IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i2p91-d483415.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Social Capital in Rural Households’ Perceptions toward the Benefits of Forest Carbon Sequestration Projects: Evidence from a Rural Household Survey in Sichuan and Yunnan Provinces, China

Author

Listed:
  • Lingling Qiu

    (Institute of Forestry and Conservation, John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design, University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3B3, Canada)

  • Weizhong Zeng

    (School of Economics & Southwest Center for Poverty Alleviation and Development Research, Sichuan Agricultural University, #211 Huimin Road, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Shashi Kant

    (Institute of Forestry and Conservation, John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design, University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3B3, Canada
    Institute for Management and Innovation, University of Toronto Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, ON L5L 1C6, Canada)

  • Sen Wang

    (Freshwater Institute, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 501 University Crescent, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N6, Canada)

Abstract

We examined the associations between social capital and rural households’ perceptions toward social, economic, and environmental benefits of forest carbon sequestration projects by employing the proportional odds model based on data collected from a rural household survey in Sichuan and Yunnan Provinces, China. Results revealed that: (i) households’ perceptions toward environmental benefits are more positive than their perceptions toward economic benefits and social benefits, and their perceptions toward economic benefits are more positive than their perceptions toward social benefits; (ii) households having a good relationship with village officials have higher odds of holding more positive perceptions toward social, economic, and environmental benefits of the projects; (iii) households which are members of local associations are more likely to have positive perceptions toward benefits of the projects; (iv) households whose members are more frequently involved in village-level public events are more likely to have more positive perceptions toward benefits of the projects; (v) households having more educated household heads have higher odds of holding better perceptions toward the benefits of FCS projects; and (vi) households of Yunnan Province are less likely to express positive perceptions toward benefits of the projects. Based on the research results, we concluded that social capital is significantly and positively associated with rural households’ perceptions toward benefits of forest carbon sequestration projects. Some policy implications are provided regarding how to make use of social capital elements to shape farmers’ perceptions toward benefits of the projects for the purpose of achieving a higher level of local acceptability for and sustainability of the projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Lingling Qiu & Weizhong Zeng & Shashi Kant & Sen Wang, 2021. "The Role of Social Capital in Rural Households’ Perceptions toward the Benefits of Forest Carbon Sequestration Projects: Evidence from a Rural Household Survey in Sichuan and Yunnan Provinces, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:91-:d:483415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/91/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/91/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lund, Jens Friis & Saito-Jensen, Moeko, 2013. "Revisiting the Issue of Elite Capture of Participatory Initiatives," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    2. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Somville, Vincent & Wahhaj, Zaki, 2014. "Elite capture through information distortion: A theoretical essay," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 250-263.
    3. Yang, Fan & Paudel, Krishna P. & Cheng, Rongzhu & Qiu, Lingling & Zhuang, Tianhui & Zeng, Weizhong, 2018. "Acculturation of rural households participating in a clean development mechanism forest carbon sequestration program: A survey of Yi ethnic areas in Liangshan, China," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 135-145.
    4. Iversen, Vegard & Chhetry, Birka & Francis, Paul & Gurung, Madhu & Kafle, Ghanendra & Pain, Adam & Seeley, Janet, 2006. "High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: Evidence from forest user groups in Nepal's Terai," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 93-107, June.
    5. Pan, Lei & Christiaensen, Luc, 2012. "Who is Vouching for the Input Voucher? Decentralized Targeting and Elite Capture in Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1619-1633.
    6. Nikoleta Jones & Konstantinos Evangelinos & Petros Gaganis & Eugenia Polyzou, 2011. "Citizens’ Perceptions on Water Conservation Policies and the Role of Social Capital," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(2), pages 509-522, January.
    7. Katherine Scrivens & Conal Smith, 2013. "Four Interpretations of Social Capital: An Agenda for Measurement," OECD Statistics Working Papers 2013/6, OECD Publishing.
    8. Mucahid Mustafa Bayrak & Lawal Mohammed Marafa, 2017. "Livelihood Implications and Perceptions of Large Scale Investment in Natural Resources for Conservation and Carbon Sequestration: Empirical Evidence from REDD+ in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-23, October.
    9. Jayashankar, Priyanka & Raju, Sekar, 2020. "The effect of social cohesion and social networks on perceptions of food availability among low-income consumers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 316-323.
