IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2008i1-2p429-436.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wetland ownership and management in a common property resource setting: A case study of Hakaluki Haor in Bangladesh

Author

Listed:
  • Ahmed, Irina
  • Deaton, B. James
  • Sarker, Rakhal
  • Virani, Tasneem

Abstract

Schlager and Ostrom [Schlager, Edella and Ostrom, Elinor, (1992). Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis. Land Economics, (August), 68(3), 249-262.] provide a theoretical approach to enable researchers to examine variation in ownership positions within a common property setting. Their approach provides a basis for developing hypotheses regarding the relationship between various ownership positions and subsequent incentives to invest in the long term maintenance of a natural resource. We use a survey approach to examine their theory as it applies to villagers living around the Hakaluki Haor, one of the largest wetlands in Bangladesh. Our key findings are consistent with Schlager and Ostrom's theory in several ways. First, we find that ownership positions vary amongst villagers in the common property setting that governs resource use in the Hakaluki Haor. Second, those that believe they possessed management rights were more likely to indicate that they participated in wetland conservation activities. An additional finding of interest is that women remained willing to support wetland conservation activities despite the fact that they generally characterized themselves as not having the right to participate in decisions regarding the management of wetland resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahmed, Irina & Deaton, B. James & Sarker, Rakhal & Virani, Tasneem, 2008. "Wetland ownership and management in a common property resource setting: A case study of Hakaluki Haor in Bangladesh," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 429-436, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2008:i:1-2:p:429-436
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(08)00183-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    2. Oliver E. Williamson, 2000. "The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(3), pages 595-613, September.
    3. Clark C. Gibson & Fabrice E. Lehoucq & John T. Williams, 2002. "Does Privatization Protect Natural Resources? Property Rights and Forests in Guatemala," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 206-225, March.
    4. Behera, Bhagirath & Engel, Stefanie, 2006. "Institutional analysis of evolution of joint forest management in India: A new institutional economics approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 350-362, June.
    5. Bogale, Ayalneh & Taeb, Mohammed & Endo, Mitsugi, 2006. "Land ownership and conflicts over the use of resources: Implication for household vulnerability in eastern Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 134-145, June.
    6. Iglesias-Malvido, Carlos & Garza-Gil, Dolores & Varela-Lafuente, Manuel, 2002. "Management systems in the EU fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 403-413, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Quinn, C.H. & Fraser, E.D.G. & Hubacek, K. & Reed, M.S., 2010. "Property rights in UK uplands and the implications for policy and management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1355-1363, April.
    2. Caballero, Gonzalo, 2015. "Community-based forest management institutions in the Galician communal forests: A new institutional approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 347-356.
    3. Deidre M. Peroff & Duarte B. Morais & Erin Sills, 2022. "The Role of Agritourism Microentrepreneurship and Collective Action in Shaping Stewardship of Farmlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, July.
    4. H.M. Tuihedur Rahman & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "An Analytical Framework for Assessing Context-Specific Rural Livelihood Vulnerability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-26, July.
    5. A. K. M. Abdullah Al-Amin & Khorshed Alam & Uttam Babu Shrestha & Masudul Haque Prodhan & Mostafa A. R. Hossain & Nahid Sattar & M. J. Hossain & Tahmina Akhter, 2021. "Ecosystems, livelihood assets and willingness to pay for wetland conservation in Bangladesh," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(12), pages 17503-17534, December.
    6. Najmun Nahar & Neegar Sultana & Johni Miah, 2018. "Seasonal land cover changes and its effects on essential services of haor and non-haor areas of Kishoreganj district, Bangladesh," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 399-429, August.
    7. Md. Islam & Daisuke Kitazawa, 2013. "Modeling of freshwater wetland management strategies for building the public awareness at local level in Bangladesh," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 869-888, August.
