Livelihoods and Welfare Impacts of Forest Comanagement

Abstract

Comanagement programmes are gaining popularity among governments as one way of improving rural livelihoods. However, evidence of their effects on the livelihoods and welfare remains unclear. We used the sustainable livelihoods framework and stated preference techniques to assess the livelihoods and welfare impacts of forest comanagement on 213 households in Zomba and Ntchisi districts. The results show that approximately 63% of respondents perceive that, overall, comanagement has had no impact on their livelihoods. However, the programme is enhancing financial capital by introducing externally subsidised income generating activities and human and social capital among some community members through training programmes. A majority of households (80%) are willing to pay annual membership fees to participate in the programme (mean = 812 Malawi Kwacha), because of perceived potential future benefits. Education, gender of the household head, a positive perception of current livelihoods benefits, and a position on the committee increase household willingness to pay membership fees. However, the positive willingness to pay despite the negative perception of overall livelihoods impacts may also demonstrate the weaknesses of relying on stated preference surveys alone in estimating welfare effects.

Perceived barriers to and drivers of community participation in protected‐area governance

“…Although comanaged PAs are typically associated with delivering greater benefits than community-or state-managed PAs (Oldekop et al 2016), local context is also important. Other studies illustrate that comanagement can improve livelihoods because local communities design locally relevant and useful schemes that include income-generating activities, facilitate local lending and savings, and enhance social capital and development of human capital through training (Chinangwa et al 2016). Limiting the costs of conservation interventions to local communities is not just a socioeconomic issue; it can also affect conservation outcomes (Oldekop et al 2016).…”

“…Perceptions of PA‐related benefits and costs are often linked to socioeconomic and geographical variables (Chinangwa et al. ; Diedrich et al. ).…”

“…Perceptions are important in measuring human well-being (Woodhouse et al 2015), understanding and influencing human behaviors (Ajzen 1991), enlisting stakeholders' support (Gurney et al 2015), and minimizing negative impacts of conservation interventions. Perceptions of PA-related benefits and costs are often linked to socioeconomic and geographical variables (Chinangwa et al 2016;Diedrich et al 2017). For example, individuals who perceive PA management as effective are more likely to perceive PA-related benefits (Bragagnolo et al 2016).…”

Plant Regeneration through Callus Cultures from Leaf Explant of Sumatra Benzoin (Styrax benzoin)

“…To improve the quality of Indonesian forest is necessary to produce high-value nontimber forest products. Highly productive trees will become an alternative commodity to the farmers around the forest area, as instead of being logged they will protect the forest areas and increase the welfare of the community [1][2][3][4][5][6]. One of the candidate plants to be preserved is Sumatra Benzoin (Styrax benzoin Dryander).…”

Why we fail: Stakeholders' perceptions of the social and ecological barriers to reforestation in southern Malawi

“…Above the elevation of the villages, the Zomba–Malosa Forest Reserve was subdivided into regional blocks and governed under a co‐management regime. In the wake of government decentralization efforts that took place in the late 1990s, natural resource management agencies and local communities were said to be ‘partnering’ in restoration, landscape management, law enforcement and benefit‐sharing on the reserve lands, though follow‐up studies reported mixed outcomes (Chinangwa, Pullin, & Hockley, 2016; Mwase et al, 2007; Zulu, 2010). The management block of the Zomba–Malosa Forest Reserve that served participants in my focus groups had been heavily degraded by historic and contemporary timber and fuelwood harvesting, and illegal but largely unpoliced agricultural intrusion.…”