IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i7p5894-d1109873.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Socioeconomic Factors on Deforestation in Northern Pakistan: A Study on Existing Economic Incentive Tools for Reducing Deforestation

Author

Listed:
  • Saif Ullah

    (School of Public Administration, Shanxi Agricultural University, Jinzhong 030801, China)

  • Yixiong Wu

    (School of Public Administration, Shanxi Agricultural University, Jinzhong 030801, China)

  • Azeem Iqbal Khan

    (Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan)

Abstract

Deforestation is a common threat to the environment that has a substantial impact on the forest’s distribution across territorial boundaries. It is simply defined as the loss of forest cover, which most commonly occurs as a result of deforestation for various reasons. Pakistan is among those countries which have a very high deforestation rate. This paper analyzes the various socioeconomic factors which cause deforestation in northern Pakistan and the existing economic incentive tools for reducing deforestation. Data collected from 602 respondents were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a logistic regression model, while the Likert scale was used to determine the mean socioeconomic factor score encouraging deforestation and the economic incentives used to reduce deforestation. Gender distributions showed that the majority (65.9%) of the respondents were male while 34.1% were female. On family size, the majority of the respondents (66.8%) had a family size of 5–8. On age, between 21–25 years (46.0%) recorded the highest number. The average age of the respondents was 24 years. Educationally, 13.8% had a master’s education, 11.1% a bachelor’s education, 4.3% no formal education, 5.6% a higher education level, meaning master’s or PhD students, 56.1% had a primary education, and 9.0% had a secondary education. On occupation, the majority (50.4%) of the respondents were involved in farming as their main occupation. On income, the major income recorded a mean of 25,000 net, while the minor income recorded a mean of 15,500 net. Setting the forest ablaze, increasing farming activities, low level of literacy, increasing timber mafia, growing population, and poverty were the socioeconomic factors found. The economic incentives listed were for forest crop subsidies, an enhanced system of taxes on exploited forest products, the acquisition of well-monitored hunting licenses, alternative job opportunities, credit provision, and a limited ban on round log exports. The results of the logit regression established that rewarding socioeconomic factors were statistically significant variables at ( p < 0.05). Conclusively, if adequately controlled and applied, economic incentives can be an important instrument for reducing deforestation. Therefore, deforestation activities cannot be entirely eradicated but they can be reduced to the barest minimum by properly enforcing forest policies in terms of efficient forest policing. The goals of this study are to help with the implementation of appropriate policies and decision-making in forest management, as well as to provide a foundation for future scenario analysis of deforestation potential or to investigate potential environmental and human implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Saif Ullah & Yixiong Wu & Azeem Iqbal Khan, 2023. "Evaluating the Socioeconomic Factors on Deforestation in Northern Pakistan: A Study on Existing Economic Incentive Tools for Reducing Deforestation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:7:p:5894-:d:1109873
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/5894/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/5894/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sylvie Démurger & Martin Fournier & Yang Weiyong, 2009. "Rural households decisions towards income diversification − Evidence from a township in northern China," Post-Print halshs-00957824, HAL.
    2. Gunnar Köhlin & Peter J. Parks, 2001. "Spatial Variability and Disincentives to Harvest: Deforestation and Fuelwood Collection in South Asia," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(2), pages 206-218.
    3. Jorge Hargrave & Krisztina Kis-Katos, 2013. "Economic Causes of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: A Panel Data Analysis for the 2000s," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 471-494, April.
    4. Lubna Hasan, 2007. "An Anatomy of State Failures in Forest Management in Pakistan," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 46(4), pages 1189-1203.
    5. Babulo, Bedru & Muys, Bart & Nega, Fredu & Tollens, Eric & Nyssen, Jan & Deckers, Jozef & Mathijs, Erik, 2009. "The economic contribution of forest resource use to rural livelihoods in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 123-131, March.
    6. Wenseslao Plata-Rocha & Sergio Alberto Monjardin-Armenta & Carlos Eduardo Pacheco-Angulo & Jesus Gabriel Rangel-Peraza & Cuauhtemoc Franco-Ochoa & Zuriel Dathan Mora-Felix, 2021. "Proximate and Underlying Deforestation Causes in a Tropical Basin through Specialized Consultation and Spatial Logistic Regression Modeling," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Lorenzo Pellegrini & Gideon Kruseman, 2008. "Institutions and Forest Management: A Case Study from Swat, Pakistan," Working Papers 2008.42, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Hyde, William F & Amacher, Gregory S & Magrath, William, 1996. "Deforestation and Forest Land Use: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 11(2), pages 223-248, August.
