergleich}, language = {en} } @article{ManhiqueWaetzold2024, author = {Manhique, Henrique and W{\"a}tzold, Frank}, title = {Effects of institutional distrust on value estimates of stated preference surveys in developing countries : a choice experiment on conserving biodiversity within agricultural landscapes in a biodiversity hotspot}, series = {Q Open}, volume = {4}, journal = {Q Open}, number = {1}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {2633-9048}, doi = {10.1093/qopen/qoae014}, year = {2024}, abstract = {The use of stated preference surveys for the valuation of environmental goods in developing countries has to take into account that there is substantial public distrust towards institutions providing environmental goods under valuation. Thus, high protest responses and low-value estimates may indicate rejection/protest against the institutional setting of the survey, rather than the dislike or low welfare effects of these goods. In this context, we investigate the effects of institutional trust on value estimates by examining the performance of three different institutions government, conservation NGO, and farmers in a case study aimed at eliciting preferences for conserving different types of biodiver- sity within orchards in the Cape Floristic Region a biodiversity hotspot in South Africa threatened by the expansion and intensification of agriculture. We find that institutional trust has an effect on preferences and willingness to pay, with farmers leading to the highest level of trust and value estimates, followed rather closely by a conservation NGO, and, with some distance, by the government with the lowest trust level and value estimates. In terms of preferences for biodiversity conservation, our results show that respondents prefer measures to conserve endangered and endemic species over measures primarily aimed at providing ecosystem services. For future studies in developing countries, we recommend selecting an institutional setting based on the study's purpose: institutions with high levels of trust should be prioritised for studies aiming to value a good per se, while existing institutions should be prioritised for studies valuing a policy to provide a good within an existing institutional framework.}, subject = {Drivers of institutional distrust; Economics; Ecosystem services; Endangered species; Payment vehicle; Faktoren f{\"u}r institutionelles Misstrauen; Wirtschaft; {\"O}kosystemdienstleistungen; Bedrohte Arten; Zahlungsmittel; S{\"u}dafrika; Bekundete Pr{\"a}ferenz; Umweltschutz; Regierung; Nichtstaatliche Organisation; Landwirt; Misstrauen}, language = {en} }