Production efficiency of community forest management in Nepal

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 50, Issue , 2015, Pages 172-179

  Chand, Narendra ^a   Kerr, Geoffrey N ^b   Bigsby, Hugh ^b  

^a REDD Forestry and Climate Change Cell   (Nepal)

^b LINCOLN UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Community forestry; Nepal; Production efficiency; Stochastic frontier

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEMS; EFFICIENCY; SOIL CONSERVATION; STOCHASTIC SYSTEMS; TIMBER;

COMMUNITY FOREST USER GROUPS; COMMUNITY FORESTRY; COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS; NEPAL; PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY; STOCHASTIC FRONTIER;

FORESTRY;

EFFICIENCY; ENVIRONMENTS; FORESTRY; NEPAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; PRODUCTION;

EID: 84919444425     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Acharya U., Petheram R.J., Reid R. Concepts and perceptions of biodiversity in community forestry, Nepal. Small Scale For. 2004, 3:401-410.
2. Adhikari B. Poverty, property rights and collective action: understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2005, 10:7-31.
3. Adhikari B. Transaction costs and community-based natural resource management in Nepal. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 78:5-15.
4. Adhikari B., Lovett J.C. Institutions and collective action: Does heterogeneity matter in community-based resource management?. J. Dev. Stud. 2006, 42:426-445.
5. Adhikari B., Di Falco S., Lovett J.C. Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48:245-257.
6. Agrawal A. Small is beautiful, but is larger better? forest management institutions in the Kumaon Himalaya, India. People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance 2000, 57-85. The MIT press, London. C.C. Gibson, M.A. McKean, E. Ostrom (Eds.).
7. Agrawal A. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev. 2001, 29:1649-1672.
8. Agrawal A. Common property, forest management and the Indian Himalaya. Contrib. Indian Sociol. 2001, 35:181-212.
9. Agrawal A., Chhatre A. Explaining success on the commons: community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Dev. 2006, 34:149-166.
10. Agrawal A., Gupta K. Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal's Terai. World Dev. 2005, 33:1101-1114.
11. Agrawal A., Yadama G. How do local institutions mediate market and population pressures on resources? Forest Panchayats in Kumaon, India. Dev. Chang. 1997, 28:435-465.
12. Alphonce C.B. Application of the analytic hierarchy process in agriculture in developing countries. Agric. Syst. 1997, 53:97-112.
13. Baland J.M., Platteau J.P. Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? 1996, Oxford University Press, New York.
14. Bardhan P. Analytics of the institutions of informal cooperation in rural development. World Dev. 1993, 21:633-639.
15. Bardhan P. Water community: an empirical analysis of cooperation on irrigation in South India. Communities Markets Econ. Dev. 2001, 247-264.
16. Bera A.K., Sharma S.C. Estimating production uncertainty in stochastic frontier production function models. J. Prod. Anal. 1999, 12:187-210.
17. Bigsby H.R. Production structure and the Australian sawmilling industry. Aust. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 38:271-288.
18. Cameron T. 2002: the year of the 'diversity - ecosystem function' debate. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2002, 17:495-496.
19. Cernea M.M. User Groups as Producers in Participatory Afforestation Strategies 1989, World Bank.
20. Chakraborty R.N. Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: evidence from the Terai region of Nepal. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 36:341-353.
21. Chand N.B. Production efficiency of community forestry in Nepal: a stochastic frontier analysis 2011, 204. (Doctoral thesis), Department of Environmental Management. Lincoln University, Christchurch.
22. Chaudhary R.P. Forest conservation and environmental management in Nepal: a review. Biodivers. Conserv. 2000, 9:1235-1260.
23. Chhabra A., Palria S., Dadhwal V.K. Growing stock-based forest biomass estimate for India. Biomass Bioenergy 2002, 22:187-194.
24. Chhatre A., Agrawal A. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2009, 106:17667-17670.
25. Coelli T.J. Recent developments in frontier modelling and efficiency measurement. Aust. J. Agric. Econ. 1995, 39:219-246.
26. Cooper S.T., Cohn E. Estimation of a frontier production function for the South Carolina educational process. Econ. Educ. Rev. 1997, 16:313-327.
27. Cornia G.A. Farm size, land yields and the agricultural production function: an analysis for fifteen developing countries. World Dev. 1985, 13:513-534.
28. Dayton-Johnson J. Determinants of collective action on the local commons: a model with evidence from Mexico. J. Dev. Econ. 2000, 62:181-208.
29. Dayton-Johnson J., Bardhan P. Inequality and conservation on the local commons: a theoretical exercise. Econ. J. 2002, 112:577-602.
