Dissanayake, Sahan T. M.Beyene, Abebe DamteBluffstone, RandallGebreegziabher, ZenebeMartinsson, PeterMekonnen, AlemuToman, MichaelVieider, Ferdinand M.2015-07-162015-07-162015-06https://hdl.handle.net/10986/22169This paper informs the national and international policy discussions related to the adoption of the United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Programme. Effective program instruments must carefully consider incentives, opportunity costs, and community interactions. A choice experiment survey was applied to rural Ethiopian communities to understand respondents’ preferences toward the institutional structure of the program contracts. The results show that respondents have particular preferences about how Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation programs are structured with regard to the manner in which the payments are divided between the households and the communities, the restrictions on using grazing land, and the level of payments received for the program. Surprisingly, restrictions on firewood collection do not significantly impact contract choice. The paper further analyzes the structure of the preferences by using attribute interaction terms and socio-demographic interaction terms. The analysis finds significant regional variation in preferences, indicating that Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation should be tailored to specific regions. Finally, the marginal willingness to pay for attributes is calculated using the traditional preference space approach, as well as the more recent willingness-to-pay approach.en-USCC BY 3.0 IGOECOSYSTEM SERVICESFOREST DEGRADATIONENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYGREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENT COSTFOREST MANAGEMENTVALUATIONREDUCING EMISSIONSNATUREGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSCARBONFINANCIAL RESOURCESTIMBERANIMALSHEALTHY FORESTSMONITORINGEMISSIONSPOLITICAL ECONOMYCARBON MARKETSCARBON SEQUESTRATION SERVICESBIOGASFORESTRY PRODUCTSWELFAREATMOSPHERESUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENTINCENTIVESTROPICAL FORESTMODELSGASINTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCHLIVESTOCK GRAZINGGLOBAL GREENHOUSE GASSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTTREESAIRGREENHOUSE GASWILLINGNESS TO PAYFERTILIZERSCARBON MITIGATIONBIOMASSCARBON NEUTRALRENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCESCO2CARBON CONCENTRATIONSFOREST PRODUCTSFOREST SECTOREFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTSENERGY SOURCESCAPACITYCHOICE EXPERIMENTSHETEROGENEITYPREFERENCESOPTIONSCARBON SEQUESTRATIONCONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGEWTPPOLLUTIONFORESTRYFOREST ECOSYSTEMTROPICAL REGIONSWTAENVIRONMENTAL CHANGEFOREST RESOURCESFOREST LOSSENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICSGAS EMISSIONSNATURAL RESOURCESFUEL SWITCHINGFUELSUNEPCONTINGENT VALUATIONABATEMENT COSTEFFICIENCYGREENHOUSE GASESCARBON EMISSIONSRESOURCESFOREST CARBONFUEL WOODGREENHOUSEENVIRONMENTAL VALUATIONECOSYSTEMMARSHLEADGREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENTCLIMATE CHANGEENVIRONMENTAL GOODSFOREST COVERVALUESDEFORESTATIONCLIMATEABATEMENTFORESTSFOREST CARBON STOCKSLAND AREACLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATIONCARBON IN FORESTSLOGGINGFORESTOPPORTUNITY COSTSENVIRONMENTWEATHER PATTERNSECONOMICSDISCOUNT RATESTRADELANDCOST OF CARBONCARBON PRICESECOSYSTEMSSIMULATIONLOCAL COMMUNITIESEMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATIONANNUAL GREENHOUSE GASFOREST BIOMASSCARBON STOCKSSTATED PREFERENCE METHODSCOMMUNITY FORESTRYCARBON MARKETLESSFOREST FIRESWILLINGNESS TO ACCEPTRATE OF DEFORESTATIONCLIMATE STABILIZATIONCOMMUNITYVARIANCERENEWABLE ENERGYVARIETYENVIRONMENTALGASESFOREST AREAGLOBAL FORESTFRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGEPRICESBENEFITSILLEGAL LOGGINGLAND ECONOMICSENERGYWorking PaperWorld Bank10.1596/1813-9450-7296