IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/endeec/v5y2000i03p289-308_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuation of community forestry in Ethiopia: a contingent valuation study of rural households

Author

Listed:
  • MEKONNEN, ALEMU

Abstract

Community forestry projects in Ethiopia have been implemented using the top–down approach, which may have contributed to the failure of most of these projects. The so-called community plantations practically belonged to the government and the labour contribution of the local communities in the establishment of the plantations was mainly in exchange for wages. In this paper, we use the contingent valuation method to examine the determinants of the value of community forestry in rural Ethiopia and its feasibility, when the plantations are established, managed, and used by the communities themselves. The value elicitation format used is discrete question with open-ended follow-up which is closer to the market scenario our respondents are familiar with compared, for example, with the single discrete choice format. Unlike most other studies, we use a tobit model with sample selection in the empirical analysis of the bid function to correct for the effect of excluding invalid responses (protest zeros, outliers and missing bids) from the analysis. The analysis of the bid function shows that household size, household income, distance of homestead to proposed place of plantation, number of trees owned and sex of household head are significant variables that explain willingness to pay. We also find that there are significant differences in willingness-to-pay across sites. It is hoped that this study contributes to the limited empirical literature on community forestry in developing countries by indicating some of the conditions under which community plantations will be acceptable and feasible.

Suggested Citation

  • Mekonnen, Alemu, 2000. "Valuation of community forestry in Ethiopia: a contingent valuation study of rural households," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 289-308, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:5:y:2000:i:03:p:289-308_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1355770X00000188/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:cup:endeec:v:5:y:2000:i:03:p:289-308_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ede .

    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.