IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v91y2018icp73-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Local community's preferences for accepting a forestry partnership contract to grow pulpwood in Indonesia: A choice experiment study

Author

Listed:
  • Permadi, Dwiko B.
  • Burton, Michael
  • Pandit, Ram
  • Race, Digby
  • Walker, Iain

Abstract

Forestry partnership schemes have been deployed to integrate industrial plantations' and local communities' interests in forest resource management. However, the unsatisfactory impacts of the scheme lead to both parties reassessing the value of the partnership schemes. This article explores local communities' willingness to remain in or opt-out of the partnership schemes designed to grow pulpwood in Indonesia, and investigates their preferences for accepting the modified contract attributes. The contract attributes include contract length, labor participation, insurance, training, road improvement and income. A choice experiment approach was used to estimate preferences of 287 smallholders, of which half were participating with the timber industry under Company-Community Partnership schemes. The results show that a bundle of the contract attributes that could increase local communities' utility are provision of road improvement, higher expected income, and higher timber production insurance. Greater incentives are required to compensate smallholders' loss of utility due to longer contract length and monitoring planted areas. The preferences vary significantly depending on smallholders' participation status in the scheme but not land tenure status. The continuity of the partnership schemes is challenged by a significant number of respondents always rejecting the contract option. The implication of the findings is that designing a bundle of contract attributes focusing on a promotive social safeguard approach likely keeps the participating smallholders in the schemes.

Suggested Citation

  • Permadi, Dwiko B. & Burton, Michael & Pandit, Ram & Race, Digby & Walker, Iain, 2018. "Local community's preferences for accepting a forestry partnership contract to grow pulpwood in Indonesia: A choice experiment study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 73-83.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:91:y:2018:i:c:p:73-83
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.11.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934117301417
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.11.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2017. "Forest carbon offsets and carbon emissions trading: Problems of contracting," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 83-88.
    2. Mingie, James C. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Bowker, J.M. & Mengak, Michael T. & Siry, Jacek P., 2017. "Big game hunter preferences for hunting club attributes: A choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 98-106.
    3. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    5. Tegegne, Yitagesu T. & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & FOBISSIE, KALAME & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Lindner, Marcus & Kanninen, Markku, 2017. "Synergies among social safeguards in FLEGT and REDD+ in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-11.
    6. Lesniewska, Feja & McDermott, Constance L., 2014. "FLEGT VPAs: Laying a pathway to sustainability via legality lessons from Ghana and Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 16-23.
    7. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    8. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 15-24.
    9. Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), 2010. "Choice Experiments in Developing Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13208.
    10. Gabay, Mónica & Alam, Mahbubul, 2017. "Community forestry and its mitigation potential in the Anthropocene: The importance of land tenure governance and the threat of privatization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 26-35.
    11. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    12. Brodrechtova, Yvonne, 2015. "Economic valuation of long-term timber contracts: Empirical evidence from Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 1-9.
    13. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.
    14. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "PES for the poor? Preferences of potential buyers of forest ecosystem services for including distributive goals in the design of payments for conserving the dry spiny forest in Madagascar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 71-79.
    15. Feder, Gershon & Feeny, David, 1991. "Land Tenure and Property Rights: Theory and Implications for Development Policy," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 5(1), pages 135-153, January.
    16. Abdulai, Awudu & Owusu, Victor & Goetz, Renan, 2011. "Land tenure differences and investment in land improvement measures: Theoretical and empirical analyses," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 66-78, September.
    17. Maryudi, Ahmad & Nawir, Ani A. & Permadi, Dwiko B. & Purwanto, Ris H. & Pratiwi, Dian & Syofi'i, Ahmad & Sumardamto, Purnomo, 2015. "Complex regulatory frameworks governing private smallholder tree plantations in Gunungkidul District, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-6.
    18. Burton, Michael & Davis, Katrina & Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2016. "Interpretation issues in heteroscedastic conditional logit models," Working Papers 235296, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    19. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    20. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    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. Gebregziabher, Dawit & Soltani, Arezoo, 2019. "Exclosures in people’s minds: perceptions and attitudes in the Tigray region, Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Zhaohui Zhang & Krishna P. Paudel & Kamal Upadhyaya, 2023. "Preference for rural living environment improvement initiatives in China," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 82(1), pages 61-78, January.
    3. Diendéré, Achille Augustin & Kaboré, Dominique, 2023. "Preferences for a payment for ecosystem services program to control forest fires in Burkina Faso: A choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Jacqueline Ninson & Irene S. Egyir & Akwasi Mensah-Bonsu & Edward Ebo Onumah, 2022. "Financial Analysis of the Use of Land: Agriculture or Woodlot," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Jieun Lee & Yeo-Chang Youn, 2023. "Landowners Are Interested in Payment for the Ecosystem Services of Forestry: The Case of Korean Private Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, February.
    6. Permadi, Dwiko B. & Burton, Michael & Pandit, Ram & Race, Digby & Ma, Chunbo & Mendham, Daniel & Hardiyanto, Eko B., 2018. "Socio-economic factors affecting the rate of adoption of acacia plantations by smallholders in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 215-223.
    7. Mai Chiem Tuyen & Prapinwadee Sirisupluxana & Isriya Bunyasiri & Pham Xuan Hung, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Preferences towards Contract Attributes: Evidence from Rice Production in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-21, March.

    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. Cortés-Capano, Gonzalo & Hanley, Nick & Sheremet, Oleg & Hausmann, Anna & Toivonen, Tuuli & Garibotto-Carton, Gustavo & Soutullo, Alvaro & Di Minin, Enrico, 2021. "Assessing landowners’ preferences to inform voluntary private land conservation: The role of non-monetary incentives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Maldonado, Jorge H. & Moreno-Sanchez, Rocio & Henao-Henao, Juan P. & Bruner, Aaron, 2019. "Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    4. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Glenk, Klaus & Rodriguez-Entrena, M., 2016. "Serial non-participation and ecosystem services providers’ preferences towards incentive-based schemes," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236348, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    6. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    7. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Strange, Niels, 2018. "Landowner participation in forest conservation programs: A revealed approach using register, spatial and contract data," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    9. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Harrison, Duncan R. & Burns, Rhys J., 2019. "Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Bennett, Michael T. & Gong, Yazhen & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Hungry Birds and Angry Farmers: Using Choice Experiments to Assess “Eco-compensation” for Coastal Wetlands Protection in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 71-87.
    11. Seroa da Motta, Ronaldo & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2018. "Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 333-342.
    12. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Pouta, Eija & Hiedanpää, Juha, 2021. "Forest owners' interest in participation and their compensation claims in voluntary landscape value trading: The case of wind power parks in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    13. Herring, Matthew W. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Zander, Kerstin K., 2022. "Producing rice while conserving the habitat of an endangered waterbird: Incentives for farmers to integrate water management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    14. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 15-24.
    15. Kim-Bakkegaard, Riyong & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Wunder, Sven & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2017. "Comparing tools to predict REDD+ conservation costs to Amazon smallholders," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 48-61.
    16. Iftekhar, Md Sayed & Polyakov, Maksym & Rogers, Abbie, 2022. "Social preferences for water sensitive housing features in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    17. Macario Rodríguez‐Entrena & Anastasio J. Villanueva & José A. Gómez‐Limón, 2019. "Unraveling determinants of inferred and stated attribute nonattendance: Effects on farmers’ willingness to accept to join agri‐environmental schemes," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(1), pages 31-52, March.
    18. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    19. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    20. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.

    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:forpol:v:91:y:2018:i:c:p:73-83. 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/forpol .

    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.