livelihoods and welfare impacts of forest comanagement
Clicks: 347
ID: 176283
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
347 views
69 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #5 of 35 articles by views in bio systems
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Comanagement programmes are gaining popularity among governments as one way of improving rural livelihoods. However, evidence of their effects on the livelihoods and welfare remains unclear. We used the sustainable livelihoods framework and stated preference techniques to assess the livelihoods and welfare impacts of forest comanagement on 213 households in Zomba and Ntchisi districts. The results show that approximately 63% of respondents perceive that, overall, comanagement has had no impact on their livelihoods. However, the programme is enhancing financial capital by introducing externally subsidised income generating activities and human and social capital among some community members through training programmes. A majority of households (80%) are willing to pay annual membership fees to participate in the programme (mean = 812 Malawi Kwacha), because of perceived potential future benefits. Education, gender of the household head, a positive perception of current livelihoods benefits, and a position on the committee increase household willingness to pay membership fees. However, the positive willingness to pay despite the negative perception of overall livelihoods impacts may also demonstrate the weaknesses of relying on stated preference surveys alone in estimating welfare effects.
| Reference Key |
chinangwa2016internationallivelihoods
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Linda Chinangwa;Andrew S. Pullin;Neal Hockley |
| Journal | bio systems |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.1155/2016/5847068
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.