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

Does One Size Fit All? Heterogeneity in the Valuation of Community Forestry Programs?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Dambala Gelo
  • Steven F. Koch

Abstract

Through the implementation of a choice experiment valuation exercise, this study set out to identify the set of community plantation attributes that impact the welfare of potential community forestry program participants. We employed a combination of choice models to evaluate the preferences, welfare impacts and choice elasticities associated with alternative community forestry programs, allowing for different assumptions regarding heterogeneity. In line with economic theory, increased participation costs reduced the demand for community forestry, while increases in expected productivity raised the demand. With respect to preferences for the other alternatives considered - type of forest, area enclosure and type of land upon which the forest was to be situated - the results point to significant differences in preferences across the study population, suggesting that programs should be tailored to the communities in which the program is to be implemented.

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://econrsa.org/home/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=363&Itemid=67
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Economic Research Southern Africa in its series Working Papers with number 248.

as in new window
Length: 22 pages
Date of creation: 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rza:wpaper:248

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Newlands on Main, F0301 3rd Floor Mariendahl House, cnr Campground and Main Rds, Claremont, 7700 Cape Town
Phone: 021 671-3980
Fax: +27 21 671 3912
Web page: http://www.econrsa.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: community forestry; choice experiment; conditional logit; random parameters logit and latent class model;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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. Jagger, Pamela & Pender, John, 2003. "The role of trees for sustainable management of less-favored lands: the case of eucalyptus in Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 83-95, January.
  2. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
  3. David F. Layton & Gardner Brown, 2000. "Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 616-624, November.
  4. Wang, Xuehong & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2006. "Estimating Non-Market Environmental Benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: a choice modeling approach," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society 139922, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  5. Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009. "Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Working Papers in Economics, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics 370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
  6. Angelsen, Arild & Kaimowitz, David, 1999. "Rethinking the Causes of Deforestation: Lessons from Economic Models," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, World Bank Group, vol. 14(1), pages 73-98, February.
  7. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
  8. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
  9. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
  10. Gebremedhin, Berhanu & Pender, John L. & Tesfaye, Girmay, 2000. "Community natural resource management: the case of woodlots in northern Ethiopia," EPTD discussion papers, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 60, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  11. Adhikari, Bhim & Di Falco, Salvatore & Lovett, Jon C., 2004. "Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 245-257, February.
  12. Gunnar K�hlin & Gregory S. Amacher, 2005. "Welfare Implications of Community Forest Plantations in Developing Countries: The Orissa Social Forestry Project," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(4), pages 855-869.
  13. Milon, J. Walter & Scrogin, David, 2006. "Latent preferences and valuation of wetland ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 162-175, February.
  14. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132.
  15. Carlsson, Fredrik & Köhlin, Gunnar & Mekonnen, Alemu, 2004. "Contingent valuation of community plantations in Ethiopia: a look into value elicitation formats and intra-household preference variations," Working Papers in Economics, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics 151, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
  16. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
  17. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
  18. Joan Mogas & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2009. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 535-551, August.
  19. Brey, Raul & Riera, Pere & Mogas, Joan, 2007. "Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: An application to Spanish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 305-312, December.
  20. Louviere, Jordan J., 1991. "Experimental choice analysis: Introduction and overview," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 291-297, December.
  21. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-62, July.
  22. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
  23. Varughese, George & Ostrom, Elinor, 2001. "The Contested Role of Heterogeneity in Collective Action: Some Evidence from Community Forestry in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 747-765, May.
  24. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
  25. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
  26. Mekonnen, Alemu, 2000. "Valuation of community forestry in Ethiopia: a contingent valuation study of rural households," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(03), pages 289-308, July.
  27. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
  28. K hlin, Gunnar, 2001. "Contingent valuation in project planning and evaluation: the case of social forestry in Orissa, India," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(02), pages 237-258, May.
  29. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, 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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Abebe, Gumataw K. & Bijman, Jos & Kemp, Ron & Omta, Onno & Tsegaye, Admasu, 2013. "Contract farming configuration: Smallholders’ preferences for contract design attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 14-24.
  2. Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch, 2011. "Contingent Valuation of Community Forestry Programs in Ethiopia: Observing Preference Anomalies in Double-Bounded CVM," Working Papers 201124, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.

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:rza:wpaper:248. 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: (Yoemna Mosaval).

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.