IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/foreco/v33y2018icp25-32.html

How to design more effective REDD+ projects – The importance of targeted approach in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Rakatama, Ari
  • Pandit, Ram
  • Iftekhar, Sayed
  • Ma, Chunbo

Abstract

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) has been piloted in several developing countries. Limited funding available for REDD+ suggests that there is a need to adopt a targeted approach (i.e., targeting selected groups or regions) to make REDD+ projects more effective. However, there is no clear understanding of how targeting could be done based on households’ preferences for various design features of a REDD+ policy. Using choice experiment data obtained from two groups of households (project participants and outsiders) belonging to three types of forest management regimes (private, government and community) in Indonesia, this paper aims to identify classes of households that have similar preferences towards REDD+ design features. The scale adjusted latent class analysis indicates that there are four classes of households: (1) supporters emphasising household benefits, (2) supporters emphasising community projects, (3) indifferent but objecting restrictions, and (4) sceptics demanding monetary benefits. We also found that forest management regime is a key determinant of household classes. Our results suggest that REDD+ projects are likely to be more accepted by households in the community- and government-managed forest regimes. Such information will be useful to develop more targeted REDD+ projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "How to design more effective REDD+ projects – The importance of targeted approach in Indonesia," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 25-32.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:foreco:v:33:y:2018:i:c:p:25-32
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2018.10.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1104689917302143
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jfe.2018.10.003?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loaiza, T. & Nehren, U. & Gerold, G., 2016. "REDD+ implementation in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Why land configuration and common-pool resources management matter," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 67-79.
    2. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    3. Pandit, Ram & Neupane, Prem Raj & Wagle, Bishnu Hari, 2017. "Economics of carbon sequestration in community forests: Evidence from REDD+ piloting in Nepal," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 9-29.
    4. Broegaard, Rikke Brandt & Vongvisouk, Thoumthone & Mertz, Ole, 2017. "Contradictory Land Use Plans and Policies in Laos: Tenure Security and the Threat of Exclusion," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 170-183.
    5. Engel, Stefanie, 2016. "The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 9(1-2), pages 131-177, July.
    6. Burton, Michael & Rogers, Abbie & Richert, Claire, 2017. "Community acceptance of biodiversity offsets: evidence from a choice experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(01), January.
    7. Felix Haifeng Liao & Steven Farber & Reid Ewing, 2015. "Compact development and preference heterogeneity in residential location choice behaviour: A latent class analysis," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 52(2), pages 314-337, February.
    8. Marigold Norman & Smita Nakhooda, 2014. "The State of REDD+ Finance," Working Papers 378, Center for Global Development.
    9. Engel, Stefanie & Palmer, Charles, 2008. "Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: The case of Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 799-809, May.
    10. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801.
    11. Stefanie Engel & Charles Palmer & Alexander Pfaff, 2013. "On the Endogeneity of Resource Co-management: Theory and Evidence from Indonesia," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 308-329.
    12. Junyi Shen, 2009. "Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(22), pages 2915-2924.
    13. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    14. Arild Angelsen, 2017. "REDD+ as Result-based Aid: General Lessons and Bilateral Agreements of Norway," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 237-264, May.
    15. Anne Stenger-Letheux & Nicolas Robert, 2013. "Can payments solve the problem of undersupply of ecosystem services?," Post-Print hal-01003270, HAL.
    16. Stibniati S Atmadja & Erin O Sills, 2016. "What Is a “Community Perception” of REDD+? A Systematic Review of How Perceptions of REDD+ Have Been Elicited and Reported in the Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.
    17. Olaru, Doina & Smith, Brett & Taplin, John H.E., 2011. "Residential location and transit-oriented development in a new rail corridor," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 219-237, March.
    18. Lund, Jens Friis & Sungusia, Eliezeri & Mabele, Mathew Bukhi & Scheba, Andreas, 2017. "Promising Change, Delivering Continuity: REDD+ as Conservation Fad," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 124-139.
    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. Jack Baynes & Geoff P. Lovell & John Herbohn, 2021. "Psychological outcomes of REDD + projects: evidence from country case studies," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 1-27, April.

