IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v70y2011i3p454-461.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Management of non-timber forestry products extraction: Local institutions, ecological knowledge and market structure in South-Eastern Zimbabwe

Author

Listed:
  • Mutenje, M.J.
  • Ortmann, G.F.
  • Ferrer, S.R.D.

Abstract

Common-pool resources (CPRs), such as forests, water resources and rangelands, provide a wide variety of economic benefits to forest-fringe dwellers in semi-arid areas of southern Africa. However, the public nature and competition involved in the use of these goods, and weak enforcement of institutional arrangements governing their use may lead to resource degradation. Using survey data from four communities in south-eastern Zimbabwe for 2008 and 2009, this paper examines the extent to which forest degradation is driven by existing common property management regimes resource and user characteristics, ecological knowledge and marketing structure. A Principal Component Analysis indicates that the existence of agreed-upon rules governing usage (including costs of usage), enforcement of these rules, sanctions for rule violations that are proportional to the severity of rule violation, social homogeneity, and strong beliefs in ancestral spirits were the most important attributes determining effectiveness of local institutions in the management of CPRs. Empirical results from a regression analysis showed that resource scarcity, market integration, and infrastructural development lead to greater resource degradation, while livestock income, high ecological knowledge, older households, and effective local institutional management of the commons reduce resource degradation. The results suggest that there is need for adaptive local management systems that enhance ecological knowledge of users and regulates market structure to favour long-term livelihood securities of these forest-fringe communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Mutenje, M.J. & Ortmann, G.F. & Ferrer, S.R.D., 2011. "Management of non-timber forestry products extraction: Local institutions, ecological knowledge and market structure in South-Eastern Zimbabwe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 454-461, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:3:p:454-461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(10)00421-0
    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. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    2. 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.
    3. William J. Sutherland, 2003. "Parallel extinction risk and global distribution of languages and species," Nature, Nature, vol. 423(6937), pages 276-279, May.
    4. Bardhan, Pranab, 1993. "Analytics of the institutions of informal cooperation in rural development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 633-639, April.
    5. Heltberg, Rasmus, 2001. "Determinants and impact of local institutions for common resource management," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 183-208, May.
    6. 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, vol. 48(2), pages 245-257, February.
    7. Annelies Verdurme & Jacques Viaene, 2003. "Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: Basis for segmentation and implications for communication," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 91-113.
    8. Rasmus Heltberg, 2002. "Property Rights and Natural Resource Management in Developing Countries," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 189-214, April.
    9. Mafaniso Hara & Stephen Turner & Tobias Haller & Frank Matose, 2009. "Governance of the commons in southern Africa: knowledge, political economy and power," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 521-537.
    10. Brian Belcher & Kathrin Schreckenberg, 2007. "Commercialisation of Non-timber Forest Products: A Reality Check," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 25(3), pages 355-377, May.
    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. Baiyegunhi, L.J.S. & Oppong, B.B., 2016. "Commercialisation of mopane worm (Imbrasia belina) in rural households in Limpopo Province, South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 141-148.
    2. Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon & Owusu, Raphael & Djenontin, Ida N.S. & Pretzsch, Jürgen & Giessen, Lukas & Buchenrieder, Gertrud & Pouliot, Mariève & Acosta, Ana Nicole, 2022. "What do we (not) know on forest management institutions in sub-Saharan Africa? A regional comparative review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    3. Steele, Melita Z. & Shackleton, Charlie M. & Uma Shaanker, R. & Ganeshaiah, K.N. & Radloff, Sarah, 2015. "The influence of livelihood dependency, local ecological knowledge and market proximity on the ecological impacts of harvesting non-timber forest products," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 285-291.
    4. Gugissa, Desalegn A. & Ingenbleek, Paul T.M. & van Trijp, Hans C.M., 2021. "Market knowledge as a driver of sustainable use of common-pool resources: A lab-in-the-field study among pastoralists in Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    5. Liu, Shilei & Xu, Jintao, 2019. "Livelihood mushroomed: Examining household level impacts of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) under new management regime in China's state forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 44-53.
    6. Tshidzumba, Ratsodo Phillip & Chirwa, Paxie Wanangwa, 2022. "Forest-based land reform partnerships in rural development and the sustenance of timber markets. Learning from two South African cases," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    7. Steven M. Smith, 2016. "Common Property Resources and New Entrants: Uncovering the Bias and Effects of New Users," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-36.
    8. Zhu, Hongge & Hu, Shilei & Ren, Yue & Ma, Xing & Cao, Yukun, 2017. "Determinants of engagement in non-timber forest products (NTFPs) business activities: A study on worker households in the forest areas of Daxinganling and Xiaoxinganling Mountains, northeastern China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 125-132.
    9. Moradpanah Haniyeh & Dargahi Mohammad Dehdar & Limaei Soleiman Mohammadi & Moradpanah Monireh, 2016. "A socio-economic evaluation of a protected area - A case study: Hamadan province, Iran," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 4(2), pages 9-16, June.
    10. Phanith Chou, 2019. "The utilization and institutional management of non-timber forest products in Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1947-1962, August.
    11. Toshiya Matsuura & Ken Sugimura & Asako Miyamoto & Nobuhiko Tanaka, 2013. "Knowledge-Based Estimation of Edible Fern Harvesting Sites in Mountainous Communities of Northeastern Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, December.

