The Policy of PES (Payment for Environmental Services) in Indonesia. An Application Study for the Watershed Area Krueng Peusangan of Bireuen District in  Aceh Province, Indonesia

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：16

、訪客IP：18.117.182.179

姓名

费瑞娜(Reza Fitria Muhammad Amin) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

國際永續發展碩士在職專班

論文名稱

(The Policy of PES (Payment for Environmental Services) in Indonesia. An Application Study for the Watershed Area Krueng Peusangan of Bireuen District in Aceh Province, Indonesia)

相關論文

★ Study on Cleaner Production Opportunities for the Sugar Industry in Belize.	★ 聖薩爾瓦多都會區設置固體廢棄物資源回收廠可行性研究
★ The Study of Environmental Awareness and Waste Minimization Approaches for Hotel Management in Belize	★ Improvement of Solid Waste Management and Design of Biogas Recovery System in Tegucigalpa, Honduras
★ 宏都拉斯之德古西加巴市設置都市垃圾回收處理廠的可行性研究	★ 於貝里斯市進行移除簡易垃圾棄置場與興建衛生掩埋場的成本效益評估
★ 在低開發中國家廢物堆肥系統的設計和計畫建立-以甘比亞的Banjul和Kanifing的廢物推肥系統為例。	★ 加勒比海地區開發中國家發展風力發電之經濟評估：以聖文森的風力發電場計畫為例
★ 宏都拉斯德古斯加巴市暴風雨災害引致固體廢棄物產生量之推估及緊急堆置場地遴選評估之研究	★ 史瓦濟蘭於回收農業及林業殘料用以開發生質能源潛力研究
★ 史瓦濟南墨巴本市都市固體廢棄物源分離方法之開發	★ 封閉鉛礦場對於鄰近居民健康及環境之影響研究以泰國甘差那布里府之克里汐灣採礦場為例
★ 海地太子港都市區產生的城市固體廢物的能源潛力	★ Study of Establishing Composting System for Municipal Solid Waste in Petit-Goave City of Haiti
★ 貝里斯消費者購置電動汽車之經濟評估及消費者需求之研究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

研擬在印尼亞齊省畢魯恩區的克倫布衫甘流域 (Krueng Peusangan watershed) 進行綜合性的流域保護系統以改善水資源品質，本論文探討應用經濟手段「環境服務收費 (Payment for Environmental Services，PES)」制度的可行性，及影響PES制度推行的因素，研究方法主要採用面對面式的訪問及調查流域附近之居民的意見收集與分析。
研究結果顯示，99.4%的接受訪問調查者同意進行克倫布衫甘流域的水資源改善計畫，但這些同意者中僅57.2%有支付PES費用之意願，多達近42.8%者無支付意願。有趣的是，調查訪問結果顯示，薪資收入與教育程度竟然影響PES支付意願不明顯，經採用多項式邏輯迴歸分析顯示：家庭成員人數、流域水質劣化程度，及執行PES制度後的水質改善程度等因素與費用支付意願呈明顯之正相關。抽樣調查居民有意願支付每加侖用水的費用，統計分析結果的平均額度為4,753印尼盾。
本研究以改善河岸沖失及清除河床沉積物的工程方法來提升克倫布衫甘流域的水質，工程費用每年需 IDR 3,328,758,500；為回收該工程費用，當採用使用者付費之PES制度時，即每人每月收取2,086印尼盾，每月可收入總額是24,737,364印尼盾或每年296,848,368印尼盾。如果只考慮回收工程開發的支出，本項工程投資的回收年為 11 年多。另一方面，採用成本效益法評估結果，進行比較 ”有” 和 ”無” 此改善工程，發現其益本比 (BCR) 為 1.05。從 BCR 的結果顯示本流域採用 PES制度仍然是一項值得的投資與做法。

摘要(英)

