Exploring the Socioeconomic Co-benefits of Global Environment Facility Projects in Uganda Using a Quasi-Experimental Geospatial Interpolation (QGI) Approach

Abstract

Since 1992, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has mobilized over $131 billion in funds to enable developing and transitioning countries to meet the objectives of international environmental conventions and agreements. While multiple studies and reports have sought to examine the environmental impact of these funds, relatively little work has examined the potential for socioeconomic co-benefits. Leveraging a novel database on the geographic location of GEF project interventions in Uganda, this paper explores the impact of GEF projects on household assets in Uganda. It employs a new methodological approach, Quasi-experimental Geospatial Interpolation (QGI), which seeks to overcome many of the core biases and limitations of previous implementations of causal matching studies leveraging geospatial information. Findings suggest that Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) GEF projects with initial implementation dates prior to 2009 in Uganda had a positive, statistically significant impact of approximately $184.81 on the change in total household assets between 2009 and 2011. Leveraging QGI, we identify that (1) this effect was statistically significant at distances between 2 and 7 km away from GEF projects, (2) the effect was positive but not statistically significant at distances less than 2 km, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to establish the impact of projects beyond a distance of approximately 7 km.

Locational error in the estimation of regional discrete choice models using distance as a regressor

“…While it represents an improvement relative to model averaging, relatively little research has explored the utility of SIMEX approaches using functional model forms other than ordinary regression. Building on this work, a second avenue of literature has begun to explore how to mitigate bias that may be caused due to spatial spillover between control and treatment units, as well as the arbitrary selection of a distance away from treatments that are considered "treated" (Runfola et al 2020). This class of approach provides estimates of the distance-decay function of treatment effects, allowing policymakers to examine the geographic distance away from interventions that a treatment effect might be expected.…”

Application of Geospatial Methods in Evaluating Environmental Interventions and Related Socioeconomic Benefits

“…The GEF has a long history of providing support to improve the sustainability of forestry resources to increase environmental benefits and deliver socioeconomic co-benefits. This evaluation assessed the impacts of GEF-supported SFM interventions on biophysical and ecological variables and co-benefits measured in terms of socioeconomic indicators, and estimated monetary values of ecosystem services using the principle of natural capital accounting (Runfola et al, 2020). To examine the socioeconomic effects, the study used both a portfolio-wide approach (based on night light activity 3 ) and a recent case study from Uganda, which was the first attempt to combine geospatial data with other survey data.…”

“…It uses a propensitymatching approach to pair treated and controlled survey clusters based on covariates. Runfola et al (2020) provide more details on the QGI approach.…”

Surviving the Anthropocene: How evaluation can contribute to knowledge and better policymaking

“…All methodologies, both quantitative and qualitative, have their place, but the suitable methods should be selected based on the evaluation questions that need to be answered. In the area of environmental programmes and projects, geospatial tools have proven to be useful as they can be utilized to provide quantitative data and time series on factors, such as land use and land cover (Lech et al, 2018;Runfola et al, 2020).…”