Heterogeneity in Common Property Resource Management and its Implications

Tewathia, Nidhi (2011): Heterogeneity in Common Property Resource Management and its Implications.

Abstract

Abstract: Different types of heterogeneities are prevalent in the Common Property Resources (CPRs) usage and management. They generally arise from the differences in endowments, objectives and cultural background of the users. This paper aims to identify such heterogeneities and possibly try to discuss their implications. The leaders in CPR management (CPRM )are those who are rich or hold large number of livestock. Gender inequality also plays a major role in terms of extended benefits of CPRs. It is found that women are generally at loss in terms of unequal benefits received by them. The interesting irony is that the females are major players in the collection of CPR but they are not involved in the decision making for CPRM. They make up a nearly non-existent section for this purpose.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Common, CPRs , heterogeneity, management, village, women
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation > Q23 - Forestry; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation > Q24 - Land; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy > Q40 - General; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy > Q49 - Other; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q56 - Environment and Development ; Environment and Trade ; Sustainability ; Environmental Accounts and Accounting ; Environmental Equity ; Population Growth

References

References:

Adhikari, B., (2003), Property rights and Natural resources: Socio-Economic Heterogeneity and Distributional Implications of Common Property Resource Management, Working paper no.1-03, SANDEE.

Adhikari, B., (2004 a), Community Forestry in Nepal Management rules and Distribution of benefits, No.-1-04, SANDEE.

Adhikari, B., (2004 b), Transaction Costs and Common Property Forest Management: Empirical Evidence from Nepal, Journal of Forest and Livelihood Vol.4, No.1, pp 30-37.

Adhikari, B., Falco, S.D., and Lovett, J. C., (2004), Household Characteristics and Forest dependency: Evidence from Common Property Forest Management in Nepal, Ecological Economics, Vol.48, pp 245–257.

Adhikari, B., (2005), Poverty, Property Rights and Collective Action: Understanding the distributive aspects of Common Property Resource Management, Environment and Development Economics, Vol.10, pp 7-31.

Adhikari, B., Lovett, J.C., (2006), Institutions and Collective Action: Does Heterogeneity Hinders Community-Based Resource Management? Journal of Development Studies, Vol.78, No.1, pp 5-15.

Adhockery, B., Falco, S.D., J.C. Lovett, J.C., (2004), Household Characteristic and Forest dependence; Evidence from Common Property Forest Management in Nepal, Ecological Economics, Vol.48, pp 245- 257.

Aggarwal, B., (1989), Rural Women, Poverty and Natural Resources, EPW, Oct 28.

Aggarwal, B., (1997), Environmental action, Gender, Equity and Women’s Participation, Development and Change, Vol. 28, pp 1- 44.

Aggarwal, B., (2000), Conceptualising Environmental Collective Action: Why Gender Matters, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.24, pp 283–310.

Aggarwal, B., (2001), Participatory exclusions, Community forestry, and Gender: An analysis for South Asia and Conceptual framework, Institute of Economic Growth, World Development Vol 29, No 10, pp 1623-1648.

Agrawal, A., (2001), Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources, World Development, Vol.29, No.10, pp 1649-72.

Angelsen, A., Wunder, S., (2003), exploring the Forest-Poverty link: Key Concepts, Issues and Research Implications, CIFOR occasional paper no. 40.

Baker, J.M., (1998), The Effect of Community Structure on Social Forestry Outcomes: Insights from Chota Nagpur, India, Mountain Research and Development, Vol.18, No.1, pp 51- 62.

Bardhan, P., Dayton-Johnson, J., (2000), ‘Heterogeneity and Commons Management, Department of Economics, University of California, USA.

Beteille, A., (1983), Equality and Inequality: Theory and Practice, Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Bista, D.B., (1991), Fatalism and Development: Explorations in Political Theory, New Delhi, Sage Publications.

Cavendish, W., (2000), Empirical Regularities in the Poverty-Environment relationship of Rural Households: Evidence from Zimbabwe, World Development, Vol. 28, pp 1979–2003.

Chapagain, B.P., (2007), Impact of Community Forestry on Livelihood Improvement of Rural People, Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry, Hetauda Campus, Nepal.

Chhetri, B.B.K., (2005), Community Forestry Programmes in the Hills of Nepal: Determinants of Users Participation and Household Dependency. M. Sc. Thesis.

Dasgupta, P., (1993), An Inquiry into Well-Being and Destitution, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Dev, O. P., Yadav, N. P., Springate-Baginski, O., Soussan, J., (2003), Impacts of Community Forestry on Livelihoods in the Middle Hills of Nepal, Journal of Forest and Livelihoods Vol. 3, No.1, pp 64-77.

Gaspert, F., Jabbar, M., Melard, C., Plateau, J.P., (1999), ‘Participation in the Construction of a Local Public Good with Indivisibilities: An Application to Watershed Development in Ethiopia’, CRED, University of Namur, Belgium.

