Ändra sökning
RefereraExporteraLänk till posten
Permanent länk

Direktlänk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Welfare and forest cover impacts of incentive based conservation: Evidence from Kenyan community forest associations
University of Cape Town, School of Economics, Private Bag Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa; EfD-Kenya, School of Economics, University of Nairobi, Kenya; The National Treasury and Planning, Kenya.
Luleå tekniska universitet, Institutionen för ekonomi, teknik och samhälle, Samhällsvetenskap. University of Cape Town, School of Economics, Private Bag Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID-id: 0000-0002-3400-7548
2020 (Engelska)Ingår i: World Development, ISSN 0305-750X, E-ISSN 1873-5991, Vol. 129, artikel-id 104890Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper examines whether offering landless forest-adjacent communities options to grow appropriate food crops inside forest reserves during early stages of reforestation programmes increases incomes of low-income households and conserve forests. We consider the forest cover and household welfare impacts of a unique incentive scheme in Kenya known as the Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme (PELIS). PELIS seeks to deepen community participation in forestry, and improve the livelihoods of adjacent communities. Using cross sectional data collected from 22 Community Forest Associations and 406 households, we use propensity score matching methods to evaluate the mean impact of the scheme on forest cover and household welfare. We also assess the heterogeneous impacts of the scheme on household welfare using an endogenous quantile treatment effects model. The results show that on average, PELIS has a significant and positive impact on the welfare of participating households (estimated between 15.09% and 28.14%) and on forest cover (between 5.53% and 7.94%). However, the scheme cannot be defended on equity grounds as it has inequitable distributional impacts on household welfare. The scheme raises welfare of groups other than the poorest and marginalized sections of the community. Our observations from the field blame elite capture for this outcome.

Ort, förlag, år, upplaga, sidor
Elsevier, 2020. Vol. 129, artikel-id 104890
Nyckelord [en]
Household welfare, Heterogeneity, Selection, Matching, QTE
Nationell ämneskategori
Nationalekonomi
Forskningsämne
Nationalekonomi
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-77524DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104890ISI: 000519652400033Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85078177941OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-77524DiVA, id: diva2:1388637
Anmärkning

Validerad;2020;Nivå 2;2020-01-27 (johcin)

Tillgänglig från: 2020-01-27 Skapad: 2020-01-27 Senast uppdaterad: 2025-04-23Bibliografiskt granskad

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltext saknas i DiVA

Övriga länkar

Förlagets fulltextScopus

Person

Muchapondwa, Edwin

Sök vidare i DiVA

Av författaren/redaktören
Muchapondwa, Edwin
Av organisationen
Samhällsvetenskap
I samma tidskrift
World Development
Nationalekonomi

Sök vidare utanför DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetricpoäng

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 63 träffar
RefereraExporteraLänk till posten
Permanent länk

Direktlänk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf