Determinants and impact of local institutions for common resource management

Heltberg, Rasmus

doi:10.1017/s1355770x01000110

Cited by 100 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These dimensions might be different for other CPNRs, such as pastures or grasslands, and water resources (drinking water, irrigation water or water for livestock). In addition to the studies by Cavendish (2000) and Angelsen and Wunder (2003), Heltberg (2001) mentions the presence of local institutions. He argues that local institutions managing CPNRs contribute positively to the conservation of CPNRs, but their impacts are often insufficient to safeguard CPNRs from further environmental degradation.…”

Section: Resource Dependencymentioning

confidence: 95%

Household Welfare, Investment in Soil and Water Conservation and Tenure Security: Evidence from Kenya

Kabubo-Mariara

Linderhof²,

Kruseman

et al. 2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Kenya, conservation and sustainable utilization of the environment and natural resources form an integral part of national planning and poverty reduction efforts. However, weak environmental management practices are a major impediment to agricultural productivity growth. This study was motivated by the paucity of literature on the poverty-environment nexus in Kenya, since poverty, agricultural stagnation and environmental degradation are issues of policy interest in the country's development strategy. The paper builds on the few existing studies from Kenya and explores the impact of household, farm and village characteristics as well as the development domain dimensions on household welfare and investment in soil and water conservation. The results show that strengthening the tenure security improves household welfare. Further, soil quality, topography and investments in soil and water conservation affect household welfare. Agroecological potential, which is related to environmental conservation, is also a key correlate of poverty. Results for investment in water and soil conservation confirm the importance of tenure security in determining adoption and also the intensity of SWC investments. We also find that household assets, farm characteristics, presence of village institutions and development domain dimensions are important determinants of adoption and intensity of soil and water conservation investments. The results for both poverty and investment in soil and water conservation suggest the existence of a strong poverty-environment link in our sample. The results also suggest that rural poverty can be alleviated by policies that improve environmental conservation and strengthen land tenure security. The study also underscores the importance of village institutions in both investment adoption of soil and water conservation and in improving household welfare.PREM Working Paper: PREM 06/06

show abstract

Section: Resource Dependencymentioning

confidence: 95%

Household Welfare, Investment in Soil and Water Conservation and Tenure Security: Evidence from Kenya

Kabubo-Mariara

Linderhof²,

Kruseman

et al. 2009

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The soils are predominantly shallow sands of the siallitic group derived from sandstone (Nyamapfene, 1991 (Heltberg, 2001). Wade (1988), Ostrom (1990) and Baland and Platteau (1996) suggested favorable conditions for sustainable governance of common pool resources.…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of non-timber forest products harvesting: Rules and regulations governing (Imbrasia belina) access in South-Eastern Lowveld of Zimbabwe

Mufandaedza¹,

Moyo²,

Makoni³

2015

Afr. J. Agric. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non timber forest products such as Imbrasia belina (mopane worms) provide a wide range of benefits to the rural dwellers in the semi-arid areas of South East Lowveld of Zimbabwe. Rules and regulations governing mopane worm use and access in the study area that comprised of a communal area, resettlement area, small-scale farms and a national game park and the relationship of these rules to harvesting of mopane worms were analysed using questionnaire, observational studies and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA).This paper examines the extent to which access to non-timber forest products especially the harvesting of mopane worms is governed by the existence of institutional arrangements and common property management regimes. The results of the study indicated that possession of a permit is a pre-requisite requirement to harvest timber and non-timber forest products in Gonarezhou National park. Harvesters in Mwenezi resettlement areas and Chikombedzi communal area indicated that rules for mopane worm harvesting were either weak or non-existent. In Gonakudzingwa Small Scale Farms, harvesters had to seek permission from the farm owner before any harvesting of mopane worms could take place. The results from the study showed that there were significant differences in the quantity of mopane worms harvested between Gonarezhou National Park and Chikombedzi Communal Area (p = 0.036), Gonakudzingwa Small Scale Commercial Farms and Chikombedzi Communal Area (p = 0.001), Mwenezi Resettlement Area and Chikombedzi Communal Area (p = 0.001). However, there were no differences between the Gonarezhou National Park, Gonakudzingwa Small Scale Commercial Farms and Mwenezi Resettlement Area. Findings of this study suggest the need for adaptive local management systems that enhance sustainable use of the resource and at the same time regulates the harvesting and the market structure of non-timber forest products.

show abstract

“…Except for select cases like Nepal, where communities opt into a formal, legal community forestry CA program, CA should therefore be analyzed as a multi-faceted continuum rather than a binomial variable where households do or do not participate (Jodha, 2008;Shyamsundar, 2008;Agarwal, 2010;Bluffstone et al, 2008). This approach represents an important extension of past literature (Edmonds 2002;Heltberg 2001) that viewed CA as dichotomous.…”

Section: Community Forest Collective Action and Household Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Heltberg (2001), while forest policies may be group determined, they are given to villagers when they make their day-to-day decisions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Community Forest Collective Action Promote Private Tree Planting? Evidence from Ethiopia

Mekonnen

Bluffstone

2017

IBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In community settings in low-income developing countries better forest management depends on collective action (CA), but if CA really offers better incentives than open access, we should observe behavioral differences across CA levels. In this paper we examine one potential farm-level behavioral effect by trying to isolate and understand the effects of community forest CA on households' incentives to invest in trees located on their own farms. Using a household level analytical model, we find that more stringent forest CA should create incentives for private tree planting as a substitute for overusing community forests. We test this hypothesis using detailed measures of highland Ethiopia forest CA attributes taken directly from the rich CA literature and a variety of empirical specifications. Though we are unable to draw firm conclusions due to the nature of our data, we do find robust evidence across specifications that more effective forest collective action causes households to plant more trees on their farms.

show abstract

Determinants and impact of local institutions for common resource management

Cited by 100 publications

References 25 publications

Household Welfare, Investment in Soil and Water Conservation and Tenure Security: Evidence from Kenya

Household Welfare, Investment in Soil and Water Conservation and Tenure Security: Evidence from Kenya

Management of non-timber forest products harvesting: Rules and regulations governing (Imbrasia belina) access in South-Eastern Lowveld of Zimbabwe

Does Community Forest Collective Action Promote Private Tree Planting? Evidence from Ethiopia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About