Main Article Content
Previous studies affirmed that both poverty and environmental resources degradation need to be tackled concomitantly. The reason is that poverty and environmental resources (agricultural land) are intertwining as a nexus; hence a one traffic-proffered solution is not sufficient enough to reduce the afterward menace poverty and environmental resource caused. An incentive that serves as an ‘adjudicator’, a credit-based payment for an environmental service is recognized for this task. Though this is a hypothetical case of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) that understudied the would-be response of the poor farming household through their preferences of PES attributes of environmental resource conservation and poverty reduction. This was designed with the use of choice experiment method, which is a multi-attribute approach of valuing non-market goods (agricultural land). Evidently, this study has convincingly proved that the poor farmers are willing to conserve their agricultural land, if the provision of necessary incentive is presented to them. The examined three farm settlements in Oyo state are: Afijio, Ijaye and Ido farm settlements. Educationally poor farming household shows that, 93(65.49%) preferred both options, whereas consumption poor farming house have 162(68.5%) respondents that sought for both option 1and 2.Housing/standard of living farming household recorded 98(34.63 %) for option 1 PES attributes and 95(33.57%)responded were for option 2 of PES attributes. The T-t test revealed that four of the paired poverty categories with respect to their preferences for the PES attributes options were significant. This study therefore suggests that poor farming household, whose farming is their livelihood should be sensitized to the provision of a deliberately designed poverty-environmental resource conservation credit-based PES, with a more flexible conditions. This will enable the poor farmers to be encouraged to participate in conservation of natural resource and by extension reducing poverty.
Adesiyan O. Technical efficiency of poultry production in Afijio Local Government Area of Oyo State, Nigeria. Developing Country Studies. 2016;4(20):74-79.
Milder JC, Scherr SJ, Bracer C. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society. 2010;15(2).
Niestein, Rice. Involving communities in forest management. Paper Presented at the World Conservattion Congress, Amman, Jordan; 2004.
Warner K. Involving communities in forest management. Paper Presented at the World Conservation Congress, Amman, Jordan; 2008.
Israel AO, Hakim RA, Basri BH. Payment for environmental services, rural poverty reduction and agricultural land conservation in Oyo State farm settlements, Nigeria: Conceptual approach. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2015;5(4):1-11.
Alkire S, Foster J. Counting and multi-dimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics. 2011;95(7): 476-487.
Alkire S, Santos ME. Measuring acute poverty in the developing world: Robustness and scope of the multidimensional poverty index. OPHI, Working Paper No. 59; 2013.
Alkire S, Roche JM, Ballon P, Foster J, Santos ME, Seth S. Multidimensional poverty measurement and analysis. Oxford University Press, USA; 2015.
Oyekale JK. Impact of poverty reduction programs on multidimensional poverty in Rural Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2012;2(2):795-804.
Lipton M. Editorial: Poverty – Are there holes in the consensus. World Development. 1997;25(7):1003-1007.
Boyowa. Editorial: Poverty – Are there holes in the consensus. World Development. 2014;25(7):1003-1007.