IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/endeec/v21y2016i01p78-108_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences for forms of land conservation investment in the Ethiopian Highlands: a household plot-level analysis of the roles of poverty, tenure security and market incentives

Author

Listed:
  • Bekele, Worku Genanew
  • Schneider, Friedrich Georg

Abstract

This study used the multinomial logistic model to examine the factors leading to differences in farm-households' preferences for various forms of land conservation measures. Using a survey of 4,795 household-plots in rural Ethiopia, the study demonstrates the inappropriateness of pooling different forms of land conservation investments in preference studies. The results suggest that poverty drives farm-households towards conservation measures which are more short term and which entail the expenditure of less skill. While tenure security has a mixed effect on such preferences, market access seems not to matter for preference decisions. Further, farm-households consider the characteristics of the plot in their preference, which also vary across villages. This study shows that a farm-household's preference is a complex decision. Major changes in conservation investments on the part of farm-households will require attention to many factors, since no single factor exerts enough control to be used solitarily as a major policy leverage instrument.

Suggested Citation

  • Bekele, Worku Genanew & Schneider, Friedrich Georg, 2016. "Preferences for forms of land conservation investment in the Ethiopian Highlands: a household plot-level analysis of the roles of poverty, tenure security and market incentives," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 78-108, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:21:y:2016:i:01:p:78-108_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1355770X1500011X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:endeec:v:21:y:2016:i:01:p:78-108_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ede .

    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.