Working Paper

Community Managed Forest Groups and Preferences for REDD+ Contract Attributes : A Choice Experiment Survey of Communities in Nepal

Mostrar el registro sencillo de la publicación

collection.link.5
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/9
collection.name.5
Policy Research Working Papers
dc.contributor.author
Dissanayake, Sahan T. M.
dc.contributor.author
Jha, Prakash
dc.contributor.author
Adhikari, Bhim
dc.contributor.author
Bista, Rajesh
dc.contributor.author
Bluffstone, Randall
dc.contributor.author
Luintel, Harisharan
dc.contributor.author
Martinsson, Peter
dc.contributor.author
Paudel, Naya Sharma
dc.contributor.author
Somanathan, E.
dc.contributor.author
Toman, Michael
dc.date.accessioned
2015-07-17T13:53:45Z
dc.date.available
2015-07-17T13:53:45Z
dc.date.issued
2015-06
dc.date.lastModified
2021-04-23T14:04:07Z
dc.description.abstract
A significant portion of the world’s forests that are eligible for Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, known as REDD , payments are community managed forests. However, there is little knowledge about preferences of households living in community managed forests for REDD contracts, or the opportunity costs of accepting REDD contracts for these communities. This paper uses a choice experiment survey of rural communities in Nepal to understand respondents’ preferences toward the institutional structure of REDD contracts. The sample is split across communities with community managed forests groups and those without community managed forest groups to see how prior involvement in community managed forest groups affects preferences. The results show that respondents care about how the payments are divided between households and communities, the severity of restrictions on firewood use, the restrictions on grazing, and the fairness of access to community managed forest resources as well as the level of payments. The preferences for REDD contracts are in general similar between community managed and non-community managed forest resource respondents, but there are differences, in particular with regard to how beliefs influence the likelihood of accepting the contracts. Finally, the paper finds that the opportunity cost of REDD payments, although cheaper than many other carbon dioxide abatement options, is higher than previously suggested in the literature.
en
dc.identifier
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/06/24683193/community-managed-forest-groups-preferences-redd-contract-attributes-choice-experiment-survey-communities-nepal
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/22190
dc.language
English
dc.language.iso
en_US
dc.publisher
World Bank, Washington, DC
dc.relation.ispartofseries
Policy Research Working Paper;No. 7326
dc.rights
CC BY 3.0 IGO
dc.rights.holder
World Bank
dc.rights.uri
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/
dc.subject
WOOD
dc.subject
FOREST DEGRADATION
dc.subject
COMMUNITY FORESTS
dc.subject
FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
dc.subject
GREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENT COST
dc.subject
TEMPERATURE
dc.subject
CARBON DIOXIDE
dc.subject
FOREST MANAGEMENT
dc.subject
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
dc.subject
FORESTRY SECTOR
dc.subject
CARBON
dc.subject
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH
dc.subject
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
dc.subject
TIMBER
dc.subject
FOREST CARBON SEQUESTRATION
dc.subject
FORESTRY PROJECT
dc.subject
EMISSIONS
dc.subject
BIOGAS
dc.subject
ATMOSPHERE
dc.subject
FOREST AREAS
dc.subject
INCENTIVES
dc.subject
INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCH
dc.subject
GAS
dc.subject
GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GAS
dc.subject
FORESTRY PROGRAM
dc.subject
TREES
dc.subject
GREENHOUSE GAS
dc.subject
FOREST MONITORING
dc.subject
FERTILIZERS
dc.subject
LOSS OF FOREST
dc.subject
BIOMASS
dc.subject
FOREST REVENUE
dc.subject
FOREST USER
dc.subject
CO2
dc.subject
FOREST PRODUCTS
dc.subject
FOREST SECTOR
dc.subject
FORESTRY TRAINING
dc.subject
FOREST POLICY
dc.subject
MANAGED FORESTS
dc.subject
CAPACITY
dc.subject
FIREWOOD
dc.subject
FOREST USERS
dc.subject