30. Department of Forests, 2013. Forest User Groups Record available in MIS(unpublished). Department of Forests, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.
31. Duke J.M., Aull-Hyde R. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 42:131-145.
32. Edmonds E.V. Government-initiated community resource management and local resource extraction from Nepal's forests. J. Dev. Econ. 2002, 68:89-115.
33. Fisher M. Household welfare and forest dependence in Southern Malawi. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2004, 9:135-154.
34. Forest Office District Samudaik Ban Upbhokta hamuah Anugaman tatha Mulyankan Bisleshan Pratibedan (Community Forestry User Group's Monitoring and Evaluation Analysis Report Department of Forest, Hetauda, Nepal 2008.
35. Fox T.R. Sustained productivity in intensively managed forest plantations. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 138:187-202.
36. Gautam A.P. Group size, heterogeneity and collective action outcomes: evidence from community forestry in Nepal. Int. J. Sustaina. Dev. World Ecol. 2007, 14:574-583.
37. Gautam K.H., Devoe N.N. Ecological and anthropogenic niches of sal (Shorea robusta Gaertn. f.) forest and prospects for multiple-product forest management-a review. Forestry 2006, 79:81.
38. Gautam A.P., Shivakoti G.P., Webb E.L. Forest cover change, physiography, local economy, and institutions in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Environ. Manag. 2004, 33:48-61.
39. Gautam A.P., Shivakoti G.P., Webb E.L. A review of forest policies, institutions, and changes in the resource condition in Nepal. Int. Forestry Rev. 2004, 6:136-148.
40. Gebremedhin B., Pender J., Tesfay G. Community natural resource management: the case of woodlots in Northern Ethiopia. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2003, 8:129-148.
41. Gilmour D.A., King G.C., Applegate G.B., Mohns B. Silviculture of plantation forest in central Nepal to maximise community benefits. For. Ecol. Manag. 1990, 32:173-186.
42. Gilmour D., Malla Y., Nurse M. Linkages Between Community Forestry and Poverty 2004, Regional Community Forestry Center for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
43. Greene W. The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications 1993, Oxford University Press, New York. F. Harold O., L. C.A. Knox, S. Shelton S. (Eds.).
44. Greene W. LIMDEP version 8.0. Econometric Modeling Guide 2002, Econometric Software, Inc., New York.
45. Grootaert C., Narayan D. Local institutions, poverty and household welfare in Bolivia. World Dev. 2004, 32:1179-1198.
46. Grootaert C., Oh G.T., Swamy A. Social capital, household welfare and poverty in Burkina Faso. J. Afr. Econ. 2002, 11:4-38.
47. Heltberg R. Determinants and impact of local institutions for common resource management. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2001, 6:183-208.
48. Herath G. Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process. J. Environ. Manag. 2004, 70:263-273.
49. Hjalmarsson L., Kumbhakar S.C., Heshmati A. DEA, DFA and SFA: a comparison. J. Prod. Anal. 1996, 7:303-327.
50. Horrace W.C., Schmidt P. Confidence statements for efficiency estimates from stochastic frontier models. J. Prod. Anal. 1996, 7:257-282.
51. Iversen V., Chhetry B., Francis P., Gurung M., Kafle G., Pain A., Seeley J. High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: evidence from forest user groups in Nepal's Terai. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58:93-107.
52. Jondrow J., Knox Lovell C.A., Materov I.S., Schmidt P. On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model. J. Econ. 1982, 19:233-238.
53. Kant S. A dynamic approach to forest regimes in developing economies. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32:287-300.
54. Kim Y., Schmidt P. A review and empirical comparison of Bayesian and classical approaches to inference on efficiency levels in stochastic frontier models with panel data. J. Prod. Anal. 2000, 14:91-118.
55. Kumar S. Does "participation" in common pool resource management help the poor? A social cost-benefit analysis of joint forest management in Jharkhand, India. World Dev. 2002, 30:763-782.
56. Latruffe L., Balcombe K., Davidova S., Zawalinska K. Technical and scale efficiency of crop and livestock farms in Poland: does specialization matter?. Agric. Econ. 2005, 32:281-296.
57. Lichtenstein M.E., Montgomery C.A. Biodiversity and timber in the coast range of Oregon: inside the production possibility frontier. Land Econ. 2003, 79:56-73.
58. Lien G., Stordal S., Baardsen S. Technical efficiency in timber production and effects of other income sources. Small Scale For. 2007, 65-78.
59. Lindara L., Johnsen F.H., Gunatilake H.M. Technical efficiency in the spice based agroforestry sector in Matale district, Sri Lanka. Agrofor. Syst. 2006, 68:221-230.
60. Malla Y.B. Impact of community forestry policy on rural livelihoods and food security in Nepal. Unsylva 2000, 37-45.
61. Misra D. Production and efficiency analysis of joint forest management in Gujarat, India, Faculty of Forestry 2004, 163. University of Toronto, Toronto.
