Citizen-centered evaluations of Citizen-centered evaluations of needs, priorities and well-being of needs, priorities and well-being of forest beneficiaries, Kilimanjaro, forest beneficiaries, Kilimanjaro,

TanzaniaTanzania

Martin Kijazi,Martin Kijazi, Ph.D. candidate, Faculty of ForestryPh.D. candidate, Faculty of Forestry

Supervisor:Supervisor: Shashi Kant Shashi Kant

Thesis defense presentation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, School of Thesis defense presentation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, School of Graduate Studies, University of Toronto, 14 Sept. 2007Graduate Studies, University of Toronto, 14 Sept. 2007

Forests are critical in sustaining Forests are critical in sustaining human and environmental well-human and environmental well-

beingbeing

Sustainable Forest Sustainable Forest Management:Management:

► Incorporation of value preferences of multi-Incorporation of value preferences of multi-stakeholders in decision-making: stakeholders in decision-making: intra & intra & inter-generational equityinter-generational equity (Kant & Lee 2004; Kant & Berry 2005). (Kant & Lee 2004; Kant & Berry 2005).

► Tanzanian National Forest Policy (1998) and Tanzanian National Forest Policy (1998) and Forest Act (2002) require increased Forest Act (2002) require increased stakeholder participation and inclusion of stakeholder participation and inclusion of multiple-objectivesmultiple-objectives

►Raises important evaluation Raises important evaluation challenges beyond conventional challenges beyond conventional approachesapproaches

Limitations of conventional Limitations of conventional valuationsvaluations

Market centered-Market centered-valuationsvaluations

Nature-Nature-centered centered valuationsvaluations

1.1. Commodity centered Commodity centered

2.2. Ignore non-market Ignore non-market institutions & resource institutions & resource scarcity signals. scarcity signals.

3.3. Neglect justiceNeglect justice;;

4.4. Fail to consider Fail to consider interdependences and interdependences and externalities; externalities;

5.5. Treat individuals as self-Treat individuals as self-centered utility maximizerscentered utility maximizers

6.6. Undermine intrinsic, socio-Undermine intrinsic, socio-cultural, historic or symbolic cultural, historic or symbolic values (non-market values)values (non-market values)

1.1. Advocacy for Advocacy for strict strict preservation preservation

2.2. Ignore human-Ignore human-ecosystem ecosystem interactions & interactions & interdependenceinterdependencess

3.3. Abstract from Abstract from social justice.social justice.

Hence, need for citizen-centered evaluations taking into account needs, priorities, and well-being of present and future generations and non-human entities.

Research objective is to Research objective is to evaluate:evaluate:

1.1. Non-market welfare Non-market welfare functionsfunctions wood wood fuels;fuels;

2.2. Stakeholder Stakeholder forest forest value preferencesvalue preferences;;

3.3. Social acceptabilitySocial acceptability of alternative forest of alternative forest regimes;regimes;

4.4. Stakeholder Stakeholder attitudes as shaped attitudes as shaped by by institutionsinstitutions

Best Best positiopositionn

Worst Worst positiopositionn

Welfare position in Welfare position in amenity space, value amenity space, value space, or institutional space, or institutional spacespace

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Scale of evaluation of forest attributes

Subjec

tive ev

aluatio

n of w

ell-bei

ng

Study Area: Mt. KilimanjaroStudy Area: Mt. Kilimanjaro

Kilimanjaro is ideal for this study: Kilimanjaro is ideal for this study: great great variation in bio-physical and socio-economic variation in bio-physical and socio-economic

features + features + multi-stakeholder forest regimemulti-stakeholder forest regime

Methods = Socio-economic Methods = Socio-economic micro-surveys + secondary datamicro-surveys + secondary data

► Strata:Strata: based on based on institutional institutional affiliationaffiliation

► Clusters:Clusters: representative representative villagesvillages

► Ultimately: Ultimately: random random samplingsampling and and surveying of surveying of respondents: 133 respondents: 133 respondents.respondents.

= sampling sites

Well-being evaluation:Well-being evaluation: want parameter, want parameter, welfare sensitivity & determinants of welfare sensitivity & determinants of

welfare parameterswelfare parameters

Verbal qualifications as stimuli:Verbal qualifications as stimuli:

Highest Highest satisfactiosatisfactionn

Absolute Absolute deprivationdeprivation

Individual’s graph of welfare function of wood Individual’s graph of welfare function of wood fuelsfuels

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Objective scale of forest amenities Z

Subje

ctive

evalu

ation

of w

ell-be

ing

U(Z) e

σ

Elicitation and estimation of social Elicitation and estimation of social value preferences of forest value preferences of forest

usersusers

► Elicitation and Elicitation and comparison of comparison of stakeholder preferences stakeholder preferences (ranking as per (ranking as per household needs, and household needs, and as per societal needs);as per societal needs);

► Estimation of predictors Estimation of predictors

of social preferences.of social preferences.

