IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v53y2012i1p73-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socioeconomic Impacts of Public Forest Policies on Heterogeneous Agricultural Households

Author

Listed:
  • Bhubaneswor Dhakal

    ()

  • Hugh Bigsby

    ()

  • Ross Cullen

    ()

Abstract

Nepal has a long history of returning public forests to local people as part of its community forestry programme. In principle the community forestry programme is designed to address both environmental quality and poverty alleviation. However, concern has been expressed that forest policies emphasise environmental conservation, and that this has a detrimental impact on the use of community forests in rural Nepal where households require access to public forest products to sustain livelihoods. To study the effect of government policies on forest use, an economic model of a typical small community of economically heterogeneous households in Nepal was developed. The model incorporates a link between private agriculture and public forest resources, and uses this link to assess the socioeconomic impacts of forest policies on the use of public forests. Socioeconomic impacts were measured in terms of household income, employment and income inequality. The results show that some forest policies have a negative economic impact, and the impacts are more serious than those reported by other studies. This study shows that existing forest policies reduce household income and employment, and widen income inequalities within communities, compared to alternative policies. Certain forest policies even constrain the poorest households’ ability to meet survival needs. The findings indicate that the socioeconomic impacts of public forest policies may be underestimated in developing countries unless household economic heterogeneity and forestry’s contribution to production are accounted for. The study also demonstrates that alternative policies for managing common property resources would reduce income inequalities in rural Nepalese communities and lift incomes and employment to a level where even the poorest households could meet their basic needs. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Bhubaneswor Dhakal & Hugh Bigsby & Ross Cullen, 2012. "Socioeconomic Impacts of Public Forest Policies on Heterogeneous Agricultural Households," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(1), pages 73-95, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:53:y:2012:i:1:p:73-95
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-012-9548-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-012-9548-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Varughese, George & Ostrom, Elinor, 2001. "The Contested Role of Heterogeneity in Collective Action: Some Evidence from Community Forestry in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 747-765, May.
    2. Adhikari, Bhim & Williams, Frances & Lovett, Jon C., 2007. "Local benefits from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 464-478, January.
    3. Alig, Ralph J. & Adams, Darius M. & McCarl, Bruce A., 1998. "Impacts of Incorporating Land Exchanges Between Forestry and Agriculture in Sector Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(02), pages 389-401, December.
    4. Anthon, Signe & Lund, Jens Friis & Helles, Finn, 2008. "Targeting the poor: Taxation of marketed forest products in developing countries," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 197-224, June.
    5. S. Mansoob Murshed & Scott Gates, 2005. "Spatial–Horizontal Inequality and the Maoist Insurgency in Nepal," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 121-134, February.
    6. Karky, Bhaskar Singh & Skutsch, Margaret, 2010. "The cost of carbon abatement through community forest management in Nepal Himalaya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 666-672, January.
    7. Adhikari, Bhim & Di Falco, Salvatore & Lovett, Jon C., 2004. "Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 245-257, February.
    8. Maskey, Vishakha & Gebremedhin, Tesfa G. & Dalton, Timothy J., 2006. "Social and cultural determinants of collective management of community forest in Nepal," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 261-274, January.
    9. Stenberg, Luz Centeno & Siriwardana, Mahinda, 2007. "Forest conservation in the Philippines: An economic assessment of selected policy responses using a computable general equilibrium model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 671-693, February.
    10. Bardhan, Pranab & Udry, Christopher, 1999. "Development Microeconomics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198773719.
    11. Baland, Jean-Marie & Platteau, Jean-Philippe, 1999. "The Ambiguous Impact of Inequality on Local Resource Management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 773-788, May.
    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. Utkur Djanibekov & Asia Khamzina, 2016. "Stochastic Economic Assessment of Afforestation on Marginal Land in Irrigated Farming System," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(1), pages 95-117, January.
    2. Vallino, Elena & Aldahsev,Gani, 2013. "NGOs and participatory conservation in developing countries: why are there inefficiencies?," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201318, University of Turin.
    3. Djanibekov, Utkur & Villamor, Grace, 2015. "Spillover effects of market-based instruments under revenue uncertainty in Jambi Province, Indonesia," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211578, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:kap:enreec:v:53:y:2012:i:1:p:73-95. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Mallaigh Nolan). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.