Incentivizing household forest management in China's forest reform: Limitations to rights-based approaches in Southwest China

Krul, Kees; Ho, Peter; Yang, Xuguang

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102075

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 68 publications

(98 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings are based on certain key conditions such as economic development and outmigration driven by external forces, labor and capital intensive timber production mode, and small per capita forestland holdings; therefore, our findings are very likely to be valid for communities with these conditions. Studies have shown that the limited dependence on forest income reduces farmers' incentives to make forest investments [3], and that large-scale outmigration hinders the collective actions of managing resources in rural communities [20,56]. These findings indicate that the problem manifested by our case also exists in other regions of China and the world.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…In X Village, one FUG comprised approximately 250 members and managed less than 25 ha of Chinese fir, which means the per capita holding of Chinese fir was only 0.1 ha. In 2009, the price of Chinese fir was 1100 CNY/m 3 (157 USD/m 3 ), the total costs of forest regeneration and later management were over 13,500 CNY/ ha (1929 USD/ha), the average timber output rate was 105 m 3 Forest regeneration cost/ha (CNY)…”

Section: Economic Development Demographicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many developing countries have launched forest tenure reforms that aimed to devolve forest rights to local users [2]. These endeavors, which are often called forest devolution, exemplify the application of rights-based approaches in the forest sector [3]. Forest devolution is considered a promising policy tool because of its potential to incentivize users to manage forests sustainably and to facilitate policies compatible with local conditions [2,4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The incentive structure of individuals, however, varies depending on not only policy stimulus, but also socio-economic contexts. Socio-economic changes may either reinforce or counteract the stimulus caused by devolution policies, and eventually affect forest devolution outcomes [3]. Therefore, it is necessary to unravel the linkages between socio-economic changes, farmers' behavioral responses, and forest devolution outcomes.This study endeavors to explore the connections between social-economic changes and forest devolution outcomes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To incentivize households to invest in rural forestry, Fujian launched a new wave of forest tenure reform in 2003. In this reform, forest property rights, especially forestland usufructuary right, tree (timber) usufructuary right, and tree (timber) ownership were devolved from centralized collective organizations to household-based entities [3]. At the same time, China's countryside underwent a rapid socio-economic transformation, including large-scale outmigration, remarkable income increase, and increasing market access [20].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Collective Action Dilemma after China’s Forest Tenure Reform: Operationalizing Forest Devolution in a Rapidly Changing Society

Zhang

Kant

Long

2020

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Devolution is a promising tool to enhance forest management. The literature has discussed many factors that affect the outcomes of forest devolution policies; however, insufficient attention has been paid to the role of exogenous socio-economic changes. Using the longitudinal case study method, we focus on how socio-economic changes affect the effectiveness of forest devolution policies using a case from Southeast China. We find that in this case, although forest devolution succeeded in granting farmers sufficient forest rights, it failed to incentivize farmers to contribute to managing forests because of the dramatic changes in socio-economic contexts. Economic development and outmigration reduced farmers' dependence on forest income, elevated the costs of silvicultural operations, and posed market risks, thereby reducing farmers' enthusiasm about managing forests; outmigration also weakened community leadership and impeded the collective action of making forest investments. Eventually, socio-economic changes compromised the positive stimulus caused by forest devolution and contributed to the collective action dilemma of managing forests after the reform. We argue that operationalizing forest devolution in developing countries needs to consider the exogenous socio-economic changes that may enhance or counteract the effects of devolution policies, and that more autonomy should be granted to communities to make policies adaptative to their local socio-economic dynamics.Land 2020, 9, 58 2 of 18 Although forest devolution has drawn great attention from scholars, limited literature has delved into how exogenous socio-economic changes influence the effectiveness of forest devolution policies. This question is of vital importance. The effects of forest devolution take a long time to manifest [6], and during this period, many exogenous socio-economic changes may occur. These socio-economic changes, which are particularly remarkable in developing countries, may exert contrasting effects on the behaviors of resource users and the outcomes of resource management [14][15][16]. On one hand, socio-economic changes pose challenges to natural resource management. For example, economic development may reduce farmers' dependence on resources and diminish farmers' conservation incentives [17,18]; economic development may also increase farmers' endogenous rate of discount and prompt them to adopt short-sighted resource use strategies [16]. Outmigration may decrease the labor supply and make farmers use more pesticides and fertilizers to maintain agricultural outputs [19]; outmigration may also elevate the costs of returning homes and impede the collective actions of managing resources [15,20]. On the other hand, socio-economic changes may contribute to resource restoration and ecological sustainability by relieving farmers' livelihood pressures and strengthening their conservation awareness [14,21,22].Since socio-economic changes substantially mold the behavior of natural resource users, they are likely to play important roles in t...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Economic Development Demographicmentioning

confidence: 99%