IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v168y2024ics1389934124001515.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Superstition and attitudes towards restoration of a mining-degraded forest reserve: Evidence from Ghana

Author

Listed:
  • Arthur, Lilian
  • Vondolia, Godwin Kofi
  • Dasmani, Isaac

Abstract

Forest restoration has become a worldwide phenomenon to minimise the effects of climate change and global warming. However, in most cases, especially in Africa, communities around forests usually have a cultural attachment to these forests. Consequently, the preferences of fringing communities are important to ensure sustainable forest management. However, there seems to be a lack of understanding about how superstition may affect the attitudes of local communities towards forest restoration. This study aimed to examine the effect of superstition on household attitudes and preferences for restoring the Bonsa River Forest Reserve. Primary data was collected from 611 respondents in the Prestea-Huni Valley Municipality in the Western Region of Ghana and were analysed using mixed logit (ML) and generalized multinomial logit (G-MNL) models. The findings revealed that very superstitious respondents preferred the tree species attributes but did not prefer the soil amendment, backfilling of mined-out areas and biodiversity attributes. These results indicate that local community superstitions should be incorporated into the planning and decision-making process regarding forest restoration management.

Suggested Citation

  • Arthur, Lilian & Vondolia, Godwin Kofi & Dasmani, Isaac, 2024. "Superstition and attitudes towards restoration of a mining-degraded forest reserve: Evidence from Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:168:y:2024:i:c:s1389934124001515
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124001515
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103297?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 2006. "Superstition and Rational Learning," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 630-651, June.
    2. repec:rri:wpaper:200704 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Wu, Nan & Zhang, Xiaomeng & Zhou, Wenyu, 2023. "The impacts of superstition on risk preferences and beliefs: Evidence from the Chinese zodiac year," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    4. Thomas Kramer & Lauren Block, 2008. "Conscious and Nonconscious Components of Superstitious Beliefs in Judgment and Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(6), pages 783-793, October.
    5. Invernizzi, Giovanna M. & Miller, Joshua B. & Coen, Tommaso & Dufwenberg, Martin & Oliveira, Luiz Edgard R., 2021. "Tra i Leoni: Revealing the preferences behind a superstition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    6. Arne Risa Hole, 2013. "Mixed logit modeling in Stata--an overview," United Kingdom Stata Users' Group Meetings 2013 23, Stata Users Group.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    8. Christiadi & Brian Cushing, 2007. "Conditional Logit, IIA, and Alternatives for Estimating Models of Interstate Migration," Working Papers Working Paper 2007-04, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Vanermen, Iris & Muys, Bart & Verheyen, Kris & Vanwindekens, Frederic & Bouriaud, Laura & Kardol, Paul & Vranken, Liesbet, 2020. "What do scientists and managers know about soil biodiversity? Comparative knowledge mapping for sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    11. Kumah, Richard, 2022. "Artisanal and small-scale mining formalization challenges in Ghana: Explaining grassroots perspectives," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    12. Mahlknecht, Jürgen & González-Bravo, Ramón & Loge, Frank J., 2020. "Water-energy-food security: A Nexus perspective of the current situation in Latin America and the Caribbean," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    13. Tom Gleeson & Yoshihide Wada & Marc F. P. Bierkens & Ludovicus P. H. van Beek, 2012. "Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint," Nature, Nature, vol. 488(7410), pages 197-200, August.
    14. 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).
    15. Ng, Travis & Chong, Terence & Du, Xin, 2010. "The value of superstitions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 293-309, June.
    16. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    17. Sarfo-Mensah, Paul & Oduro, William, 2007. "Traditional Natural Resources Management Practices and Biodiversity Conservation in Ghana: A Review of Local Concepts and Issues on Change and Sustainability," Natural Resources Management Working Papers 7440, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    18. Jinlong, Liu & Renhua, Zhang & Qiaoyun, Zhang, 2012. "Traditional forest knowledge of the Yi people confronting policy reform and social changes in Yunnan province of China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 9-17.
    19. Irwin, Julie R., 1994. "Buying/Selling Price Preference Reversals: Preference for Environmental Changes in Buying versus Selling Modes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 431-457, December.