This research sought to improve the quality of water by means of carrying out the integrated watershed protection system in Krueng Peusangan watershed of Bireuen district in Aceh of Indonesia. For studying the factors that will affect the taxation policy to the community with an economic instrument named Payment for Environmental Services (PES), an investigation of using a face-to-face interview was made to enquire residents of the community, which are living nearby Krueng Peusangan watershed, about their willingness-to-pay for the improvement of water quality in the watershed. This study also used the method of cost benefit ratio to evaluate existing program of PES.
Results showed that 99.4% of respondents agreed to the improvement program of Krueng Peusangan watershed, but only 57.2% of above assentors having WTP for the watershed improvement and the remains, i.e., 42.8% did not have. The results of binary logistic regression indicated that the degree of respondents’ agreement is not statistically significance and not positively related the factors, including the quality of water, the number of family members, purpose of water, degree of watershed degradation, level of education and salary. Interestingly, by using while multinomial logistic regression showed that WTP is significantly and positively related to level of education, number of family member, the degree of watershed degradation, and quality of water. The result of referendum choices showed the mean WTP is IDR (Indonesian Rupiah currency) 4,753 per gallon of used water.
This study estimated the engineering cost to improve water quality of Krueng Peusangan watershed by erosion control of river embankment and removal of sediments from river bed. The results of estimation was that the total engineering investment by a “flat tax” approach, the approximation that that can be charged for the water users is IDR 2, 086 per month/user and total revenue that can be earned a month is IDR 24,737,364, or IDR 296.848,363 per year. If only consider the recovery of capital expenditure, the investment return would take 11 years more. Furthermore, if comparing to cost and benefit with/without this improvement program, it found that the benefit-cost-ratio (BCR) was 1.05. From the BCR result, it indicated that the PES in Krueng Peusangan watershed is still a worthwile investment.

關鍵字(中)

★ 克倫布衫甘流域
★ 付費意願
★ 環境服務收費制度
★ 本益比

關鍵字(英)

★ Krueng Peusangan watershed
★ Willingness To Pay
★ Payment for Environmental Services,
★ Cost Benefit Ratio

論文目次

Abstract i
中文摘要 ii
Acknowledgements iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
List of Acronyms x

Chapter 1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem identification 2
1.3 Study Motivation 4
1.4 Objectives 5
1.5 Research Limitations 6
Chapter 2. Literature Review 7
2.1 The Economic Value of Ecosystem Services 7
2.1.1 Economic Instruments 9
2.2 The Importance of Watershed 10
2.3 The concept of Payment for Environmental/Ecosystem Services 13
2.3.1 The PES as a global environmental issue 17
2.4 Ecosystem Services Targetted by PES 19
2.4.1 Watershed Protection 20
2.5 Payment Mechanism 22
2.5.1 Willingness to Pay (WTP) 23
2.5.1.1 WTP’s Regression Analysis 25
2.6 Cost Benefit Analysis 33
2.6.1 Introduction of CBA 33
2.6.2 CBA and Environmental impact Assesment 34
2.7 Success PES story 35
Chapter III. Methodology 38
3.1 Research Objective and Framework 38
3.1.1 Types of data source and research procedures 39
3.1.2 Problem Survey 39
3.1.3 Face - to Face Interview 40
3.1.4 Prepare and Conduct the survey through a questionnaire 41
3.1.5 Conclude the questionnaire 44
3.1.6 Analyze the information 44
3.2 Environmental Policy Approach 50
3.2.1 Improvement Requirement 52
3.2.2 Estimate cost of improvement 53
3.2.3 Set Tax Policy 53
3.2.4 Scenarios 53
3.2.5 Estimate of water tax 53
3.3 Study Region 54
3.3.1 General Information of Indonesia 54
3.3.2 General Information of Aceh Province 57
3.3.3 The Location of Study 59
3.3.4 Status of Krueng Peusangan Watershed 61
3.3.5 Climate of Krueng Peusangan Watershed 61
3.3.6 Topography and Soil Conditions 63
3.3.7 Land Use Condition 65
3.3.8. Water Quality Index 66
3.3.9 Community Characteristics 67
3.3.10 Highlight of PES Implementing in Krueng Peusangan Watershed 68
Chapter 4. Results and Discussion 70
4.1 Results 70
4.2 Contingent Valuation Survey 70
4.2.1 Descriptive Statistics from WTP Survey 70
4.2.2 Communities perspectives’ to the Krueng Peusangan watershed 71
4.2.3 The WTP of Respondents for the Compensation of Upstream Area 73
4.2.3.1 Estimating Mean of WTP (EWTP) 75
4.2.4 Regression Estimation 76
4.2.4.1 Regression For Agree or Disagree 76
4.2.4.2 WTP Function Analysis 81
4.2.4.3 Factors Influencing Respondents’ WTP 85
4.3 Economic Valuating Analysis 88
4.3.1 Estimating Mean WTP (EMWTP) 89
4.3.2 Estimating the tax in term of money ($) that the government can expect 89
4.3.3. Potential Benefits of PES 90
4.3.3.1 Estimate the environmental benefit from PES program in Krueng Peusangan watershed. 93
4.3.3.2 Flooding Frequncies of Krueng Peusangan River 93
4.3.3.3 Estimate the environmental damage with/without PES Program 94
4.4 Environmental Policy Approach 95
4.4.1 Existing Condition (Erosion and Sedimintation) 96
4.4.2 Estimate cost of improvement 99
4.4.3 Set a tax policy 102
4.4.4 Scenarios 103
4.4.4.1 Fixed tax level 103
4.4.4.2 Tax level depend on how much amount of water used 104
4.4.4.3 Recommended a method of tax 105
4.4.5 Estimating of water tax 105
4.4.6 Estimating tax that can be charged to water users (under the scenario) 107
4.4.6.1 Estimating the revenue from tax 107
4.4.7 Calculation Cost and Benefit Ratio 108
4.5 Discussion 110
4.5.1 Challenge / constrain to the implementation of PES schemes 110
4.5.2 Society Awareness of Environmental Services 112
4.5.3 Potential revenues for watershed protection 113
4.5.4 PES as an alternative approach in enviromental policy 116
4.5.5 Institutional Analysis 119
Chapter 5 Conclusion and Recommendations 122
5.1 Conclusion 122
5.2 Recommendations: 125
References 127
Appendixes 134

