Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Why some community forests are performing better than others: a case of forest user groups in Nepal

Contents:

Author Info

  • Chand, Narendra
  • Kerr, Geoffrey N.
  • Bigsby, Hugh R.
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Management of many Nepalese forests has been devolved to local communities. Forest products, which are used by the community and which may also be traded, are essential contributors to community well-being. Forests are also important contributors of ecosystem services, such as flood protection and wildlife habitat. Nepalese communities were surveyed to measure flows of forest products from their community forests. A stochastic frontier analysis shows that communities are not producing forest products efficiently and there is potential for improvement. The results shows that forest products benefit and environmental performance are associated products. In addition, analysis reveals that factors such as social capital, support from government and knowledge in management contributes positively to the production efficiency. It is anticipated that these findings will contribute to community forest policy redesign and consequently to the welfare of communities.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/96827
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand with number 96827.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation:
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:nzar10:96827

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.nzares.org.nz/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Community forestry; stochastic frontier; production efficiency; Nepal; Community/Rural/Urban Development; Environmental Economics and Policy; Farm Management; Productivity Analysis;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Varughese, George & Ostrom, Elinor, 2001. "The Contested Role of Heterogeneity in Collective Action: Some Evidence from Community Forestry in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 747-765, May.
    2. S Rahman, 2002. "Profit Efficiency Among Bangladeshi Rice Farmers," The School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 0203, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    3. Forsund, Finn R. & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1980. "A survey of frontier production functions and of their relationship to efficiency measurement," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 5-25, May.
    4. Ondrich, Jan & Ruggiero, John, 2001. "Efficiency measurement in the stochastic frontier model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(2), pages 434-442, March.
    5. Misra, Dinesh & Kant, Shashi, 2004. "Production analysis of collaborative forest management using an example of joint forest management from Gujarat, India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 301-320, June.
    6. Kumar, Sanjay, 2002. "Does "Participation" in Common Pool Resource Management Help the Poor? A Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Joint Forest Management in Jharkhand, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 763-782, May.
    7. Jondrow, James & Knox Lovell, C. A. & Materov, Ivan S. & Schmidt, Peter, 1982. "On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 233-238, August.
    8. Gebremedhin, Berhanu & Pender, John L. & Tesfaye, Girmay, 2000. "Community natural resource management: the case of woodlots in northern Ethiopia," EPTD discussion papers 60, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Alphonce, Christian B., 1997. "Application of the analytic hierarchy process in agriculture in developing countries," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 97-112, January.
    10. Misra, Dinesh & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Economic efficiency and shadow prices of social and biological outputs of village-level organizations of joint forest management in Gujarat, India," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 141-160, December.
    11. Duke, Joshua M. & Aull-Hyde, Rhonda, 2002. "Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 131-145, August.
    12. Agrawal, Arun & Chhatre, Ashwini, 2006. "Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 149-166, January.
    13. Chakraborty, Rabindra Nath, 2001. "Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: evidence from the Terai region of Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 341-353, February.
    14. Léopold Simar, 2007. "How to improve the performances of DEA/FDH estimators in the presence of noise?," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 183-201, December.
    15. Tim J. Coelli, 1995. "Recent Developments In Frontier Modelling And Efficiency Measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 219-245, December.
    16. Cooper, Samuel T. & Cohn, Elchanan, 1997. "Estimation of a frontier production function for the South Carolina educational process," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 313-327, June.
    17. Agrawal, Arun, 2001. "Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1649-1672, October.
    18. Mark E. Lichtenstein & Claire A. Montgomery, 2003. "Biodiversity and Timber in the Coast Range of Oregon: Inside the Production Possibility Frontier," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 56-73.
    19. Van Ha, Nguyen & Kant, Shashi & Maclaren, Virginia, 2006. "Relative shadow prices of social capital for household-level paper recycling units in Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 520-533, May.
    20. Bardhan, Pranab, 1993. "Analytics of the institutions of informal cooperation in rural development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 633-639, April.
    21. S. Kumar & S. SurnameCorbridge, 2002. "Programmed to Fail? Development Projects and the Politics of Participation," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(2), pages 73-103.
    22. Bigsby, Hugh R., 1994. "Production Structure And The Australian Sawmilling Industry," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 38(03), December.
    23. Kant, Shashi, 2000. "A dynamic approach to forest regimes in developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 287-300, February.
    24. Baland, Jean-Marie & Platteau, Jean-Philippe, 2000. "Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities?," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198290612, September.
    25. Adhikari, Bhim, 2005. "Poverty, property rights and collective action: understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(01), pages 7-31, February.
    26. Bhim Adhikari & Jon Lovett, 2006. "Institutions and collective action: Does heterogeneity matter in community-based resource management?," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 426-445.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:nzar10:96827. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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