Analysis of Stakeholder attitudesAnalysis of Stakeholder attitudes

► Scale-based Scale-based framework for framework for stakeholders stakeholders ““ATTITUDESATTITUDES“: “:

Possibility approach Possibility approach Acceptability of 3 Acceptability of 3 regimesregimes State, State, community, community, JointJoint

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Scale-based increasing degree of "acceptability"

Me

mb

ers

hip

fu

nc

tio

n

(- +)(- +) (++)(++)

(- -)(- -) (+ -)(+ -)

POSSIBILISTIC

CHAOS THEORY

Chaos theory analysis of Chaos theory analysis of stakeholder interactionsstakeholder interactions

RESULTS & RESULTS & IMPLICATIONSIMPLICATIONS

HouseHousehold hold sizesize

EnvironmEnvironmental ental entitlemeentitlementsnts

CoefficientCoefficient --1.00261.0026

0.01070.0107

P>|t P>|t 0.010.01 0.010.01

RR2 = 0.650.65

environhsavgcons 210 )ln(ln

Current household per-Current household per-capita capita consumptions consumptions are are strongly explained by strongly explained by environmental environmental entitlementsentitlements and and household sizehousehold size..

environincomeconsunitn 3210 )ln()ln(_

Current consumptionsCurrent consumptions and and environmentalenvironmental amenity entitlements are amenity entitlements are the strongest predictors the strongest predictors of of well-being parameterswell-being parameters

Current Current consumconsumptionption

EnvironmenEnvironmental tal entitlemententitlementss

CoefficiCoefficientent

1.49341.4934 0.00440.0044

P>|t P>|t 0.010.01 0.050.05

RR2 = 0.790.79

‘Just a little bit more’

‘I want more’

Amenity preference Amenity preference drift: (=Psychological drift: (=Psychological adaptation; adaptation; endowment effect)endowment effect)

Communal energy Communal energy conservation: conservation: i.e. smaller per i.e. smaller per capita consumptions in larger capita consumptions in larger households.households.

Implications: Implications: Static & Malthusian Static & Malthusian approaches are inadequate and approaches are inadequate and unfair in forest resource analysis; unfair in forest resource analysis; Resource consumption forecasts Resource consumption forecasts must consider changing must consider changing demographic structure (e.g. due to demographic structure (e.g. due to urbanization and globalization)urbanization and globalization), as well as institutional-legal entitlements

CLUSTERED = CONSERVINGATOMISTIC = GUZZLING

Non-use and indirect use values are heavily weighted

•Preferences by household needs •Value categories

•Preferences by perceived societal needs

Rank Prob > |z| Prob > |z| rank

I 0.0011 Non-use values: bequest, option, and existence I

II 0.0523 Indirect use values (non-consumptive): < 0.01

1 Ecosystem services

10.0537 Biological diversity

2 Recreation and tourism < 0.01

Spiritual, cultural, aesthetic 2

III •Direct use values (consumptive): II

1 0.0238 Ethno-medicines

1

2

Edible products

0.0000 Wood products 0.0021

Livestock fodder

2 Wood-fuels 0.0631

3 Cultivation land

Note: Wilcoxon signed-rank test for difference between paired observations

‘‘Social conscience’ vs. ‘individual Social conscience’ vs. ‘individual conscience’conscience’

•Preferences by household needs •Value categories

•Preferences by societal needs

Prob > |F|a Prob > |F|a

4.494 0.3432 Non-use values: bequest, option, and existence 0.9032 1.043

11.420 0.0222** Indirect use values: 0.0432** 9.840

9.323 0.0535** Ecosystem services 0.4011 4.036

9.078 0.0592* Biological diversity 0.2887 4.987

8.484 0.0754* Recreation and tourism 0.4269 3.848

16.824 0.0021*** Spiritual, cultural, aesthetic 0.0175** 11.977

11.078 0.0257** Direct use values: •0.0002*** •22.415

5.682 0.2242 Ethno-medicines 0.2304 5.608

8.735 0.0681* Wood-fuels 0.1072 7.605

6.877 0.1425 Livestock fodder 0.0030** 16.041

2.862 0.5811 Edible products 0.0194** 11.734

13.573 0.0088** Wood products 0.0095** 13.387

8.267 0.0823* Cultivation land 0.0663* 8.800Based on Kruskal-Wallis test of equality of populations