    10. Brian E. Whitacre & Jacob L. Manlove, 2016. "Broadband and civic engagement in rural areas: What matters?," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 700-717, October.
    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. Rui Sun & Dayi He & Jingjing Yan & Li Tao, 2021. "Mechanism Analysis of Applying Blockchain Technology to Forestry Carbon Sink Projects Based on the Differential Game Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Lingyu Kong & Xiaodong Xu & Wei Wang & Jinxiu Wu & Meiying Zhang, 2021. "Comprehensive Evaluation and Quantitative Research on the Living Protection of Traditional Villages from the Perspective of “Production–Living–Ecology”," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-25, May.
    3. Zishuo Huang & Yingfang Liu & Jing Gao & Zhenwei Peng, 2022. "Approach for Village Carbon Emissions Index and Planning Strategies Generation Based on Two-Stage Optimization Models," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, 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. Grillos, Tara, 2017. "Participatory Budgeting and the Poor: Tracing Bias in a Multi-Staged Process in Solo, Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 343-358.
    2. Andersson, Krister P. & Smith, Steven M. & Alston, Lee J. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Mwangi, Esther & Larson, Anne M. & de Sassi, Claudio & Sills, Erin O. & Sunderlin, William D. & Wong, Grace Y., 2018. "Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: Implications for REDD+," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 510-522.
    3. Yang Zou & Qingbin Wang, 2022. "Impacts of farmer cooperative membership on household income and inequality: Evidence from a household survey in China," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Buntaine, Mark T. & Daniels, Brigham & Devlin, Colleen, 2018. "Can information outreach increase participation in community-driven development? A field experiment near Bwindi National Park, Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 407-421.
    5. Kahsay, Goytom Abraha & Bulte, Erwin, 2021. "Internal versus top-down monitoring in community resource management: Experimental evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 111-131.
    6. Peter Shapland & Conny J. M. Almekinders & Annemarie Paassen & Cees Leeuwis, 2023. "An Ethnography of Endogenous Institutional Change in Community-Driven Development," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(6), pages 1465-1483, December.
    7. Wilfahrt, Martha, 2018. "The politics of local government performance: Elite cohesion and cross-village constraints in decentralized Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 149-161.
    8. Sheely, Ryan, 2015. "Mobilization, Participatory Planning Institutions, and Elite Capture: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Rural Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 251-266.
    9. Chomba, Susan & Treue, Thorsten & Sinclair, Fergus, 2015. "The political economy of forest entitlements: can community based forest management reduce vulnerability at the forest margin?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 37-46.
    10. Manlove, Jacob & Whitacre, Brian, 2019. "Understanding the trend to mobile-only internet connections:A decomposition analysis," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 76-87.
    11. Yadav, Bhagwan Dutta & Bigsby, Hugh & MacDonald, Ian, 2015. "How can poor and disadvantaged households get an opportunity to become a leader in community forestry in Nepal?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 27-38.
    12. Haroon Sseguya & Robert E. Mazur & Cornelia B. Flora, 2018. "Social capital dimensions in household food security interventions: implications for rural Uganda," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 117-129, March.
    13. Lendie Follett & Heath Henderson, 2022. "A hybrid approach to targeting social assistance," Papers 2201.01356, arXiv.org.
    14. Appau, Yaw & Derkyi, Mercy Afua Adutwumwaa, 2022. "Local communities' knowledge and perception of FLEGT -VPA - insights from Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    15. Bhanot, Syon P. & Han, Jiyoung & Jang, Chaning, 2018. "Workfare, wellbeing and consumption: Evidence from a field experiment with Kenya’s urban poor," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 372-388.
    16. Arhin, Albert Abraham, 2014. "Safeguards and Dangerguards: A Framework for Unpacking the Black Box of Safeguards for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 24-31.
    17. Tasso Adamopoulos & Diego Restuccia, 2014. "The Size Distribution of Farms and International Productivity Differences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(6), pages 1667-1697, June.
    18. Dambala Gelo & Edwin Muchapondwa & Steven F. Koch, 2013. "Do the Poor Benefit from Devolution Policies? Evidences from Quantile Treatment Effect Evaluation of Joint Forest Management," Working Papers 400, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    19. Sam Wong, 2010. "Elite Capture or Capture Elites? Lessons from the 'Counter-elite' and 'Co-opt-elite' Approaches in Bangladesh and Ghana," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2010-082, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    20. Nathan J. Bennett & Jessica Blythe & Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor & Gerald G. Singh & U. Rashid Sumaila, 2019. "Just Transformations to Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-18, July.

    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:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:91-:d:483415. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.