參考文獻

Aceh in Figure. (2013). Published by: Aceh Development and Planning Board.
Abrasion in Krueng Peusangan watershed. Retrieved from http://wartaaceh.com/erosi-kian-mengganas-puluhan-hektar-kebun-coklat-dan kelapa amblas.
Anderson, D. (1987). Economic aspects of afforestation and soil conservation projects. Annals of Regional Science 21 , 3.
Ashia, S. (2010). The potential and constrain for Payment of Ecosystem Services (PES) in Ghana: A case study in Ankasa conservation area "Thesis".
Beukering, P. V., & et al. (2009). An Economic Valuation of Aceh′s Forests. Amsterdam: Fauna and Flora International.
Bireuen in Figure. (2013). Published by: Bireuen Development and Planning Board.

Biodiversity, (TEEB 2010a). Mainstreaming the Economy of Nature:A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Technical report. Darmstadt Unibersity German.
Black, P. E. Watershed Function (Submitted Version).
Brouwer, R., & Ek, R. V. (2004). Intrgrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Neterland. Ecological Economics , 50.
Budi, G. S., Kuswanto, & Iqbal, M. (2008). Concept and Implementation of PES Program In The Cidanau Watershed; A Lesson Learned For Future Environmenmental policy. Agricultural Policy Analysis , 6 (1), 35-55.
Central Bureau of Statistic of Aceh. (2013). Banda Aceh, Indonesia.
Daly, H. E., & Farley, J. (2004). Ecological Economics Principle and Application- Second Edition. Washington DC.
Dennis, K., van Riper, C. J., & Wood, M. A. (2011). Retrieved July 1, 2014, from http://agrilife.org.
Djajasinga, V., Masrevaniah, A., & Juwono, P. T. (2012). Economic Study for Sediment Handling in Brantas Reservoir (Sengguruh, Sutami Wlingi). Journal of Engineering Irrigarion , 3 (2), 143-152.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing Payment for Environmental Services in Theory and Practice: An Overview of the Issue. Environmental Economic , 65, 663-674.
Fahrizal, A. (2009). Economic Land Value Analysis as Information Tool to Encourage the Value of PES ( Case Study in Citaman Village, Cidanau watershed). Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, Bogor Agriculture University, Indonesia .
Fahrizal, A. (2009). The Analysis of Land Economic Value as The Information for PES Improvement. Environmental Economic Resources Departement, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia.
Fauzi, A. (2006). Natural Resources and Environmental Economics, Theory and Application. Jakarta, Indonesia: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Fauzi, A., & Anna, Z. (2013). The Complexity of the institution of payment for environmental services: A case study of two Indonesian PES schemes. Ecosytem Services , 6, 54 - 63.
Ferraro, P., & Kiss, A. (2002). Direct payment to conserve bioderversity. Science , 1718-1719.
Field, B. C., & Field, M. K. (2009). Environmental Economics. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education (Asia).
Geiber, T., & Constanta, R. (2009). Payment for Environmental Services: Legal and Institutional Framework. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland.
General Information of Aceh Provinsi. Retrieved March 30, 2014, from http://www1-media.acehprov.go.id
Gomes, B. E., de, G. R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The History of Ecosystem Services in Economic Theory and Practice: From early notion to market and payment schemes. Ecological Economic , 69, 1209-1218.
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied Logistic Regression. New York: Wiley.
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied Logistic Regression- Second Edition. New York: Wiley.
Headquarter of Krueng Aceh Watershed, Aceh Province 2010. Krueng Peusangan watershed data.
http://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/voluntaryapproaches.htm. Retrieved June 15, 2014
Indonesia. Retrieved April 5, 2014, from http://www.enwikipedia
Johnson, M. P., & Bedell, T. (2002). Watershed Function.
Jones, N., Malesios, C., T, S., & C, M. (2008b). Social capital in Greece: measurement and comparative perspective. South European Society and Politics. 13, 173-530.