Gilmour, D.A., Fisher, R.J., (1991), Villagers, Forest and Foresters: The Philosophy, Process and Practice of Community Forestry in Nepal. Sahayogi Press, Kathmandu.

Guggenheim, S., Spears, J., (1991) Sociological & Environmental Dimensions of Social Forestry Projects in M.M Carnea ed., Putting people first: Sociological Variables in Rural Development, New York: OUP, pp 305-309.

Hobley, M., (1996), Participatory forestry: The process of change in India and Nepal, Overseas Development Institute, London.

Jodha, N.S., (1986), Common Property Resources and Rural Poor in Dry Regions of India, EPW, 21, pp 1169-81.

Kafle, M.R., (2008), Contribution of Community Forestry to Users’ Household Income: A Financial Analysis, Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry, Nepal.

Kant, S., (1999). Endogenous rate of time preference, traditional communities, and sustainable forest management. J. Soc. Econ. Dev. Vol.2, No.1, pp 65–87.

Kant, S., (2000), A Dynamic Approach to Forest Regimes in Developing Economies, Ecological Economics, Vol.32, pp 287-300.

Kohlin, G., Parks, P.J., (2001), Spatial Variability and Disincentives to Harvest, Land Economics, Vol.77, pp 206-218.

Koirala, P.N., (2007), Benefit Sharing in Community Forests in Nepal (A case study in Makawanpur District of Nepal).

Lawati, M., (2005), Towards a Democratic Nepal Inclusive Political Institutions for a Multicultural Society, Sage Publication: New Delhi.

Malla, Y.B., (2000), Impact of Community Forestry Policy on Rural Livelihood & Food Security in Nepal, Unasylva, Vol. 51, No.3, pp 37-45.

Mariara, J.K., Gachoki, C., (2008), Forest dependence and Household Welfare: Empirical Evidence from Kenya, CEEPA.

Naidu, S.C., (2009), Heterogeneity and Common Pool Resources: Collective Management of Forests in Himachal Pradesh, India, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics, Working Paper No. 2005-8.

Olson, M., (1965), The Logic of Collective Action. Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1965, pp 43-63.

Ostrom, E., (2001) “The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: some evidence from community forestry in Nepal”, World Development Vol. 29. No.5. pp 747-765.

Pandey, T.R., (1999), Local Strength and Institutional Limitations: Issues of User Group conflict in Community Forest Management in R.B. Chhetri and O.P. Gurung (eds.), Anthropology and Sociology of Nepal: Culture, Societies, Ecology and Development.

Pattnayak, K. S., Sills, E.O., Kramer, R., (2004), Seeing the Forest for Fuel, Environment and Development Economics, Vol. 9, pp 155-179.

Pokharel, B. K., Nurse, M., (2004), Forests and Peoples’ Livelihoods: Benefiting the Poor from Community Forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihoods, Vol.4, No.1, pp 19-29.

Poudel, D., (1999), Distributional Impacts of Community Forestry Programmes on Different Social Groups in the Mid-Hills of Nepal, Unpublished MPhil Dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Putnam, R., (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton: Princeton, University Press.

Reddy, S.R.C., Chakravarty, S.P., (1999), Forest Dependence and Income Distribution in a Subsistence Economy: Evidence from India, World Development, Vol.27, No.7, pp 1141-1149.

Sarin, M., (1995), Regenerating India’s Forest: Reconciling Gender Equity JFM, IDS bulletin, Vol. 26, No.1, pp 83- 91.

Shively, G.E., Pagiola, S., (2004), Agricultural Intensification, Local Labour Markets, and Deforestation in the Philippines, Environment and Development Economics, Vol. 9, pp 241-266.

Sundar, N., (1997), Subalterns and Sovereigns, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Thapa, S., Shrestha, R.N., Yadav, K.P., (1998), Socio-economic aspects of Forest Resource Assessment Study, Nepal-UK Community Forestry Project Report B/NUKCFP/55, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Tole, L., (2010), Reforms from the Ground Up: A Review of Community Based Forest Management in Tropical Developing Countries, Environmental Management, June 2010, Vol. 45, pp 1312-1331.

Varughese, G., Ostrom, E., (2001), The Contested Role of Heterogeneity in Collective Action: Some Evidence from Community Forestry in Nepal, World Development, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp 747-765.

Vedeld, A., Angelsen, A., Sjaastad, E., Kobugabe, G. B., (2004), Counting on the Environment: Forest Incomes and the Rural Poor. The World Bank Environment Department, Environmental Economics Series, Paper No. 98. Washington D.C.

Wade, R., (1987), The Management of Common Property Resources: Collective Action as an Alternative to Privatisation or State Regulation, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol.11, pp 95-106.

World Resource Institute (2005), The Wealth of the Poor: Managing Eco Systems to fight Poverty. UNDP, United Nations Environment Programme. The World Bank, World Resources Washington D.C.

Zufferey, F. S., (1986), A Study of Local Institutions and Resource Management Inquiry in Eastern Central District, Land Tenure Center, LTC paper No 88, University of Wisconsin-Madison.