    9. Mark Appiah & Dominic Blay & Lawrence Damnyag & Francis Dwomoh & Ari Pappinen & Olavi Luukkanen, 2009. "Dependence on forest resources and tropical deforestation in Ghana," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 471-487, June.
    10. Sharif Ahmed Mukul & A. Z. M. Manzoor Rashid & Mohammad Belal Uddin & Niaz Ahmed Khan, 2016. "Role of non-timber forest products in sustaining forest-based livelihoods and rural households' resilience capacity in and around protected area: a Bangladesh study†," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(4), pages 628-642, April.
    11. Saif Ullah & Ali Abid & Waqas Aslam & Rana Shahzad Noor & Muhammad Mohsin Waqas & Tian Gang, 2021. "Predicting Behavioral Intention of Rural Inhabitants toward Economic Incentive for Deforestation in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pouliot, Mariève & Treue, Thorsten, 2013. "Rural People’s Reliance on Forests and the Non-Forest Environment in West Africa: Evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-193.
    2. Muhammad Zada & Syed Jamal Shah & Cao Yukun & Tariq Rauf & Naveed Khan & Syed Asad Ali Shah, 2019. "Impact of Small-to-Medium Size Forest Enterprises on Rural Livelihood: Evidence from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Seewald, Eva, 2024. "The environment-poverty nexus using a multidimensional poverty index in rural Vietnamese households," Forschungsberichte der ARL: Aufsätze, in: Finger, Anne & Badelt, Ole & Dahmen, Kathleen & Heilen, Lydia & Mai, Nora & Seegers, Ronja & Seewald (ed.), Transformationsprozesse in Stadt und Land: Erkenntnisse, Strategien und Zukunftsperspektiven, volume 23, pages 184-200, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    4. Taye Melese Mekie & Abebe Birara Dessie & Amsalu Abich Andargie, 2023. "Economic contribution of forest products to household income in Metema district, Ethiopia," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Takahashi, Ryo & Otsuka, Keijiro & Tilahun, Mesfin & Birhane, Emiru & Holden, Stein, 2024. "Beyond Ostrom: Randomized experiment of the impact of individualized tree rights on forest management in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    6. Muhammad Zada & Shagufta Zada & Mudassar Ali & Yongjun Zhang & Abida Begum & Heesup Han & Antonio Ariza-Montes & Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, 2021. "Development of Local Economy through the Strengthening of Small-Medium-Sized Forest Enterprises in KPK, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, September.
    7. Tsegaye T. Gatiso, 2019. "Households’ dependence on community forest and their contribution to participatory forest management: evidence from rural Ethiopia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 181-197, February.
    8. Angelsen, Arild & Jagger, Pamela & Babigumira, Ronnie & Belcher, Brian & Hogarth, Nicholas J. & Bauch, Simone & Börner, Jan & Smith-Hall, Carsten & Wunder, Sven, 2014. "Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 12-28.
    9. Baiyegunhi, L.J.S. & Oppong, B.B., 2016. "Commercialisation of mopane worm (Imbrasia belina) in rural households in Limpopo Province, South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 141-148.
    10. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    11. Zenebe Gebreegziabher & Oskam, Arie j. & Bayou Demeke, 2011. "Urban fuel demand in Ethiopia: an almost-ideal demand system approach," Ethiopian Journal of Economics, Ethiopian Economics Association, vol. 19(1), September.
    12. Gregory S. Amacher & Erkki Koskela & Markku Ollikainen, 2004. "Deforestation, Production Intensity and Land Use under Insecure Property Rights," CESifo Working Paper Series 1128, CESifo.
    13. Mugido, Worship & Shackleton, Charlie M., 2019. "The contribution of NTFPS to rural livelihoods in different agro-ecological zones of South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    14. Ongolo, Symphorien & Giessen, Lukas & Karsenty, Alain & Tchamba, Martin & Krott, Max, 2021. "Forestland policies and politics in Africa: Recent evidence and new challenges," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    15. Piras, Simone & Vittuari, Matteo & Möllers, Judith & Herzfeld, Thomas, 2018. "Remittance inflow and smallholder farming practices. The case of Moldova," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 654-665.
    16. Gil, J.M. & Diaz-Montenegro, J. & Varela, E., 2018. "A Bias-Adjusted Three-Step approach for analysing the livelihood strategies and the asset mix of cacao producers in Ecuador," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277215, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. May Arunanondchai, 2016. "Trade Policy and the Welfare of Southeast-Asian Timber Exporters: Some Implications for Forest Resources," EEPSEA Research Report rr2016056, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Apr 2016.
    18. Edward B. Barbier & Angela Cindy Emefa Mensah & Michelan Wilson, 2023. "Valuing the Environment as Input, Ecosystem Services and Developing Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(3), pages 677-694, March.
    19. Bermudez, Bladimir Carrillo & Santos Branco, Danyelle Karine & Trujillo, Juan Carlos & de Lima, Joao Eustaquio, 2015. "Deforestation and Infant Health: Evidence from an Environmental Conservation Policy in Brazil," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 229064, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Schmook, Birgit & Vance, Colin, 2009. "Agricultural Policy, Market Barriers, and Deforestation: The Case of Mexico's Southern Yucatn," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1015-1025, May.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:7:p:5894-:d:1109873. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.