    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. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    2. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    3. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, . "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(01).
    4. Su, Jie & Gasparatos, Alexandros, 2024. "Assessing the heterogeneity of public acceptability for mangrove restoration through a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    5. Xiong, Yingge & Mannering, Fred L., 2013. "The heterogeneous effects of guardian supervision on adolescent driver-injury severities: A finite-mixture random-parameters approach," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 39-54.
    6. Montoya-Zumaeta, Javier G. & Wunder, Sven & Tacconi, Luca, 2021. "Incentive-based conservation in Peru: Assessing the state of six ongoing PES and REDD+ initiatives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. Khakdaman, Masoud & Rezaei, Jafar & Tavasszy, Lóránt A., 2020. "Shippers’ willingness to delegate modal control in freight transportation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    8. Curran, Michael & Kiteme, Boniface & Wünscher, Tobias & Koellner, Thomas & Hellweg, Stefanie, 2016. "Pay the farmer, or buy the land?—Cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services versus land purchases or easements in Central Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 59-67.
    9. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    10. Imamura, Kohei & Takano, Kohei Takenaka & Kumagai, Naoki H. & Yoshida, Yumi & Yamano, Hiroya & Fujii, Masahiko & Nakashizuka, Tohru & Managi, Shunsuke, 2020. "Valuation of coral reefs in Japan: Willingness to pay for conservation and the effect of information," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    11. Köhl, Michael & Neupane, Prem Raj & Mundhenk, Philip, 2020. "REDD+ measurement, reporting and verification – A cost trap? Implications for financing REDD+MRV costs by result-based payments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    12. Sunderlin, William D. & de Sassi, Claudio & Sills, Erin O. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Larson, Anne M. & Resosudarmo, Ida Aju Pradnja & Awono, Abdon & Kweka, Demetrius Leo & Huynh, Thu Ba, 2018. "Creating an appropriate tenure foundation for REDD+: The record to date and prospects for the future," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 376-392.
    13. Palmer, Charles & Taschini, Luca & Laing, Timothy, 2017. "Getting more ‘carbon bang’ for your ‘buck’ in Acre State, Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 214-227.
    14. Li, Jianling, 2018. "Residential and transit decisions: Insights from focus groups of neighborhoods around transit stations," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-9.
    15. Siliang Luan & Qingfang Yang & Zhongtai Jiang & Huxing Zhou & Fanyun Meng, 2022. "Analyzing Commute Mode Choice Using the LCNL Model in the Post-COVID-19 Era: Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-26, April.
    16. Gschwandtner, Adelina & Jang, Cheul & McManus, Richard, "undated". "Improving Drinking Water Quality in South Korea: A Choice Experiment," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273472, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Huang, Yu & Parker, Dawn & Minaker, Leia, 2021. "Identifying latent demand for transit-oriented development neighbourhoods: Evidence from a mid-sized urban area in Canada," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    18. Richard van der Hoff & Raoni Rajão & Pieter Leroy, 2018. "Clashing interpretations of REDD+ “results” in the Amazon Fund," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 433-445, October.
    19. Quynh, Chi Nguyen Thi & Schilizzi, Steven & Hailu, Atakelty & Iftekhar, Sayed, 2018. "Fishers' Preference Heterogeneity and Trade-offs Between Design Options for More Effective Monitoring of Fisheries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 22-33.
    20. Nelyda Campos-Requena & Felipe Vásquez-Lavin, 2026. "Preference-based Segments from Mixed Logit, Latent Class, and Latent Class Mixed Logit Models: A Monte Carlo Comparison," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 67(6), pages 5083-5113, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:eee:foreco:v:33:y:2018:i:c:p:25-32. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/701775/description#description .

    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.