CIVICS/Main Quantitative and Choice Experiment Results

The Quantitative Survey

Structure of the Quantitative Survey Instrument

To analyse the household and land use situation of the project regions a face-to-face interview in a quantitative survey was designed. The first section contains the general household characteristics (people living in the household, socio-economic information etc.) These questions purpose to give a general and representative overview of the researched population of the project regions and support an analysis of their possible influence on the choice experiment. Following that, respondents were asked several questions regarding to access to facilities, employment, non-agricultural self-employment, crop production, livestock production, farming equipment, agricultural extension, additional income sources and the establishment of protected areas. About 150 different questions were asked to the respondents.

The Measurement of Household Income

Respondents were not asked directly in the survey about their income. This was due to the reason, that cultural behaviour and non-trusting in foreigners could have led to wrong answers. The structure of the survey allows calculations from (i) income outside agriculture in form of asking about monthly income of these jobs and how many month a year family members are working in this arrangement (ii) income from agriculture, as questions were asked about market prices, how much was sold, what was bought etc. for farms (iii) income from own business outside agriculture (same questions like about employment work), (iv) questions about state payments and remittances from family members living not within the household and (v) a calculation of subsistence income, which was composed by an average consumption of produced goods for each household. Taking these five parts together was creating an overview of each family in each region about their income division.

Attitude and Belief Variables

The survey included open-ended questions on attitudes and beliefs with respect to the different local protected areas. The questions referred to (1) involvement of respondents in decision making of the establishment/enlargement of national park closer to them, (2) influences of the national parks on the life of respondents and (3) future effects and use restrictions that are expected by respondents. Typical positive features that were stated include: better living conditions, better infrastructure, more jobs, better tourism development etc. Stated negative features were: lack of land, higher taxes, more foreign land users, destruction of harvest by wild animals etc.

The Choice Experiment

Hypothesis

We substantiated one hypothesis on respondent preferences that can be tested with the CE data: Economic importance of Summer Pastures Summer pastures have high economic value for dairy/meat production in the project areas, as access to summer pastures appears to be a limiting factor for the size of the individual farm’s herds. Where access is particularly low and farmers complain about summer pasture scarcity, i.e. in Lagodekhi – income from cattle and sheep is particularly low (which will be shown in section 6). Still, potential reductions in summer pasture access are likely also to impact farming economies in Lake Arpi and Samtskhe-Javakheti. Thus, we predict that stated preferences for access to summer pastures is positive in all case study areas; and particularly high in Lagodekhi, where summer pastures are particularly scarce.

Attributes

In this experiment, the attribute changes are related against the following environmental and economic aspects:

• Usage of summer pasture
• Use of plants in the nature reserve
• Additional trainings to new income opportunities
• Change in monthly income

Study Results

Study Sample

Of the 300 respondents who completed the questionnaires and the choice experiment, 68 were female and 232 male. The most female respondents were found in Lake Arpi (50 out of 100). In Samtskhe-Javakheti 11 females were taking part at the survey and in Lagodekhi seven. Taking into account that mostly the head of household was answering the questions this small amount of female respondents is quiet adequate for the setting of the regions. The age of the respondents is between 22 and 88. The mean age of all three regions is 56 years. The mean years of education over all regions are 11 years and 51% of all respondents have a degree of higher education. All respondents, accept two, finished secondary school. However, we decided to describe the level of education in years, as the systems of education changed in Georgia and Armenia before and after the breakdown of the Soviet Union several times. We can find in mean the youngest respondents in Lake Arpi (52.02) and the oldest in Samtskhe-Javakheti (59.93). The highest mean level of education can be found in Lake Arpi (11.94 years) and the lowest in Lagodekhi (10.56 years). But generally the years of education and age are in all regions close to each other.

Household Income

Yearly income for a household in Lake Arpi is 2348 Euro (4292 Euro/average Armenia), 1979 Euro in Samtskhe-Javakheti and 680 Euro in Lagodekhi (4413 Euro/average Georgia). Our survey results show that the cash income of Armenia (1900€/year) is composed of 72% from employment work outside agriculture, 4% from selling agricultural products, 20% are state payments and 4% remittances. The data from Samstkhe-Javakheti indicates that 59% of the mean cash income (3400€/year) are generated by employment work outside agriculture, 10% by selling agricultural products, 19% of the cash income are state payments and 12% remittances. In the survey results of Lagodekhi draw a picture where just 39% of the mean cash income (810€/year) come from employment work outside agriculture and 33% from selling farm products. 14% of the cash income are state payments and another 14% are generated by own businesses. Respondents of the region of Lagodekhi state no remittances.

