IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v12y2010i5p357-369.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania

Author

Listed:
  • Kijazi, Martin Herbert
  • Kant, Shashi

Abstract

The study investigates societal states of forests that are perceived to enhance human and environmental well-being in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Villagers, foresters, park employees, entrepreneurs and environmentalists were surveyed. The survey applied a multi-group social choice method, following six steps: (i) identification of all relevant social states for sustainable forest management; (ii) elicitation of preferences, for different social states, of forest user groups' members; (iii) determination of attributes of users and social states; (iv) aggregation of individual forest value preferences into social value preferences; (v) inter-group comparison of preferences; and (vi) estimation of predictors of social forest value preferences. A distinction is made between the household-perspective and the citizen-perspective of evaluations. As well, socio-economic and institutional-legal attributes of stakeholders were tested as predictors of stakeholder preferences. The major findings include the following. First, non-consumptive forest uses, including ecosystem services, were given highest priority by all stakeholders. Second, consumptive values were weighted more discriminately, while non-consumptive values were viewed more holistically. Third, forest dependence and environmental-resource-entitlements lead to more household consumption-based valuations; whereas, the appreciation of diverse forest values increases with the education of people. Fourth, the stakeholders exercise higher consensus on the importance of non-consumptive uses when such values are evaluated in the context of societal needs but not as household needs; consumptive uses registered the opposite effect. This finding signifies the separation between individual-conscience and social-conscience corresponding with the evaluation of consumer needs and societal needs, respectively. Thus, societal allocations, such as biodiversity conservation or ecosystem services, must be based on valuations specifically formulated in the context of eliciting collective social judgments.

Suggested Citation

  • Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2010. "Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 357-369, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:12:y:2010:i:5:p:357-369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(10)00023-7
    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. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 263-288, December.
    2. Brekke, Kjell Arne & Kverndokk, Snorre & Nyborg, Karine, 2003. "An economic model of moral motivation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(9-10), pages 1967-1983, September.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    4. Bostedt, Göran & Mattsson, Leif, 2006. "A note on benefits and costs of adjusting forestry to meet recreational demands," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 75-81, March.
    5. Papke, Leslie E & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M, 1996. "Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 619-632, Nov.-Dec..
    6. Amartya Sen, 1999. "The Possibility of Social Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 349-378, June.
    7. B. Fine & K. Fine, 1974. "Social Choice and Individual Rankings II," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 459-475.
    8. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    9. Ovaskainen, Ville & Kniivila, Matleena, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1-16.
    10. Kant, Shashi & Lee, Susan, 2004. "A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 215-227, June.
    11. Ville Ovaskainen & Matleena Kniivilä, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 379-394, December.
    12. Sen, Amartya K, 1977. "Starvation and Exchange Entitlements: A General Approach and Its Application to the Great Bengal Famine," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 33-59, March.
    13. B. Fine & K. Fine, 1974. "Social Choice and Individual Ranking I," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 303-322.
    14. James, David, 1994. "Application of Environmental Economics to Sustainable Management of the Forests of South-East Australia," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 28(1), pages 77-89, March.
    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. Affek, Andrzej Norbert & Kowalska, Anna, 2017. "Ecosystem potentials to provide services in the view of direct users," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 183-196.
    2. Patricia Carignano Torres & Carla Morsello & Luke Parry & Renata Pardini, 2016. "Who Cares about Forests and Why? Individual Values Attributed to Forests in a Post-Frontier Region in Amazonia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Grace, David & Jeuland, Marc, 2018. "Preferences for Attributes of Sacred Groves and Temples along an Urbanization Gradient in the National Capital Region of India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 322-335.
    4. Uddin, Mohammad Nizam & Hossain, Mohammad Mosharraf & Chen, Yong & Siriwong, Wapakorn & Boonyanuphap, Jaruntorn, 2019. "Stakeholders' perception on indigenous community-based management of village common forests in Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 102-112.
    5. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2011. "Social acceptability of alternative forest regimes in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, using stakeholder attitudes as metrics of uncertainty," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 242-257, April.
    6. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    7. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2011. "Evaluation of welfare functions of environmental amenities: A case of forest biomass fuels in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 129-139.
    8. Khan, M. Ali, 2016. "On a forest as a commodity and on commodification in the discipline of forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 7-17.

    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. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2011. "Evaluation of welfare functions of environmental amenities: A case of forest biomass fuels in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 129-139.
    2. van der Pol, Thomas & Weikard, Hans-Peter & van Ierland, Ekko, 2012. "Can altruism stabilise international climate agreements?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 112-120.
    3. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2011. "Social acceptability of alternative forest regimes in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, using stakeholder attitudes as metrics of uncertainty," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 242-257, April.
    4. Howley, Peter & Hynes, Stephen & O'Donoghue, Cathal, 2010. "The citizen versus consumer distinction: An exploration of individuals' preferences in Contingent Valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1524-1531, May.
    5. Tienhaara, Annika & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2015. "Consumer and citizen roles and motives in the valuation of agricultural genetic resources in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-10.
    6. Camila Balbontin & David A. Hensher & Chinh Ho & Corinne Mulley, 2020. "Do preferences for BRT and LRT change as a voter, citizen, tax payer, or self-interested resident?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 2981-3030, December.
    7. Sauer, Uta & Fischer, Anke, 2010. "Willingness to pay, attitudes and fundamental values -- On the cognitive context of public preferences for diversity in agricultural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-9, November.
    8. Hjerpe, Evan & Hussain, Anwar & Phillips, Spencer, 2015. "Valuing type and scope of ecosystem conservation: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 32-50.
    9. Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2009. "The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Do welfare estimates differ?," Working Papers 0911, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    10. Alphonce, Roselyne & Alfnes, Frode & Sharma, Amit, 2014. "Consumer vs. citizen willingness to pay for restaurant food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 160-166.
    11. Camila Balbontin & David A. Hensher & Chinh Ho & Corinne Mulley, 0. "Do preferences for BRT and LRT change as a voter, citizen, tax payer, or self-interested resident?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-50.
    12. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Determinants of Green Party Voting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 306-318.
    13. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "Do individuals have different preferences as consumer and citizen? The trade-off between travel time and safety," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 333-349.
    14. Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2017. "Recursive Monotonicity of the Scorix: Borda Meets Condorcet," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 793-813, July.
    15. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2015. "Checking the consistency of the solution in ordinal semi-democratic decision-making problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 57(PB), pages 188-195.
    16. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 305-322, July.
    17. Rahman, Tauhidur & Mittelhammer, Ronald C. & Wandschneider, Philip R., 2004. "A Latent Variable Mimic Approach To Inferring The Quality Of Life," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20351, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April.
    19. Dasgupta, Partha, 2000. "Valuation and evaluation: measuring the quality of life and evaluating policy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6657, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. repec:pri:wwseco:dp230 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Rahman, Tauhidur & Mittelhammer, Ronald C. & Wandschneider, Philip R., 2003. "A Sensitivity Analysis Of Quality Of Life Indices Across Countries," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22045, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    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:forpol:v:12:y:2010:i:5:p:357-369. 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: (Nithya Sathishkumar). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.