Comparing opportunity cost measures of forest conservation in Uganda; implications for assessing the distributional impacts of forest management approac hes
Reducing deforestation and forest degradation will mean imposing restrictions on the use of forest resources by households that currently use natural forests to maintain their livelihoods. An emerging issue in forest monitoring is the need to assess social and economic impacts in forest user communities of alternative policy and management approaches. Implicit but often unrecognized in forest management strategies focused on integrating people into forest management is that communities are not homogeneous , implying an important degree of variation in the costs of forest use restrictions across households. Quantitative economic methods are essential to a robust measurement of the real socio-economic impacts of forest management and conservation programs, and to adequately design compensation packages to offset local costs. A key entry point to understanding the scope of impact in design of a forest management program, under conditions of local subsistence use, is assessing the minimum compensation necessary to incentivize forest conservation. Two principal valuation approaches exist, financial and economic. The latter measures both financial and social values; but which approach should we use? The selection of valuation approach can dramatically impact estimates of the compensation required to affect real change in forest conservation. Empirical evidence on the divergence of different value measures are presented for four case study forests under different governance arrangements in Uganda. A contingent valuation (CV) survey was administered alongside a market price (MP) method household survey for park-adjacent households. In the CV survey respondents were asked to state their minimum level of compensation required to forgo access to timber and non-timber forest products from their local protected area for a period of one year, whilst the MP survey estimated total annual household income from all sources e.g. agriculture, livestock and forest access. Data were collected from households in areas adjacent to the forests according to a stratified random sample (n=690). Distributional differences in forest income and welfare values are examined, to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of different valuation approaches for estimating the benefits of forest use. We find that a range of complimentary conclusions can be drawn from the two techniques. Together, they provide contrasting information on the importance of forest income to heterogeneous rural households and they can help assess the potential effectiveness of alternative forest management strategies and governance arrangements.
|Date of creation:||Jun 2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Division of Economics, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland FK9 4LA|
Phone: +44 (0)1786 467473
Fax: +44 (0)1786 467469
Web page: http://www.econ.stir.ac.uk/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Barbier, Edward B., 2007. "Land Conversion, Interspecific Competition, and Bioinvasion in a Tropical Ecosystem," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(October), October.
- Glenn W. Harrison & Ronald M. Harstad & E. Elisabet Rutstr–m, 2004.
"Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values,"
Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 123-140, 06.
- Ruitenbeek, H. Jack, 1992. "The rainforest supply price: a tool for evaluating rainforest conservation expenditures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 57-78, July.
- Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Kopp, Raymond J. & Krosnick, Jon A. & Mitchell, Robert C. & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul A. & Smith, V. Kerry, 1996.
"Was the NOAA Panel Correct about Contingent Valuation?,"
96-21, Duke University, Department of Economics.
- Kopp, Raymond & Smith, V. Kerry & Mitchell, Robert & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul & Hanemann, W. Michael & Krosnick, Jon & Conaway, Michael & Martin, Kerry & Carson, Richard, 1996. "Was the NOAA Panel Correct About Contingent Valuation?," Discussion Papers dp-96-20, Resources For the Future.
- Dale Whittington, 2004. "Ethical Issues with Contingent Valuation Surveys in Developing Countries: A Note on Informed Consent and Other Concerns," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 507-515, August.
- Dale Whittington, 2002.
"Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 323-367, June.
- Dale Whittington, 2007. "Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp200709s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Sep 2007.
- Ben Groom & Charles Palmer, 2008. "Direct vs Indirect Payments for Environmental Services: The Role of Relaxing Market Constraints," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Working Papers 36.2008, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economics, revised 2008.
- Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
- Naughton-Treves, Lisa & Sanderson, Steven, 1995. "Property, politics and wildlife conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1265-1275, August.
- Paul J. Ferraro & R. David Simpson, 2002.
"The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments,"
University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 339-353.
- Rolando Guzman & Charles Kolstad, 2007. "Researching Preferences, Valuation and Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(3), pages 465-487, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:stl:stledp:2011-12. 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: (Liam Delaney)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.