IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v78y2018icp266-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes

Author

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

Abstract

Successful implementation of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) projects depends on active support and participation by local households. It has been suggested that households’ support for REDD+ could be influenced by their socio-economic conditions, their experience with REDD+ projects and local forest management regimes. However, there has been little information about the effect of such contextual factors on public preference for REDD+ projects. Using a choice experiment survey in Indonesia, this paper examines heterogeneity on household preferences for REDD+ projects among three distinct forest management regimes: private, government, and community. We found that respondents in community regime are the most supportive for REDD+ projects whereas those in private regime are the least supportive. Current REDD+ interventions also have heterogeneous impacts on household preferences across forest management regimes. Added restrictions on forest-dependent livelihoods under REDD+ projects is the biggest concern of participating households; however, we note that involving households in decision-making and distributing REDD+ benefit for community projects could create a supportive environment for REDD+ projects. Female respondents from households with larger family size and limited land ownership are more likely to support REDD+ projects. These findings provide useful insights to design more targeted REDD+ projects.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:78:y:2018:i:c:p:266-277
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717313418
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.004?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. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    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. Sikor, Thomas & He, Jun & Lestrelin, Guillaume, 2017. "Property Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis Revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 337-349.
    4. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    5. Abhilas Pradhan & Rabinarayan Patra, 2013. "Heterogeneity, collective action and management sustainability in common property forest resources: case study from the Indian state Odisha," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 979-997, August.
    6. 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.
    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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    9. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    10. Dunlop, Tessa & Corbera, Esteve, 2016. "Incentivizing REDD+: How developing countries are laying the groundwork for benefit-sharing," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 44-54.
    11. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Beyene,Abebe Damte & Bluffstone,Randall & Gebreegziabher, Zenebe & Martinsson,Peter & Mekonnen,Alemu & Toman,Michael A. & Vieider,Ferdinand M., 2015. "Preferences for REDD+ contract attributes in low-income countries : a choice experiment in Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7296, The World Bank.
    12. Bluffstone, Randy & Robinson, Elizabeth & Guthiga, Paul, 2013. "REDD+and community-controlled forests in low-income countries: Any hope for a linkage?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-52.
    13. Perez-Cirera, Vanessa & Lovett, Jon C., 2006. "Power distribution, the external environment and common property forest governance: A local user groups model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 341-352, September.
    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. Skutsch, Margaret & Balderas Torres, Arturo & Carrillo Fuentes, Juan Carlos, 2017. "Policy for pro-poor distribution of REDD+ benefits in Mexico: How the legal and technical challenges are being addressed," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 58-66.
    17. Louviere, Jordan J & Hensher, David A, 1983. "Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(3), pages 348-361, December.
    18. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    19. Mohammed, Essam, 2011. "Pro-poor benefit distribution in REDD+: Who gets what and why does it matter?," MPRA Paper 43648, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. 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.
    21. Beyene, Abebe D. & Bluffstone, Randall & Mekonnen, Alemu, 2016. "Community forests, carbon sequestration and REDD+: evidence from Ethiopia," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 249-272, April.
    22. 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.
    23. Balderas Torres, Arturo & MacMillan, Douglas C. & Skutsch, Margaret & Lovett, Jon C., 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services and rural development: Landowners' preferences and potential participation in western Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 72-81.
    24. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    25. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L. & Alló, Maria & Barrio, Melina, 2016. "Ecosystem Services and REDD: Estimating the Benefits of Non-Carbon Services in Worldwide Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 246-261.
    26. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Jha,Prakash & Adhikari,Bhim & Bista,Rajesh & Bluffstone,Randall & uintel,Harisharan & Martinsson,Peter & Paudel,Naya Sharma & Somanathan,E. & Toman,Michael A., 2015. "Community managed forest groups and preferences for REDD contract attributes: a choice experiment survey of communities in Nepal," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7326, The World Bank.
    27. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    28. Arianne de Blaeij & Paulo Nunes & Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh, 2007. "'No-choice' options within a nested logit model: one model is insufficient," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(10), pages 1245-1252.
    29. Kim, Yeon-Su & Bae, Jae Soo & Fisher, Larry A. & Latifah, Sitti & Afifi, Mansur & Lee, Soo Min & Kim, In-Ae, 2016. "Indonesia's Forest Management Units: Effective intermediaries in REDD+ implementation?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 69-77.
    30. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Larsen, Helle O. & Jones, Julia P.G. & Nielsen, Martin R. & Ramamonjisoa, Bruno S. & Mandimbiniaina, Rina H. & Hockley, Neal, 2017. "Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence on the True Local Welfare Costs of Forest Conservation in Madagascar: Are Discrete Choice Experiments a Valid ex ante Tool?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 478-491.
    31. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Ma, Chunbo & Iftekhar, Sayed, 2017. "The costs and benefits of REDD+: A review of the literature," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 103-111.
    32. Oyono, Phil Rene & Kouna, Charlotte & Mala, William, 2005. "Benefits of forests in Cameroon. Global structure, issues involving access and decision-making hiccoughs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 357-368, 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. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram, 2020. "Reviewing social forestry schemes in Indonesia: Opportunities and challenges," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).

    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. "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.
    2. Mat Alipiah, Roseliza & Anang, Zuraini & Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub & Smart, James C. R. & Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie, 2018. "Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(2), pages 253-266.
    3. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    4. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    5. John C. Whitehead & Daniel K. Lew, 2020. "Estimating recreation benefits through joint estimation of revealed and stated preference discrete choice data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2009-2029, April.
    6. 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).
    7. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Astrid Kiil & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Soccer Attendees’ Preferences for Facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 179-199, April.
    8. Yvonne Hargita & Lukas Giessen & Sven Günter, 2020. "Similarities and Differences between International REDD+ and Transnational Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Initiatives—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-33, January.
    9. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    10. Admasu, Wubante Fetene & Van Passel, Steven & Nyssen, Jan & Minale, Amare Sewnet & Tsegaye, Enyew Adgo, 2021. "Eliciting farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for land use attributes in Northwest Ethiopia: A discrete choice experiment study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Beyene,Abebe Damte & Bluffstone,Randall & Gebreegziabher, Zenebe & Martinsson,Peter & Mekonnen,Alemu & Toman,Michael A. & Vieider,Ferdinand M., 2015. "Preferences for REDD+ contract attributes in low-income countries : a choice experiment in Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7296, The World Bank.
    12. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    13. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    16. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    20. Anthony PARIS & Pascal GASTINEAU & Pierre-Alexandre MAHIEU & Benoît CHEZE, 2020. "Citizen involvement in the energy transition: Highlighting the role played by the spatial heterogeneity of preferences in the public acceptance of biofuels," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 2828, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.

    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:lauspo:v:78:y:2018:i:c:p:266-277. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.