62. Misra D., Kant S. Production analysis of collaborative forest management using an example of joint forest management from Gujarat, India. For. Policy Econ. 2004, 6:301-320.
63. Misra D., Kant S. Economic efficiency and shadow prices of social and biological outputs of village-level organizations of joint forest management in Gujarat, India. J. For. Econ. 2005, 11:141-160.
64. Mohns B., Applegate G.B., Gilmour D.A. Biomass and productivity estimations for community forest management: a case study from the hills of Nepal - II. Dry matter production in mixed young stands of chir pine (Pinus roxburghii) and broad-leaved species. Biomass 1988, 17:165-184.
65. Nalle D.J., Montgomery C.A., Arthur J.L., Polasky S., Schumaker N.H. Modeling joint production of wildlife and timber. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2004, 48:997-1017.
66. Neaupane K.M., Piantanakulchai M. Analytic network process model for landslide hazard zonation. Eng. Geol. 2006, 85:281-294.
67. Nepal M., Bohara A.K., Berrens R.P. The impacts of social networks and household forest conservation efforts in rural Nepal. Land Econ. 2007, 83:174.
68. North D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance 1990, Cambridge University Press, New York.
69. Nyshadham E.A., Rao V.K. Assessing efficiency of European airports: a total factor productivity approach. Public Works Manage. Policy 2000, 5:106.
70. Oliver P.E., Marwell G. The paradox of group size in collective action: a theory of the critical mass. II. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1988, 53:1-8.
71. Parikh A., Ali F., Shah K. Measurement of economic efficiency in Pakistani agriculture. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1995, 77:675-685.
72. Pender J.L., Scherr S.J. Organizational development and natural resource management: evidence from central Honduras. EPTD Discussion Papers 1999.
73. Poteete A.R., Ostrom E. Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Dev. Chang. 2004, 35:435-461.
74. Pretty J., Ward H. Social capital and the environment. World Dev. 2001, 29:209-227.
75. Richards M., Maharjan M., Kanel K. Economics, poverty and transparency: measuring equity in forest user groups. J. For. Livelihood 2003, 3:91-106.
76. Rohweder M.R., McKetta C.W., Riggs R.A. Economic and biological compatibility of timber and wildlife production: an illustrative use of production possibilities frontier. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2000, 28:435-447.
77. Saaty T.L. Fundamentals of the analytic network process. International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process v, Kobe, Japan 1999.
78. Sakurai T. Role of social capital in economic development: evidence and issues. Potential of Social Capital for Community Development 2006, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo. S. Yokoyama, T. Sakurai (Eds.).
79. Simar L. How to improve the performances of DEA/FDH estimators in the presence of noise?. J. Prod. Anal. 2007, 28:183-201.
80. Siry J.P., Newman D.H. A stochastic production frontier analysis of Polish state forests. For. Sci. 2001, 47:527-533.
81. Somanathan E., Prabhakar R., Mehta B.S. Collective action for forest conservation: does heterogeneity matter?. Inequality, Cooperation, and Environmental Sustainability 2007, 234-245. Princeton University Press, New York. J.M. Baland, P. Bardhan, S. Bowles (Eds.).
82. Straede S., Nebel G., Rijal A. Structure and floristic composition of community forests and their compatibility with villagers' traditional needs for forest products. Biodivers. Conserv. 2002, 11:487-508.
83. Thoms C.A. Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: a critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum 2008, 39:1452-1465.
84. Todaro M.P., Smith S.C. Economic Development 2006, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., Boston.
85. Tole L. Reforms from the ground up: a review of community-based forest management in tropical developing countries. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45:1312-1331.
86. Van Ha N., Kant S., MacLaren V. The contribution of social capital to household welfare in a paper-recycling craft village in Vietnam. J. Environ. Dev. 2004, 13:371-399.
87. Van Ha N., Kant S., Maclaren V. Relative shadow prices of social capital for household-level paper recycling units in Vietnam. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57:520-533.
88. Varughese G., Ostrom E. The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World Dev. 2001, 29:747-765.
89. Viitala E., Hanninen H. Measuring the efficiency of public organizations. For. Sci. 1998, 44:298-307.
90. Wade R. The management of common property resources: collective action as an alternative to privatisation or state regulation. Camb. J. Econ. 1987, 11:95-106.
91. White T.A., Runge C.F. Common property and collective action: Lessons from cooperative watershed management in Haiti. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 1994, 43:1-41.