    20. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    21. Aldieri, Luigi & Makkonen, Teemu & Paolo Vinci, Concetto, 2020. "Environmental knowledge spillovers and productivity: A patent analysis for large international firms in the energy, water and land resources fields," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    22. Hynes, Stephen & Chen, Wenting & Vondolia, Kofi & Armstrong, Claire & O'Connor, Eamonn, 2021. "Valuing the ecosystem service benefits from kelp forest restoration: A choice experiment from Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    23. Yuanyuan Gu & Arne Risa Hole & Stephanie Knox, 2013. "Fitting the generalized multinomial logit model in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 13(2), pages 382-397, June.
    24. Liu, Yun & Zhang, Yifei & Chen, Xin & Yang, Yuxin, 2021. "Superstition and farmers’ life insurance spending," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    25. Sachs, Jeffrey D. & Warner, Andrew M., 2001. "The curse of natural resources," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(4-6), pages 827-838, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mulatu, Dawit Woubishet & Alvsilver, Jessica & Siikamäki, Juha, 2019. "Valuing Residents’ Preferences for Improved Urban Green Space Ecosystem Services in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia," EfD Discussion Paper 19-2, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    2. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    3. Invernizzi, Giovanna M. & Miller, Joshua B. & Coen, Tommaso & Dufwenberg, Martin & Oliveira, Luiz Edgard R., 2021. "Tra i Leoni: Revealing the preferences behind a superstition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    4. Yang, Xiaoke & Chen, Qiuhua & Lin, Nenmei & Han, Mengzhu & Chen, Qian & Zheng, Qiuqin & Gao, Bin & Liu, Fengbo & Xu, Zhongyue, 2021. "Chinese consumer preferences for organic labels on Oolong tea: evidence from a choice experiment," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(3), February.
    5. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    6. Wendong Zhang & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Do U.S. Anglers Care about Harmful Algal Blooms? A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lake Erie Recreational Anglers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 868-888.
    7. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    8. Balogh, Péter & Békési, Dániel & Gorton, Matthew & Popp, József & Lengyel, Péter, 2016. "Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-184.
    9. Feil, J.-H. & Anastassiadis, F. & Mußhoff, O. & Kasten, P., 2016. "Analysing Farmers’ Preferences fo Collaborative Arrangements: An Experimental Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 51, March.
    10. Martin, Inès & Vranken, Liesbet & Ugás, Roberto, 2021. "Farmers’ Preferences to Cultivate Threatened Crop Varieties: Evidence from Peru," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315216, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    12. Yuanyuan Gu & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2014. "Estimating Health State Utility Values From Discrete Choice Experiments—A Qaly Space Model Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1098-1114, September.
    13. Keane, Michael & Ketcham, Jonathan & Kuminoff, Nicolai & Neal, Timothy, 2021. "Evaluating consumers’ choices of Medicare Part D plans: A study in behavioral welfare economics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 107-140.
    14. Arne Risa Hole & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "The use of heuristic optimization algorithms to facilitate maximum simulated likelihood estimation of random parameter logit models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(5), pages 997-1013, November.
    15. Ng, Travis & Chong, Terence & Du, Xin, 2010. "The value of superstitions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 293-309, June.
    16. Schaak, H. & Musshoff, O., 2018. "Are public preferences for pasture landscapes heterogeneous? Results of a discrete choice experiment in Germany," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277213, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Völker, Marc & Lienhoop, Nele, 2016. "Exploring group dynamics in deliberative choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 57-67.
    18. Owusu, Rebecca & Dadzie, Samuel Kwesi Ndzebah, 2021. "Heterogeneity in consumer preferences for organic and genetically modified food products in Ghana," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(2), June.
    19. Giacomo Pallante & Adam Drucker, 2014. "Niche Markets for Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Preference and Scale Heterogeneity Effects on Nepalese Consumers’ WTP for Finger Millet Products," SEEDS Working Papers 1414, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    20. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John C. & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2020. "Expert judgements and community values: preference heterogeneity for protecting river ecology in Western Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(2), April.

    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:168:y:2024:i:c:s1389934124001515. 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/forpol .

    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.