IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rza/ersawp/248.html

Does One Size Fit All? Heterogeneity in the Valuation of Community Forestry Programs?

Author

Listed:
  • Dambala Gelo
  • Steven F. Koch

Abstract

Through the implementation of a choice experiment valuation exercise, this study set out to identify the set of community plantation attributes that impact the welfare of potential community forestry program participants. We employed a combination of choice models to evaluate the preferences, welfare impacts and choice elasticities associated with alternative community forestry programs, allowing for different assumptions regarding heterogeneity. In line with economic theory, increased participation costs reduced the demand for community forestry, while increases in expected productivity raised the demand. With respect to preferences for the other alternatives considered: type of forest, area enclosure and type of land upon which the forest was to be situated, the results point to significant differences in preferences across the study population, suggesting that programs should be tailored to the communities in which the program is to be implemented.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch, 2011. "Does One Size Fit All? Heterogeneity in the Valuation of Community Forestry Programs?," ERSA Working Paper Series 248, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    • Handle: RePEc:rza:ersawp:248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Meldrum, James R., 2015. "Comparing different attitude statements in latent class models of stated preferences for managing an invasive forest pathogen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 13-22.
    3. repec:rza:wpaper:272 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Carson, Richard T. & DeShazo, J.R. & Schwabe, Kurt A. & Vincent, Jeffrey R. & Ahmad, Ismariah, 2015. "Incorporating local visitor valuation information into the design of new recreation sites in tropical forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 338-349.
    5. Ntuli, Herbert & Muchapondwa, Edwin & Okumu, Boscow, 2020. "Can local communities afford full control over wildlife conservation? The case of Zimbabwe," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    6. Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch, 2011. "Contingent Valuation of Community Forestry Programs in Ethiopia: Observing Preference Anomalies in Double-Bounded CVM," Working Papers 201124, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    7. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2015. "Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 79-89.
    8. Abebe, Gumataw K. & Bijman, Jos & Kemp, Ron & Omta, Onno & Tsegaye, Admasu, 2013. "Contract farming configuration: Smallholders’ preferences for contract design attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 14-24.
    9. Matthew Oliver Ralp Dimal & Victor Jetten, 2020. "Analyzing preference heterogeneity for soil amenity improvements using discrete choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 1323-1351, February.
    10. Zheng, Debin & Long, Yulin & Wei, Yuehua & Cai, Zhenyu & Cheng, Zhiwen & Ao, Changlin, 2025. "Anticipated regret and respondent uncertainty in assessing public preferences for air pollution treatment policies: A choice experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    11. Chengxiang Tang & Yucheng Zhang, 2016. "Using discrete choice experiments to value preferences for air quality improvement: the case of curbing haze in urban China," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(8), pages 1473-1494, August.
    12. Ntuli, Herbert & Okumu, Boscow Odhiambo & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2019. "Can Local Communities Afford Full Control Over Wildlife Conservation? The Case of CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe," EfD Discussion Paper 19-3, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    13. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Kniivilä, Matleena & Pitiot, Maja & Horne, Paula, 2019. "Location of forest plantations in Mozambique: Gains and losses in water, firewood and land availability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    14. Padilla, Emerson Carias & Giuliani, Alessandra & Kanniya, Kang Subhadd & Heang, Vuth Lay & Sokchea, Tol & Hou, Kalyan & Gilliéron, Jérémie, 2025. "Community engagement in the governance of Cambodian recreation forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rza:ersawp:248. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Maggi Sigg (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersawps.org/index.php/working-paper-series/ .

    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.