IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lnd/wpaper/200834.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An evaluation of the impact of the Natural Forest Protection Programme on Rural Household Livelihoods

Author

Listed:
  • Katrina Mullan

    (University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy)

  • Andreas Kontoleon

    (University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy)

  • Tim Swanson

    (University College London, Department Economics and School of Laws)

  • Shiqiu Zhang

    (Peking University, College of Environmental Sciences)

Abstract

In this paper, we estimate the impact on local household livelihoods of the Natural Forest Protection Programme (NFPP), the largest logging ban programme in the world that aims to protect watershed and conserve natural forests. In doing so we use a series of policy evaluation micro-econometric techniques to assess the impacts of the NFPP on two interrelated facets of household livelihoods, namely income and off farm labour supply. We find that the NFPP has had a negative impact on incomes from timber harvesting but has actually had a positive impact on total household incomes from all sources. Further, we find that off farm labour supply has increased more rapidly in NFPP areas than non-NFPP areas. This result is strongest for employment outside the village. On the basis of these results policy implications for household livelihoods are drawn.

Suggested Citation

  • Katrina Mullan & Andreas Kontoleon & Tim Swanson & Shiqiu Zhang, 2008. "An evaluation of the impact of the Natural Forest Protection Programme on Rural Household Livelihoods," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Working Papers 34.2008, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economics, revised 2008.
    • Handle: RePEc:lnd:wpaper:200834
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.landecon.cam.ac.uk/RePEc/pdf/200834.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Natural Forest Protection Programme; policy evaluation; difference in differences; propensity score matching; China; income impacts; off farm labour;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:lnd:wpaper:200834. 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: Unai Pascual (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dlcamuk.html .

    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.