    8. Rahman, H.M. Tuihedur & Hickey, Gordon M. & Sarker, Swapan Kumar, 2012. "A framework for evaluating collective action and informal institutional dynamics under a resource management policy of decentralization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 32-41.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chidakel, Alexander & Child, Brian, 2022. "Convergence and divergence in the economic performance of wildlife tourism within multi-reserve landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Caballero, Gonzalo, 2015. "Community-based forest management institutions in the Galician communal forests: A new institutional approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 347-356.
    3. Krul, Kees & Ho, Peter & Yang, Xiuyun, 2020. "Incentivizing household forest management in China's forest reform: Limitations to rights-based approaches in Southwest China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    4. Põllumäe, Priit & Lilleleht, Ando & Korjus, Henn, 2016. "Institutional barriers in forest owners' cooperation: The case of Estonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-16.
    5. Jagger, Pamela, 2014. "Confusion vs. clarity: Property rights and forest use in Uganda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 32-41.
    6. Prévost, Benoît & Rivaud, Audrey, 2018. "The World Bank’s environmental strategies: Assessing the influence of a biased use of New Institutional Economics on legal issues," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 370-380.
    7. Robinson, Elizabeth J.Z. & Albers, Heidi J. & Williams, Jeffrey C., 2008. "Spatial and temporal modeling of community non-timber forest extraction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 234-245, November.
    8. Gideon, Kruseman & Lorenzo, Pellegrini, 2008. "Institutions and Forest Management: A Case Study from Swat, Pakistan," Natural Resources Management Working Papers 37669, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    9. Klümper, Frederike & Theesfeld, Insa & Herzfeld, Thomas, 2018. "Discrepancies between paper and practice in policy implementation: Tajikistan’s property rights and customary claims to land and water," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 75, pages 327-339.
    10. Yiwen, Zhang & Kant, Shashi, 2022. "Secure tenure or equal access? Farmers’ preferences for reallocating the property rights of collective farmland and forestland in Southeast China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    11. Alexandros Maziotis & Elisa Calliari & Jaroslav Mysiak, 2013. "Robust Institutions for Sustainable Water Markets: A Survey of the Literature and the Way Forward," Working Papers 2013.58, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    12. Thiel, Andreas & Schleyer, Christian & Plieninger, Tobias, 2011. "Characteristics of resources and the provision of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Germany: the cases of fruit tree meadows and wolf protection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116082, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Rahman, H.M. Tuihedur & Hickey, Gordon M. & Sarker, Swapan Kumar, 2012. "A framework for evaluating collective action and informal institutional dynamics under a resource management policy of decentralization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 32-41.
    14. Sylvain Rossiaud, 2014. "Opening the upstream oil industry to private companies," Working Papers halshs-00960681, HAL.
    15. Bhagirath Behera & Pulak Mishra, 2018. "Democratic Local Institutions for Sustainable Management and Use of Minor Irrigation Systems: Experience of Pani Panchayats in Odisha, India," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-27, July.
    16. Behera, Bhagirath & Engel, Stefanie, 2006. "Institutional analysis of evolution of joint forest management in India: A new institutional economics approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 350-362, June.
    17. Gabriel Hoh Teck Ling & Pau Chung Leng & Chin Siong Ho, 2019. "Effects of Diverse Property Rights on Rural Neighbourhood Public Open Space (POS) Governance: Evidence from Sabah, Malaysia," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-33, June.
    18. Weinstein, Olivier, 2013. "Comment comprendre les « communs » : Elinor Ostrom, la propriété et la nouvelle économie institutionnelle," Revue de la Régulation - Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs, Association Recherche et Régulation, vol. 14.
    19. Roy, Anjan Kumer Dev & Alam, Khorshed & Gow, Jeff, 2012. "A review of the role of property rights and forest policies in the management of the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest in Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 46-53.
    20. Torpey-Saboe, Nichole & Andersson, Krister & Mwangi, Esther & Persha, Lauren & Salk, Carl & Wright, Glenn, 2015. "Benefit Sharing Among Local Resource Users: The Role of Property Rights," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 408-418.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2008:i:1-2:p:429-436. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.