26.10.2013 Views

manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends

manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends

manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

T6.4 Participatory Economic Valuation (PEV)<br />

Participatory Economic Valuation (PEV) is a technique that allows communities or other stakeholders to<br />

estimate the value <strong>of</strong> a range <strong>of</strong> benefits <strong>based</strong> on their equivalent value to a commonly traded item,<br />

known as the ‘numeraire’. PEV was first known as contingent ranking, since it is a variant <strong>of</strong> ‘contingent<br />

valuation’ which involves people expressing their willingness to pay (WTP) <strong>for</strong> a good or service.<br />

Following some early examples in Africa in the 1990s (Campbell et al., 1991, Emerton, 1996), PEV has<br />

been recently adopted by CARE International and partners (Franks, undated). It is a useful way <strong>of</strong><br />

ranking a range <strong>of</strong> benefits, but is not recommended <strong>for</strong> the estimation <strong>of</strong> absolute economic values<br />

(e.g., by adding together values derived from PEV) due to various theoretical and methodological<br />

limitations (IIED, 1994; Richards et al., 2003).<br />

Description <strong>of</strong> Method<br />

Assuming that the various benefits and costs (positive and negative <strong>impact</strong>s) have been defined in the<br />

earlier SIA stages, the following steps are required:<br />

• Identification <strong>of</strong> an anchor or ‘numeraire’ value. Participants need to decide on an item with a<br />

well-known value, e.g., a goat, a measure <strong>of</strong> firewood, etc.<br />

• Participants are then asked to rank all the benefits (and the anchor value) from the least<br />

significant/valuable to the most significant or valuable.<br />

• Participants then per<strong>for</strong>m a proportional piling exercise, allocating a number <strong>of</strong> counters to each<br />

benefit (it is important that someone records the discussion <strong>of</strong> how or why a particular score is<br />

decided)<br />

• In order to assess attribution, the respondents can also be asked to divide the counters into two<br />

piles: one pile <strong>for</strong> the benefits which they think are due to the project, and a second pile which<br />

they think is due to other factors. It is important to capture the reasons behind this division.<br />

• The benefits can then be trans<strong>for</strong>med into a cash amount, <strong>based</strong> on their scoring relative to the<br />

numeraire or anchor value. The numeraire is thus used to estimate the willingness to pay (WTP)<br />

value <strong>of</strong> the other goods or services.<br />

• The exercise can be repeated <strong>for</strong> the costs or negative <strong>impact</strong>s <strong>of</strong> the project.<br />

• The exercise should be discussed, including whether people felt it gave a fair reflection <strong>of</strong> the<br />

benefits and costs.<br />

Social Impact Assessment <strong>of</strong> Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 62

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!