4.5 Article

Impact of membership in frankincense cooperative firms on rural income and poverty in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia

Journal

FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS
Volume 62, Issue -, Pages 95-108

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.009

Keywords

Forest environmental income; Devolution of forest use-right; Boswellia papyrifera; Non-timber forest products; Poverty; Livelihood

Funding

  1. Interfaculty Council for Development Cooperation (IRO) Scholarship Program of K.U. Leuven
  2. International Foundation for Science (IFS) [S/4798-1]
  3. VLIR UOS Mekelle University Institutional University Cooperation (VLIR-MU-IUC)
  4. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) [ETH-13/0015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rural households in northern Ethiopia had no access to frankincense production and trading. However, following the recent devolution of forest use-rights, rural communities in norther Ethiopia are getting access through organizing frankincense cooperatives. This study examines the effects of membership in the rural frankincense firms on income and poverty by applying instrumental variable, propensity score matching and Rosenbaum bounds methods on survey data from five rural villages in frankincense woodland areas of Northern Ethiopia. Results indicate that both membership and amount of households' investment in shares in the frankincense cooperative firms have statistically significant positive welfare impacts. The average treatment effect on the treated from matching methods for the welfare indicator variables (log-transformed household per adult equivalent income, poverty head count, poverty gap, and poverty severity) are robust against hidden bias arising from unobserved confounding variables that simultaneously affect assignment into frankincense forest cooperative firm membership and each of the welfare indicator variables. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available