Collaborative regime is accorded Collaborative regime is accorded highest Social Acceptability by highest Social Acceptability by different stakeholder groupsdifferent stakeholder groups

Stakeholder groups

Overall acceptability for Alternative forest management regimes

State - Policing Participatory/Community based Collaborative

ENGO 0.42 0.52 0.75

Forest Authority 0.46 0.80 0.73

Park Authority 0.66 0.41 0.58

Coffee Estate 0.91 0.83 0.83

Local Community 0.62 0.70 0.51

Inter-group aggregation (Min operator)

0.42 0.41 0.51

'Optimum' decision (Max Operator)

0.51

Use MaxMin Criteria: decision made to maximize well-being of the most disadvantaged

Considering formal institutions, there Considering formal institutions, there exists a bureaucrat vs. agrarian exists a bureaucrat vs. agrarian

population divide regarding logging of population divide regarding logging of native forestsnative forests

The logging of high quality native forest tree species The logging of high quality native forest tree species on Mount Kilimanjaro is acceptable provided it is done on Mount Kilimanjaro is acceptable provided it is done legally, in a sustainable manner, using legally, in a sustainable manner, using

environmentally sound technologiesenvironmentally sound technologies

-2

-1

0

1

2

-2 -1 0 1 2

Park Authority

Forest Authority

ENGO

Agrarian

Private estate

Pla

nta

tion

fore

sts

on

Mou

nt

Pla

nta

tion

fore

sts

on

Mou

nt

Kili

man

jaro

sh

ou

ld b

e u

sed

as

Kili

man

jaro

sh

ou

ld b

e u

sed

as

main

sou

rce o

f ti

mb

er

inst

ead

m

ain

sou

rce o

f ti

mb

er

inst

ead

of

harv

est

ing

nati

ve f

ore

sts

of

harv

est

ing

nati

ve f

ore

sts

Considering informal institutions, there exists Considering informal institutions, there exists pro-environmentpro-environment and and pro-developmentpro-development Advocacy Advocacy

Coalitions regarding logging of native forestsCoalitions regarding logging of native forests

The logging of high quality native forest tree species on The logging of high quality native forest tree species on Mount Kilimanjaro is acceptable provided it is done Mount Kilimanjaro is acceptable provided it is done legally, in a sustainable manner, using environmentally legally, in a sustainable manner, using environmentally

sound technologiessound technologies

Park Authority

Forest Authority

Social justice activist

Agrarian

Private estate

Pla

nta

tion

fore

sts

on

Mou

nt

Pla

nta

tion

fore

sts

on

Mou

nt

Kili

man

jaro

sh

ou

ld b

e u

sed

as

Kili

man

jaro

sh

ou

ld b

e u

sed

as

main

sou

rce o

f ti

mb

er

inst

ead

m

ain

sou

rce o

f ti

mb

er

inst

ead

of

harv

est

ing

nati

ve f

ore

sts

of

harv

est

ing

nati

ve f

ore

sts

-2

-1

0

1

2

-2 -1 0 1 2

Environmental activist

Development activist

Conclusion: Forest resource Conclusion: Forest resource allocation and management must allocation and management must

be eco-systemic & citizen-centeredbe eco-systemic & citizen-centered► Results Results validate an ecosystem-basedvalidate an ecosystem-based forestry forestry

agenda & agenda & non-market allocationnon-market allocation strategies; strategies;► Institutional set-upInstitutional set-up must exceed formal must exceed formal

bureaucracies; bureaucracies; must be participativemust be participative & & bottom-up rather than “autocratic” or “top-bottom-up rather than “autocratic” or “top-down”;down”;

► Need for genuine outreach programs: Need for genuine outreach programs: public public education, benefit sharing as well as local-education, benefit sharing as well as local-stakeholder involvement in decision making;stakeholder involvement in decision making;

► ““Advocacy coalitions” signify the role of Advocacy coalitions” signify the role of informal institutions in forest management;informal institutions in forest management;

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

►My supervisor Dr. S. Kant; members of My supervisor Dr. S. Kant; members of my research committee Drs. D. Balsillie, my research committee Drs. D. Balsillie, T. Smith and S. Laaksonen-Craig; Invited T. Smith and S. Laaksonen-Craig; Invited examiners Dr. Virginia McLeran and Dr. examiners Dr. Virginia McLeran and Dr. Jim Gan of Texas University of Jim Gan of Texas University of Technology, various officials in Tanzania Technology, various officials in Tanzania including J. Wakibara, A. Kijazi, W. including J. Wakibara, A. Kijazi, W. Sumayi, F. Nashanda and P. Akitanda. Sumayi, F. Nashanda and P. Akitanda. Village leaders, elders and other key Village leaders, elders and other key research informants.research informants.