FOREST INVENTORY
dc.subject
CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
dc.subject
BIODIVERSITY
dc.subject
CARBON SEQUESTRATION
dc.subject
CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
dc.subject
LAND DEGRADATION
dc.subject
NATIONAL FORESTRY
dc.subject
FORESTRY
dc.subject
FOREST ECOSYSTEM
dc.subject
FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT
dc.subject
DEGRADED FOREST
dc.subject
TROPICAL REGIONS
dc.subject
FOREST RESOURCES
dc.subject
FOREST LOSS
dc.subject
FOREST SECTOR POLICY
dc.subject
GAS EMISSIONS
dc.subject
UNEP
dc.subject
FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
dc.subject
ABATEMENT COST
dc.subject
CARBON EMISSIONS
dc.subject
FOREST CARBON
dc.subject
FOREST ENVIRONMENT
dc.subject
GREENHOUSE
dc.subject
EMISSION
dc.subject
ECOSYSTEM
dc.subject
LEAD
dc.subject
GREENHOUSE GAS ABATEMENT
dc.subject
FORESTRY RESEARCH
dc.subject
CLIMATE CHANGE
dc.subject
FORESTRY DIVISION
dc.subject
DEFORESTATION
dc.subject
CLIMATE
dc.subject
FORESTS
dc.subject
FOREST CARBON STOCKS
dc.subject
FOREST OFFICE
dc.subject
AGRICULTURE
dc.subject
FOREST
dc.subject
AGRICULTURAL LAND
dc.subject
FOREST USE
dc.subject
RAINFOREST
dc.subject
FOREST RESOURCE
dc.subject
FORESTRY PROJECTS
dc.subject
COMMUNITY FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
dc.subject
FOREST LANDS
dc.subject
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
dc.subject
FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
dc.subject
WEATHER PATTERNS
dc.subject
FORESTRY PROGRAMS
dc.subject
DEGRADATION
dc.subject
FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
dc.subject
LAND
dc.subject
COST OF CARBON
dc.subject
FOREST ACT
dc.subject
EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION
dc.subject
WATERSHED
dc.subject
FOREST PROTECTION
dc.subject
FOREST BIOMASS
dc.subject
ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS
dc.subject
FOREST PATCHES
dc.subject
CONTROLLED FORESTS
dc.subject
FOREST REGULATION
dc.subject
CARBON STOCKS
dc.subject
ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATIONS
dc.subject
COMMUNITY FORESTRY
dc.subject
TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS
dc.subject
COUNTRY FORESTS
dc.subject
LESS
dc.subject
NATIONAL FOREST AREA
dc.subject
RATE OF DEFORESTATION
dc.subject
FOREST FUND
dc.subject
FOREST TYPES
dc.subject
COMMUNITY FOREST
dc.subject
FOREST QUALITY
dc.subject
FOREST AREA
dc.subject
GLOBAL FOREST
dc.subject
FOREST GOVERNANCE
dc.subject
FOREST PRODUCT
dc.subject
FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
dc.subject
PRICES
dc.subject
BENEFITS
dc.subject
ENERGY
dc.subject
FOREST FUNDS
dc.subject
FOREST ACCESS
dc.subject
community forestry
dc.title
Community Managed Forest Groups and Preferences for REDD+ Contract Attributes
en
dc.title.subtitle
A Choice Experiment Survey of Communities in Nepal
en
dc.type
Working Paper
en
okr.crosscuttingsolutionarea
Climate Change
okr.date.disclosure
2015-06-22
okr.doctype
Publications & Research
okr.doctype
Publications & Research :: Policy Research Working Paper
okr.docurl
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/06/24683193/community-managed-forest-groups-preferences-redd-contract-attributes-choice-experiment-survey-communities-nepal
okr.globalpractice
Environment and Natural Resources
okr.googlescholar.linkpresent
yes
okr.identifier.doi
10.1596/1813-9450-7326
okr.identifier.externaldocumentum
090224b082f762a9_1_0
okr.identifier.internaldocumentum
24683193
okr.identifier.report
WPS7326
okr.language.supported
en
okr.pdfurl
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2015/06/22/090224b082f762a9/1_0/Rendered/PDF/Community0mana0communities0in0Nepal.pdf
en
okr.region.administrative
South Asia
okr.region.country
Nepal
okr.topic
Environment :: Climate Change and Environment
okr.topic
Environment :: Forests and Forestry
okr.topic
Energy :: Energy and Natural Resources
okr.topic
Environment :: Climate Change Mitigation and Green House Gases
okr.topic
Environment :: Environmental Economics & Policies
okr.topic
Environment :: Environmental Management
okr.unit
Environment and Energy Team, Development Research Group

Mostrar el registro sencillo de la publicación



Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)