Martins Sgs Thesis Defence Final


Published on

PhD Thesis Defense Presentation

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Martins Sgs Thesis Defence Final

    1. 1. Citizen-centered evaluations of needs, priorities and well-being of forest beneficiaries, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania <ul><li>Martin Kijazi, </li></ul><ul><li>Ph.D. candidate, Faculty of Forestry </li></ul><ul><li>Supervisor: Shashi Kant </li></ul><ul><li>Thesis defense presentation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, School of Graduate Studies, University of Toronto, 14 Sept. 2007 </li></ul>
    2. 2. Forests are critical in sustaining human and environmental well-being
    3. 3. Sustainable Forest Management: <ul><li>Incorporation of value preferences of multi-stakeholders in decision-making: intra & inter-generational equity (Kant & Lee 2004; Kant & Berry 2005). </li></ul><ul><li>Tanzanian National Forest Policy (1998) and Forest Act (2002) require increased stakeholder participation and inclusion of multiple-objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Raises important evaluation challenges beyond conventional approaches </li></ul>
    4. 4. Limitations of conventional valuations Hence, need for citizen-centered evaluations taking into account needs, priorities, and well-being of present and future generations and non-human entities. Market centered-valuations Nature-centered valuations <ul><li>Commodity centered </li></ul><ul><li>Ignore non-market institutions & resource scarcity signals. </li></ul><ul><li>Neglect justice ; </li></ul><ul><li>Fail to consider interdependences and externalities; </li></ul><ul><li>Treat individuals as self-centered utility maximizers </li></ul><ul><li>Undermine intrinsic, socio-cultural, historic or symbolic values (non-market values) </li></ul><ul><li>Advocacy for strict preservation </li></ul><ul><li>Ignore human-ecosystem interactions & interdependences </li></ul><ul><li>Abstract from social justice. </li></ul>
    5. 5. Research objective is to evaluate: <ul><li>Non-market welfare functions wood fuels; </li></ul><ul><li>Stakeholder forest value preferences ; </li></ul><ul><li>Social acceptability of alternative forest regimes; </li></ul><ul><li>Stakeholder attitudes as shaped by institutions </li></ul>Best position Worst position Welfare position in amenity space, value space, or institutional space
    6. 6. Study Area: Mt. Kilimanjaro
    7. 7. Kilimanjaro is ideal for this study: great variation in bio-physical and socio-economic features + multi-stakeholder forest regime
    8. 8. Methods = Socio-economic micro-surveys + secondary data <ul><li>Strata: based on institutional affiliation </li></ul><ul><li>Clusters: representative villages </li></ul><ul><li>Ultimately: random sampling and surveying of respondents: 133 respondents. </li></ul>= sampling sites
    9. 9. Well-being evaluation: want parameter, welfare sensitivity & determinants of welfare parameters σ Verbal qualifications as stimuli: Highest satisfaction Absolute deprivation Individual’s graph of welfare function of wood fuels
    10. 10. Elicitation and estimation of social value preferences of forest users <ul><li>Elicitation and comparison of stakeholder preferences (ranking as per household needs, and as per societal needs); </li></ul><ul><li>Estimation of predictors of social preferences. </li></ul>
    11. 11. Analysis of Stakeholder attitudes <ul><li>Scale-based framework for stakeholders “ ATTITUDES “: </li></ul><ul><li>Possibility approach Acceptability of 3 regimes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>State, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>community, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Joint </li></ul></ul>POSSIBILISTIC CHAOS THEORY Chaos theory analysis of stakeholder interactions <ul><ul><li>(- +) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(++) </li></ul></ul>(- -) <ul><ul><ul><li>(+ -) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Current household per-capita consumptions are strongly explained by environmental entitlements and household size . Current consumptions and environmental amenity entitlements are the strongest predictors of well-being parameters Household size Environmental entitlements Coefficient -1.0026 0.0107 P>|t 0.01 0.01 R 2 = 0.65 Current consumption Environmental entitlements Coefficient 1.4934 0.0044 P>|t 0.01 0.05 R 2 = 0.79
    14. 14. ‘ Just a little bit more’ ‘ I want more’ Amenity preference drift: (=Psychological adaptation; endowment effect) Communal energy conservation: i.e. smaller per capita consumptions in larger households. Implications: Static & Malthusian approaches are inadequate and unfair in forest resource analysis; Resource consumption forecasts must consider changing demographic structure (e.g. due to urbanization and globalization) , as well as institutional-legal entitlements CLUSTERED = CONSERVING ATOMISTIC = GUZZLING
    15. 15. Note: Wilcoxon signed-rank test for difference between paired observations Non-use and indirect use values are heavily weighted <ul><li>Preferences by household needs </li></ul><ul><li>Value categories </li></ul><ul><li>Preferences by perceived societal needs </li></ul>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 1 0.0537 Biological diversity 2 Recreation and tourism < 0.01 Spiritual, cultural, aesthetic 2 III <ul><li>Direct use values (consumptive): </li></ul>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
    16. 16. Based on Kruskal-Wallis test of equality of populations ‘ Social conscience’ vs. ‘individual conscience’ <ul><li>Preferences by household needs </li></ul><ul><li>Value categories </li></ul><ul><li>Preferences by societal needs </li></ul>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: <ul><li>0.0002 *** </li></ul><ul><li>22.415 </li></ul>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 * 8.800
    17. 17. Collaborative regime is accorded highest Social Acceptability by different stakeholder groups Use MaxMin Criteria: decision made to maximize well-being of the most disadvantaged 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
    18. 18. Considering formal institutions, there exists a bureaucrat vs. agrarian population divide regarding logging of native forests Park Authority Forest Authority ENGO Agrarian Private estate Plantation forests on Mount Kilimanjaro should be used as main source of timber instead of harvesting native forests The logging of high quality native forest tree species on Mount Kilimanjaro is acceptable provided it is done legally, in a sustainable manner, using environmentally sound technologies
    19. 19. Considering informal institutions, there exists pro-environment and pro-development Advocacy Coalitions regarding logging of native forests Park Authority Forest Authority Social justice activist Agrarian Private estate Plantation forests on Mount Kilimanjaro should be used as main source of timber instead of harvesting native forests Environmental activist Development activist The logging of high quality native forest tree species on Mount Kilimanjaro is acceptable provided it is done legally, in a sustainable manner, using environmentally sound technologies
    20. 20. Conclusion: Forest resource allocation and management must be eco-systemic & citizen-centered <ul><li>Results validate an ecosystem-based forestry agenda & non-market allocation strategies; </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional set-up must exceed formal bureaucracies; must be participative & bottom-up rather than “autocratic” or “top-down”; </li></ul><ul><li>Need for genuine outreach programs: public education, benefit sharing as well as local-stakeholder involvement in decision making; </li></ul><ul><li>“ Advocacy coalitions” signify the role of informal institutions in forest management; </li></ul>
    21. 21. Acknowledgements <ul><li>My supervisor Dr. S. Kant; members of my research committee Drs. D. Balsillie, T. Smith and S. Laaksonen-Craig; Invited examiners Dr. Virginia McLeran and Dr. Jim Gan of Texas University of Technology, various officials in Tanzania including J. Wakibara, A. Kijazi, W. Sumayi, F. Nashanda and P. Akitanda. Village leaders, elders and other key research informants. </li></ul>