Household Structure

Structe of an average household in Lake Arpi

• 4,8 people (1 child)
• Head of Household has 11,8 years of education
• Very poor infrastructure (markets 47 km; veternary 17 km; police, bank and clinic 11 km)
• 9,2 ha (3 plots, 7 ha used)
  • 83% grassland (hay making), 6% potatoes, 3% wheat, 2% barley, 5% other communal pasture land
• animals
  • 10 cows (min:0; max:35) – 1,5 heads sold in 2012
  • < 1 pig
  • 9 sheep (min:0; max:70)
  • 16 chicken
  • 2,5 calfs (min:0; max:20)
• 16,000 L milk a year
  • 4000 L milk sold in 2012
  • 600 kg dairy products (barter)
  • 100 kg meat autoconsumption in 2012

Structure of an average household in Samtskhe-Javakheti

• 5,4 people (1 child)
• Head of Household has 10,7 years of education
• poor infrastructure (markets and vet. 24 km; police, bank and clinic 7-14 km)
• 1,5 ha ( 2 plots)
  • 43% potatoes, 27% barley, 18% grassland, 10% wheat, 3% vegetables, �1% other)
  • communal pasture land
• animals
  • 4,5 cows (min:0; max:16) – <1 heads in total sold in 2012
  • 1 pig
  • 12 sheep (min:0; max:180) – 1,4 sold in 2012
  • 17 chicken
  • 2 calfs
  • 2 lambs
• 5220 L milk a year
  • 1430 L milk sold in 2012
  • 170 kg cheese (barter)

Structure of an average household in Lagodekhi

• 4,5 people (0,5 child)
• Head of Household has 10,6 years of education
• acceptable infrastructure (markets, vet., police, bank and clinic 7-8 km)
• 1,2 ha ( 2 plots)
  • 74% corn, 15% grassland, 3% wheat, 2% vegetables, 1% barley, 5% other
  • communal pasture land
• animals
  • 2,8 cows (min:0; max:60) – <<1 heads in total sold in 2012
  • 1 pig
  • 0,3 sheep (min:0; max:30)
  • 16 chicken
  • 0,27 calfs
• 1170 L milk a year
  • 1030 L milk sold in 2012
  • 30 kg cheese (10% barter)

Attitude and Beliefs Results

In Lake Arpi most people had positive attitudes towards the national park: 49% of all respondents as having a very positive attitude and 22 a positive one. 15 respondents had a neutral position. Four respondents mentioned a rather negative overall attitude and 10 respondents expressed a very negative attitude. 72% of 100 respondents wished to be actively involved in national park planning. 53% of Lake Arpi respondents stated that, in the near future, there would be further use restrictions due to the national park.

In Samtskhe-Javakheti, respondents had rather negative attitudes. 37% of all respondents had a very negative attitude and 19 respondents a negative one. 25 were neutral, 10 mentioned a positive attitude and nine respondents a very positive attitude.46% of respondents wish to be actively involved in the planning. 84% of the respondents think that in the near future there will be further use restrictions due to the national park.

Lagodekhis respondents had an overall neutral to negative attitude. 48% of all respondents had a neutral attitude towards the protected area, no one a very positive and just one a positive one. 21 respondents had a negative attitude and 30 a very negative one. 46% of 100 respondents wish to be actively involved. 82% of respondents stated that they think there will further use restrictions due to the national park.

Choice Experiment Results

Results of Lake Arpi

Choice Experiment Results of Lake Arpi

In Lake Arpi respondents would be willing to pay 41 Euro for a bee-keeping training, 31 Euro for cheese-production-training whereas and 50 Euro for the tour-guiding-training (which is only significant in Lake Arpi). To accept a ban of collection of wild plants and fuel wood respondents from Lake Arpi have to be paid 228 Euro a year, which is the highest WTP/WTA of the region of Lake Arpi. For having access to 25% more summer pasture respondentes of Lake Arpi would pay 130 Euro.

Results of Samtskhe-Javakheti

Choice Experiment Results of Samtskhe-Javakheti

In Samtskhe-Javakehti respondents would pay 45 Euro for a bee-keeping training and 88 Euro for a Cheese production training. For 25% more access to summer pasture respondents would pay 321 Euro a year.

Results of Lagodekhi

Choice Experiment Results of Samtskhe-Javakheti

In Lagodekhi respondents of the sample would pay 29 Euro a year for a bee-keeping training and 30 Euro for a training of cheese production. 67 Euro a year would be spent in average for 25% more access to summer pasture.