Urban and Regional Planning

Submit a Manuscript

Publishing with us to make your research visible to the widest possible audience.

Propose a Special Issue

Building a community of authors and readers to discuss the latest research and develop new ideas.

Research Article |

Hinterland Ecosystem Services Supply for Urban Residents: Application of Heckmans Two Stage Model for Contingent Valuation Study in Mekelle City

Ecosystems provide a slew of benefits, ranging from supporting social and economic growth to mitigating and adapting to climate change. Hinterland ecosystem services are vital for rapidly urbanizing areas, and the people who live within them. The ecosystem services used up in Mekelle city are provided from the adjacent hinterlands. The current situation indicates that the hinterland ecosystem services supply sources and willingness to pay for its sustainable provision of ecosystem services remain unknown. This study was conducted to offer policy decision making and achieve an improved understanding of the causal relationships between the urban residents' willingness-to pay and hinterland ecosystem services sources. Household survey with 384 urban residents from seven Mekelle’s sub-cities was conducted. The study applied Heckman’s two stage model using STATA to analyze the factors affecting the residents’ WTP. To study hinterland ecosystem services satellite images were used and were analysed using ERDAS imagine 15 and ArcGIS 10.5.1. The results exposed that 91.7% of the studied respondents are willing to pay for hinterland ecosystem services supply and had an average WTP of 2.21 USD per month. This could additionally enhance the perceptions of urban residents on ecosystem services. The factors that significantly influence WTP include variables M1 (years of stay in Mekelle city), M2 (Sex), occupation (M9), income (M10), family size (M11), water quantity (M12), water reliability (M13) and ecosystem services value recognition (M15). With regard to payout levels, the influencing factors include M1 (Years of stay in Mekelle city), M2 (sex), M9 (Occupation), M10 (Monthly income of your household), M11 (Family size), M12 (Water quantity), M13 (Water reliability) and M15 (Ecosystem services value recognition) are significantly related to WTP and payout levels. The results of this empirical study could help policy makers to understand better the ways to enhance ecosystem services supply for urban areas from hinterland ecosystem services and to identify effective policy instruments.

Ecosystem Services, Hinterland, Heckmans Two Stage Model, Remote Sensing, Contingent Valuation Method

APA Style

Weldegebriel, S. K. (2024). Hinterland Ecosystem Services Supply for Urban Residents: Application of Heckmans Two Stage Model for Contingent Valuation Study in Mekelle City. Urban and Regional Planning, 9(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.urp.20240901.11

ACS Style

Weldegebriel, S. K. Hinterland Ecosystem Services Supply for Urban Residents: Application of Heckmans Two Stage Model for Contingent Valuation Study in Mekelle City. Urban Reg. Plan. 2024, 9(1), 1-11. doi: 10.11648/j.urp.20240901.11

AMA Style

Weldegebriel SK. Hinterland Ecosystem Services Supply for Urban Residents: Application of Heckmans Two Stage Model for Contingent Valuation Study in Mekelle City. Urban Reg Plan. 2024;9(1):1-11. doi: 10.11648/j.urp.20240901.11

Copyright © 2023 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Aredehey, G., Mezgebu, A., & Girma, A. (2018). Land-use land-cover classification analysis in Giba catchment International journal of remote sensing, 39(3), 810-821.
2. Bhandari, P. M., K. C.; Shrestha, S.; Aryal, A.; Shrestha, U. B. (2016). Assessments of ecosystem service indicators and stakeholder’s willingness to pay for selected ecosystem services in the Chure region of Nepal.
3. Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological economics, 29(2), 293-301.
4. Carabine, E., Venton, C. C., Tanner, T., & Bahadur, A. (2015). The contribution of ecosystem services to human resilience: A rapid review.
5. Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P. J., McDonald, R. I.,... Seto, K. C. (2013). Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities: a global assessment: Springer Nature.
6. Fu, B., & Forsius, M. (2015). Ecosystem services modeling in contrasting landscapes: Springer.
7. Gaston, K. J., Ávila-Jiménez, M. L., & Edmondson, J. L. (2013). Managing urban ecosystems for goods and services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(4), 830-840.
8. Haberman, D. (2017). Ecosystems services in hinterlands: how cities connect to their resource base.
9. Haberman, D., & Bennett, E. M. (2019). Ecosystem service bundles in global hinterlands. Environmental Research Letters, 14(8), 084005.
10. Kagombe, J. K., Kungu, J., Mugendi, D., & Cheboiwo, J. K. (2018). Evaluating the Willingness to Pay for Watershed Protection in Ndaka-ini Dam, Muranga County, Kenya. Civil and Environmental Research, 2225-0514.
11. Kai Xiong, F. K., Ning Zhang, Ni Lei and Chuanwang Sun. (2018). Analysis of the Factors InfluencingWillingness to Pay and Payout Level for Ecological Environment Improvement of the Ganjiang River Basin sustainability.
12. Khan, I., Lei, H., Ali, G., Ali, S., & Zhao, M. (2019). Public attitudes, preferences and willingness to pay for river ecosystem services. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(19), 3707.
13. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
14. Lapointe, M., Gurney, G. G., & Cumming, G. S. (2020). Perceived availability and access limitations to ecosystem service well-being benefits increase in urban areas. Ecology and Society, 25.
15. Leonardo CARTEI, F. C., Matteo DE STEFANO, Girum Keshewabelay DESTA, Moges Aregay GEBREMARIAM, Aynalem Abebe GIZACHEW, Erica MATTA, Maliki MOUNKAILA, Matar NDAO, Doris Bate NTOH, Issouf OUEDRAOGO, Birhane Gebrehiwot TESFAMARIAM and Junxia ZHANG. (2008). Land Evaluation in Enderta District, Tigray, Ethiopia. Florence: Università degli Studi di Firenze Facoltà di Agraria.
16. Marshall, F. (2017). Why Peri-Urban Ecosystem Services Matter For Urban Policy.
17. MCA. (2014). Ethiopa Mekelle water supply project feasibility study report. Shanghai, China: Jiangxi water conservacy planning and design institute.
18. McGranahan, G., & Satterthwaite, D. (2003). Urban centers: an assessment of sustainability. Annual review of environment and resources, 28(1), 243-274.
19. MCWSA. (2012). Mekelle water supply expansion project. Mekelle.
20. Moutouama, F. T., Biaou, S. S. H., Kyereh, B., Asante, W. A., & Natta, A. K. (2019). Factors shaping local people’s perception of ecosystem services in the Atacora Chain of Mountains, a biodiversity hotspot in northern Benin. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 15(1), 1-10.
21. MWSDP. (2011). Mekelle Water Supply Development Project SW Development Feasibility. Mekelle city: Mekelle Water Supply Development Project.
22. Schubert, U., & Sedlacek, S. 40 th Congress of the European Regional Association (ERSA) Barcelona, August 30 th to September 2 nd 2000.
23. TCSA. (2019). Tigray population data Demography. Tigray stastical agency.
24. Van Hecken, G. B., J.; Vásquez, W. F. (2012). The viability of local payments for watershed services: Empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua.
25. Zhang, H., Pang, Q., Long, H., Zhu, H., Gao, X., Li, X.,... Liu, K. (2019). Local Residents’ Perceptions for Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Fenghe River Watershed. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(19), 3602.