Kaiserlautern, J. H. (2014). Payment for hydrological ecosystem services in integrated water resources management "Disertation". German: Fachbereich Bau- und Institut für Wasserbau und Darmstadt.
Khasanah, K., Mulyoutami, E., Ekadinata, A., Asmawan, T., Tanika, L., Said, Z., et al. (2010). A Study of Rapid Hydrological Appraisal in Krueng Peusangan Watersehed, NAD, Sumatra. Working Paper nr.123.
Kim, J. Y. (2005). "Bowling together" isn′t a cure all: the relationship between social capital and political trust in South Korea. International Political Science Review , 26, 193-343.
Kristallist, A. C. (2005). Consumers′ willingness to pay for organic food.Factors that affect it and varitaion per organic product type. British Food Journal , 107, 320-343.
Landell, M. N. (2002). Developing markets for forest environmental services; an oppurtunity fro promoting equity while securing efficiency? Philosophical Transaction of Royal Society , 360, 1817-1825.
Leimona, B., & Prihanto, J. (2005). Getting started before you begin: Experiences from environmental services benefit transfer schemes in Indonesia.Paper presented at the Seminar on Environmental Services and Financing for the Protection and Sustainable Use of Ecosystems.
MacDonald, & et, a. (2004). Econimoc Intruments for Managing Water Quality in New Zealand (Final Report For NZ Ministry For The Environment) No: S/03/1393 . CSIRO Land and Water.
Map of Krueng Peusangan Watershed. Retrieved June 25, 2014, from http://www.leuserfoundation.
Marpaung, F. (2012). Urban Thermal Analysis of MODIS Images forExamining Heat Island Effects in Jakarta, Indonesia. National Central nUniversity, IInternational Master’s Program in Environmental Sustainable Development.
Merryna, A. (2009). WTP (Willingness To Pay) Analysis Toward PES (Payment for Environmental Services) in Cirahab spring (Curug Goong Villlage, Padarincang Sub-district, Serang, Banten, Indonesia. Environmental Econonomic Resources Departemen, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia.
Millennium Ecosystem Asssesment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystem and Human Well-Being. Washington, DC: Synthesis, Island.
Mitchell, R., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. The Contigent Valuation Method. Resources For the Future.
Mooney, H., Cropper, A., & Reid, W. (2005). Confronting the human dillema. Nature , 434, 561-562.
Myrand, K., & Paquin, M. (2004). Payment for environmental services: a survey and asessment of current schemes, UNISFERA.
Nasution, Z. S. (2013). Land use change and simulation of hydrological response using integrated NRCS model and base flow for ecohydrological concept at Krueng Peusangan Watershed, Aceh Indonesia. Journal of Environmental Science and Water Resources , 2(7), 210-220.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2006). Cost-Benefit Analysis and the environment: Recent Developments.
Pagiola, S., & Bank, W. (2006). Payments for Environmental Services:An Introduction. Environment Department, World Bank.
Office of Public Work and water resources of Aceh, (2006). Rivers Data.
Pagiola, S., Ramierz, E., Gobbi, J., de Haan, C., Ibrahim, M., Murgueitio, E., et al. (2004). Paying for Biodiversity conservation services in agricultural landscapes. (Environmental Economics Series Environmental Department Paper No 96) The World Bank Environment.
Pagiola, S., & S, B. J. (2002). Selling Forest Environmental Services; Market-Based Mechanism for Conservation and Development.
Pagiola, S., & Bank, W. (2006). Payments for Environmental Services:An Introduction. Environment Department, World Bank.
Pagiola, S., & Platais, G. (2007). Payment for Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Practice
Pearce, D. (1998). Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy.Oxford Review of Enviromental Policy. 14.
Pearce, D., & al., e. (2006). Cost-benefit Analysis and the Environment:Recent Development. OECD .
Peter, G. H., & Ivan, B. (2006). CAMPFIRE and Payment for Environmental Services Market for Environmental Services Series.
