IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v13y2011i4p242-257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social acceptability of alternative forest regimes in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, using stakeholder attitudes as metrics of uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Kijazi, Martin Herbert
  • Kant, Shashi

Abstract

The study evaluates social acceptability of three alternative forest management regimes: state-controlled management; community-based management; and collaborative management involving multiple stakeholders. Villagers, foresters, park employees, entrepreneurs and environmentalists were surveyed. A fuzzy-logic based possibility schema for evaluation of forest stakeholder attitudes is developed, and empirically used to investigate stakeholder attitudes towards these alternative forest regimes in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Non-parametric statistical analysis is used to draw statistical inferences. The three regimes are ranked based on efficiency, justice, and (un)certainty criteria. The results indicate that the conventional bureaucratic forest regime is falling out of favor in the interests of multi-stakeholders forest management. Due to strategic significance of Mount Kilimanjaro forest resources, and diverse interests of multi-stakeholders (local to global), complete devolution of power to local communities did not gunner an overall favorable social acceptability, either, among the surveyed stakeholders. The findings, however, support a strong desire for increased societal participation in the form of collaborative multi-stakeholder forest management. This outcome calls for significant policy changes to increase participation, as well as harmonization of values and institutions of different stakeholders as a pre-requisite for negotiation among the stakeholders in Mount Kilimanjaro who seek to co-ordinate their activities for sustainable forest management.

Suggested Citation

  • Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2011. "Social acceptability of alternative forest regimes in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, using stakeholder attitudes as metrics of uncertainty," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 242-257, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:4:p:242-257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(10)00168-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    3. Richard Gauld, 2000. "Maintaining Centralized Control in Community‐based Forestry: Policy Construction in the Philippines," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 31(1), pages 229-254, January.
    4. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, March.
    5. Zimmermann, H. -J., 2000. "An application-oriented view of modeling uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 190-198, April.
    6. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2010. "Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 357-369, June.
    7. Kant, Shashi, 2004. "Economics of sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 197-203, June.
    8. Ells, A & Bulte, E & van Kooten, G-C., 1995. "Uncertainty and Forest Land Use Allocation in British Columbia : Vague Priorities and Imprecise Coefficients," Mansholt Working Papers 1995-04, Wageningen University, Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences.
    9. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    10. RogerS, Martin & Bruen, Michael, 1998. "A new system for weighting environmental criteria for use within ELECTRE III," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 552-563, June.
    11. B. Fine & K. Fine, 1974. "Social Choice and Individual Rankings II," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(4), pages 459-475.
    12. Shashi Kant & R. Albert Berry, 2001. "A Theoretical Model of Optimal Forest Resource Regimes in Developing Economies," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 157(2), pages 331-355, June.
    13. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.
    14. Kant, Shashi & Lee, Susan, 2004. "A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 215-227, June.
    15. Arun Agrawal & Elinor Ostrom, 2001. "Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal," Politics & Society, , vol. 29(4), pages 485-514, December.
    16. Rogers, Martin & Bruen, Michael, 1998. "Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 542-551, June.
    17. Musselwhite, Gary & Herath, Gamini, 2004. "A chaos theory interpretation of community perceptions of Australian forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(6), pages 595-604, October.
    18. B. Fine & K. Fine, 1974. "Social Choice and Individual Ranking I," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(3), pages 303-322.
    19. Ells, A. & Bulte, E.H. & van Kooten, G.C., 1997. "Uncertainty and forest land use in British Columbia : Vague preferences and imprecise coefficients," Other publications TiSEM 7ec50f74-1a54-4827-9a2e-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Elliott, Chris & Schlaepfer, Rodolphe, 2001. "Understanding forest certification using the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3-4), pages 257-266, July.
    21. Juha M. Alho & Jyrki Kangas & Osmo Kolehmainen, 1996. "Uncertainty in Expert Predictions of the Ecological Consequences of Forest Plans," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 45(1), pages 1-14, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gebregziabher, Dawit & Soltani, Arezoo, 2019. "Exclosures in people’s minds: perceptions and attitudes in the Tigray region, Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Vikram S. Negi & R.K. Maikhuri, 2017. "Forest resources consumption pattern in Govind Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Himalaya, India," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(7), pages 1235-1252, July.
    3. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2011. "Evaluation of welfare functions of environmental amenities: A case of forest biomass fuels in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 129-139.
    4. Khan, M. Ali, 2016. "On a forest as a commodity and on commodification in the discipline of forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 7-17.
    5. Sirivongs, Khamfeua & Tsuchiya, Toshiyuki, 2012. "Relationship between local residents' perceptions, attitudes and participation towards national protected areas: A case study of Phou Khao Khouay National Protected Area, central Lao PDR," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 92-100.
    6. de Castro, Mónica & Urios, Vicente, 2017. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making in protected areas," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(02), January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2010. "Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 357-369, June.
    2. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, March.
    3. Sugimura, Ken & Howard, Theodore E., 2008. "Incorporating social factors to improve the Japanese forest zoning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 161-173, January.
    4. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2011. "Evaluation of welfare functions of environmental amenities: A case of forest biomass fuels in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 129-139.
    5. Shabani, Nazanin & Akhtari, Shaghaygh & Sowlati, Taraneh, 2013. "Value chain optimization of forest biomass for bioenergy production: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 299-311.
    6. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.
    7. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    8. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    9. Rahman, Tauhidur & Mittelhammer, Ronald C. & Wandschneider, Philip R., 2004. "A Latent Variable Mimic Approach To Inferring The Quality Of Life," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20351, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Dasgupta, Partha, 2000. "Valuation and evaluation: measuring the quality of life and evaluating policy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6657, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Rahman, Tauhidur & Mittelhammer, Ronald C. & Wandschneider, Philip R., 2003. "A Sensitivity Analysis Of Quality Of Life Indices Across Countries," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22045, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. McMorris, F.R. & Mulder, Henry Martyn & Novick, Beth & Powers, Robert C., 2021. "Majority rule for profiles of arbitrary length, with an emphasis on the consistency axiom," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 164-174.
    13. Chandra, Siddharth, 2002. "Race, Inequality, and Anti-Chinese Violence in the Netherlands Indies," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 88-112, January.
    14. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    15. Sabyasachi Tripathi, 2013. "Is Urban Economic Growth Inclusive in India?," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 7(4), pages 507-539, November.
    16. Tauhidur Rahman & Ron C. Mittelhammer & Philip Wandschneider, 2005. "Measuring the Quality of Life Across Countries: a Sensitivity Analysis of Well-Being Indices," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2005-06, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    17. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 373-386, August.
    18. Ridha Chkoundali & Houda Haffoudhi & Houda Abdenneji, 2011. "Institutional Sphere Contribution to Human Development: An Institutional Approach," Working Papers 629, Economic Research Forum, revised 09 Jan 2011.
    19. Elsasser, Peter, 2007. "Do "stakeholders" represent citizen interests? An empirical inquiry into assessments of policy aims in the National Forest Programme for Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1018-1030, May.
    20. Dasgupta, Partha, 2000. "Valuation and Evaluation: Measuring the Quality of Life and Evaluating Policy," Discussion Papers 10560, Resources for the Future.

    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:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:4:p:242-257. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.