    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. Okumu, Boscow & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2020. "Determinants of successful collective management of forest resources: Evidence from Kenyan Community Forest Associations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    2. Chand, Narendra & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Bigsby, Hugh, 2015. "Production efficiency of community forest management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 172-179.
    3. Matta, Jagannadha R. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2006. "Perceptions of collective action and its success in community based natural resource management: An empirical analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 274-284, December.
    4. Satyal, Poshendra & Corbera, Esteve & Dawson, Neil & Dhungana, Hari & Maskey, Gyanu, 2020. "Justice-related impacts and social differentiation dynamics in Nepal's REDD+ projects," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Gebremedhin, Berhanu & Pender, John & Tesfay, Girmay, 2004. "Collective action for grazing land management in crop-livestock mixed systems in the highlands of northern Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 273-290, December.
    7. Behera, Bhagirath, 2009. "Explaining the performance of state-community joint forest management in India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 177-185, November.
    8. Dash, Madhusmita & Behera, Bhagirath, 2015. "Local institutions, collective action and forest conservation: The case of Similipal Tiger Reserve in India," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 167-184.
    9. Thapliyal, Sneha & Mukherji, Arnab & Malghan, Deepak, 2019. "Economic inequality and loss of commons: Evidence from India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 693-712.
    10. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    11. Zhan, Shaohua, 2015. "From Privatization to Deindustrialization: Implications of Chinese Rural Industry and the Ownership Debate Revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 108-122.
    12. repec:nam:befdwp:5 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Suhardiman, Diana & Karki, Emma, 2019. "Spatial politics and local alliances shaping Nepal hydropower," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 525-536.
    14. Antinori, Camille M. & Rausser, Gordon C., 2003. "Does Community Involvement Matter? How Collective Choice Affects Forests in Mexico," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt83j385n0, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    15. Lucungu, Prince Baraka & Dhital, Narayan & Asselin, Hugo & Kibambe, Jean-Paul & Ngabinzeke, Jean Semeki & Khasa, Damase P., 2022. "Local citizen group dynamics in the implementation of community forest concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    16. Rahut, Dil Bahadur & Ali, Akhter & Behera, Bhagirath, 2015. "Household participation and effects of community forest management on income and poverty levels: Empirical evidence from Bhutan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 20-29.
    17. Jane Kabubo‐Mariara, 2013. "Forest‐poverty nexus: Exploring the contribution of forests to rural livelihoods in Kenya," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 37(3), pages 177-188, August.
    18. Naidu, Sirisha C., 2011. "Rural Livelihoods, Forest Access and Time Use: A Study of Forest Communities in Northwest India," MPRA Paper 31060, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Sapkota, Prativa & Keenan, Rodney J. & Ojha, Hemant R., 2018. "Community institutions, social marginalization and the adaptive capacity: A case study of a community forestry user group in the Nepal Himalayas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 55-64.
    20. Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Johnsen, Fred Hakon & Konoshima, Masashi & Yoshimoto, Atsushi, 2013. "Community forestry in the hills of Nepal: Determinants of user participation in forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 6-13.
    21. Chand, Narendra & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Bigsby, Hugh R., "undated". "Why some community forests are performing better than others: a case of forest user groups in Nepal," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 96827, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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:70:y:2011:i:3:p:454-461. 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.