Pierre, J. (2000). Debating governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. .
Prasetyo, F. A., Suwarno, A., Purwanto, & Hakim, R. (2009). Making policies work for Payment for Environmental Services (PES): An valuation of the experiences policies in districts of Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Forestry , 29, 415-433.
Pudyastuti, P. S. (2007). Payment For Environmental Service Toward Sustainable River basin Management. Dinamika Teknik Sipil , 94-100.
Rapp, G. R., & Hill, C. L. (2006). Geoarchaelogy: The Earth Science Approach to Archaeological Interpretation. Yale University Press.
Rodel, D. L., & Grace, B. V. (n.d.). www.fao.org. Retrieved March 7, 2014, from Forest and The Environment; Payment for Environmental Services From Forest: www.fao.org/docrep//011/i0627e/1062E08.htm
Rossa, H., S, K., & L, D. (2003). Compensation for enviromental services and rural communities. San Salvador: PRISMA.
Salzman, J. (2006). A field of green? The past and future of ecosystem services. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law , 133‐135.
Schwab, J. A. (2002). Multinomial logistic regression: Basic relationships and complete . Retrieved May 19, 2014, from http://www.utexas.edu/courses/schwab/sw388r7/-SolvingProblems/.
Sedimentation. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://www.epa.gov/region6/6en/w/sw/ -sediment.pdf.
Sembiring, S., & Yusuf, R. (2002). Fluctuation Characteristics of Riveflow as a response of watershed to land change. A Case Study in sub-Citarik watershed, upstream area of Citarum watershed. Bandung, Indonesia: Faculty of Educational Science, Indonesia University of Education.
Starkweather, J., & Amanda, K. M. (2011, September 11). Multinomial logistic regression. Retrieved May 19, 2014, from www.unt.edu: http://www. unt. edu/rss/class/Jon/Benchmarks/MLR_JDS_Aug2011. pdf (2011)
Statistics Indonesia. (2010). Retrieved April 2, 2014, from www.bps.go.id
Sweet, S. A., & Martin, K. G. Data Analysis with SPSS. A First Course in Applied Statistics. www.wikipedia.com.
The United Nation Development. (2011). Retrieved April 6, 2014, from http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/IDN.html.
UN-Water. (2007). Coping with scarcity-challenge of twenty-first century. World water Day 2007.
Van, B. P., Zwart, L., Kone, B., & Wymenga, E. (2005). The Niger, a lifeline: effective water management in the upper Niger basin.Lelystad; Wetlands International Sevare Institute for Environment Studies (IVM), Amsterdam; A&W Ecological Consultants, Veenwouden. Mali, The Netherland.
Van, H. (2005). Finacial Mechanism for Natural Resources Management: Learning from FAO Expreriences. a paper presented in the Seminar on Environmnetal Services and Finacing for The Protection and Sustainable Use of Ecosystem.
Wang, H., & D, W. (2005). “Measuring Individuals’ Valuation Distributions Using a Stochastic Payment Card Approach. Ecological Economics. , 55, 143-154.
Water Retrieved May 9, 2014, from www. perpamsi.or.id.
Wunder, S. (2005). Payment for Environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. 42.
Wunder, S. (2007). The efficiency of payment for environmental services in tropical conservation. Biology , 1, 48-58.
WWF, I. (2010). Identification of Water Service Users and Providers in Krueng Peusangan Watershed. WWF Indonesia.
WWF-Indonesia_Aceh Program. (2011). Aceh Insight (Newsletter WWF-Indonesia), Volume 1, (3) January 2011.
www.defra.gov.uk. (2010). Payment for Ecosystem Services; A Short Introduction.
www.des.nh.gov. (2006). Environmental fact sheet: Why Watershed are important to protect.
www.oecd.org. (2011). Environmental Taxation. A Guide for Policy Makers . Retrieved June 17, 2014.
www.uio.no. (2004). Direct Methods for valuating of Environmental goods. Retrieved May 7, 2014.
www.unep.org. (2005). Finacing for Environmental Conservartion of Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA). Global Meeting of Regional Action Plans . Helsinki, Finlandia.
www.wikipedia.org//wiki/Environmental_policy, Retrieved June 15, 2014

指導教授

廖萬里(Wan-li Liao)

審核日期

2014-8-21

推文