Table 1: Sequential procedures for total economic valuation
Activities
|
Techniques
|
Developing database for ES values
|
Field observation, key informant interviews, focus group discussion, comprehensive literature review, rapid assessment appraisal
|
Ranking of ES values
|
Scoring using Likert scale analysis
|
Selection of valuation techniques
|
Comprehensive literature review
|
Identify the needs
|
Framing and preparation of data collection tools
|
Data collection
|
Household surveys, Focus group discussion, field observation, key informant interviews
|
Quantification of ES values
|
Analysis
|
Source: adapted from (Baral et al.2016)
Table 2: Parameters, ES technique used and data sources for estimating the annual value of Lake Malombe major ecosystem services
Values
|
Categories
|
Techniques
|
Source of data
|
Direct use
|
Fishery
|
Market price
|
Household survey, Unit price taken from GoM (2017), Annual fish biomass catch taken from Department of fisheries database
|
Flood plain agriculture
|
Market price, benefit transfer
|
Unit price for each crop yield take from household surveys and Mangochi District Agriculture office, total number of household involved in farming was retrieved from Mangochi District agricultural offices
|
Casual labor (Crew member)
|
Market price
|
Household survey,
|
Non-farm business (mats, grass, boat making, gear making)
|
Market price
|
Data was accessed from annual frame survey, 2019, household surveys
|
Fodder
|
Market price
|
Household survey
|
Rentals
|
Market price
|
Household survey
|
Water supply
|
Benefit transfer
|
Unit value obtained from Emerson (2003)
|
Thatch
|
Market price
|
Household survey
|
Food gathering
|
Market price
|
Household survey
|
Fuel wood
|
Market price
|
Household survey
|
Indirect use values
|
Carbon sequestration
|
Benefit transfer (default value
|
Benefit transfer (default value), data accessed from the World bank, (2004)
|
Flood regulation
|
Unit adjusted benefit transfer value of…per ha flood affected area under agriculture, grassland, buffer zone
|
Data accessed from Mangochi District Council, Unit adjusted benefit transfer value of…per ha flood affected area under agriculture, grassland, buffer zone was accessed from Thompson and Calavito, (2007
|
Biodiversity conservation
|
Revealed valuation ( (expenditure
incurred by conservation agencies)
|
Government agencies (FAO/GEF project document-2020)
|
Table 3. Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the respondents (N = 533)
Factors
|
Info categories
|
value
|
percent
|
Mean ± STD Error
|
Min-Max
|
Age
|
45-below
|
325
|
60.9
|
1.04±0.03
|
1-2
|
|
Above 45
|
208
|
39.1
|
|
|
Gender
|
Male
|
372
|
69.8
|
1.34 ±0.01
|
1-2
|
|
Female
|
161
|
30.2
|
|
|
Fishing activities
|
Processers
|
17
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
Traders
|
35
|
6.6
|
3.2±0.089
|
1-5
|
|
Gear owners
|
74
|
13.8
|
|
|
|
Crew members
|
403
|
75.6
|
|
|
|
Others
|
4
|
0.8
|
|
|
Experience food shortage
|
Yes
|
341
|
63.0
|
1.08 ±0.00
|
1-2
|
|
No
|
192
|
37
|
|
|
Annual Level of income (US$)
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
554.07±0.06
|
20.3-1238.9
|
Education level
|
No education
|
128
|
24
|
|
|
|
Primary
|
341
|
63.9
|
0.34 ±0.01
|
0-3
|
|
Secondary
|
53
|
10.1
|
|
|
|
Tertiary
|
11
|
2.0
|
|
|
Household size
|
-
|
-
|
6
|
6±0.67
|
|
Occupation
|
Farmer
|
313
|
58.8
|
|
|
|
Fisherman
|
43
|
8.2
|
|
|
|
Formal employment
|
43
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
Casual labor
|
11
|
2.10
|
3.4±0.34
|
1-9
|
|
Business owner
|
5
|
0.9
|
|
|
|
Chief
|
6
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
Crew member
|
90
|
16.9
|
|
|
|
Fish traders
|
12
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
House wife
|
6
|
1.2
|
|
|
Table 4: Estimated annual economic value of Lake Malombe provisioning services
Types of Provisioning services
|
Average value (USD/hh/yr)
|
DH (B)
|
EDH (C)
|
TAV(USD)
|
AV (hh/yr)
|
AV (USD/ha/yr)
|
%share in PS
|
%share in total ESA
|
Fishery
|
493.68
|
96.00
|
61440.00
|
21,232,383.04
|
331.76
|
114.92
|
59.68
|
52.19
|
Flood plain agriculture
|
276.18
|
58.80
|
37632.00
|
7,275,244.03
|
113.68
|
39.38
|
20.45
|
17.88
|
Casual labour (Crew member)
|
73.50
|
75.60
|
48384.00
|
3,556,030.46
|
55.56
|
19.25
|
10.00
|
8.74
|
Non-farm business (mats,grass,)
|
81.98
|
6.30
|
4032.00
|
330,545.38
|
5.16
|
1.79
|
0.93
|
0.81
|
Forder
|
145.36
|
3.00
|
1920.00
|
279,097.94
|
4.36
|
1.51
|
0.78
|
0.69
|
Rental
|
372.28
|
0.80
|
512.00
|
190,609.47
|
2.98
|
1.03
|
0.54
|
0.47
|
Water supply
|
33.42
|
98.00
|
62720.00
|
2,096,102.40
|
32.75
|
11.34
|
5.89
|
5.15
|
Thatch
|
3.65
|
87.00
|
55680.00
|
203,232.00
|
3.18
|
1.10
|
0.57
|
0.50
|
Food gathering
|
12.76
|
46.00
|
29440.00
|
375,654.40
|
5.87
|
2.03
|
1.06
|
0.92
|
Transport
|
8.00
|
1.80
|
1152.00
|
9,216.00
|
0.14
|
0.05
|
0.03
|
0.02
|
Fuel wood
|
57.55
|
0.78
|
499.20
|
28,728.96
|
0.45
|
0.16
|
0.08
|
0.07
|
Aggregate value
|
|
|
|
35,576,844.09
|
555.89
|
192.55
|
100.00
|
87.45
|
Note: The total population of Lake Malombe within 10km radius is estimated at 64,000, the exchange rate was US$1=MK750 as 2019 bank rate, AV means Average value (A), DH means percentage dependent households (B), EDH means estimated dependent household (C=B*64,000), TAV means total annual value (USD) (D=A*C), AVH average value (ha/yr)=F=D/184762, PS means provisioning services, ESA means ecosystem services assessed,
Table 5: Aggregate economic value of Lake Malombe freshwater ecosystem
Ecosystem services
|
Total value(USD/yr)
|
Average value/hh/yr(USD)
|
Value/ha/yr(USD)
|
%Share of total ES assessed
|
Flood regulation
|
1,504,031.22
|
23.50
|
8.14
|
3.70
|
carbon sequestration
|
57,810.32
|
0.90
|
0.31
|
0.14
|
Biodiversity conservation
|
3,516,000
|
54.94
|
19.03
|
8.64
|
Culture and aesthetic
|
25,600.00
|
0.40
|
0.14
|
0.06
|
Provisioning services
|
35,576,844.09
|
555.89
|
192.55
|
87.45
|
Aggregate value
|
40,680,285.63
|
635.63
|
220.18
|
100.00
|