Volume 9, Issue 2 (2021)
ECOPERSIA 2021, 9(2): 105-118 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Gholami A, Sadoddin A, Ownegh M, Hossein Alizadeh M, Yari A. Socioeconomic Impacts of an International Carbon Sequestration Project on Rural Communities in Hossein Abad Ghinab, East of Iran. ECOPERSIA 2021; 9 (2) :105-118
URL: http://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-36305-en.html
URL: http://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-36305-en.html
1- Institute of Atmospheric Physics, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
2- Department of Watershed Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran , amir.sadoddin@gau.ac.ir
3- Department of Arid Zone Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
4- General Office of South Khorasan, Birjand, Iran
2- Department of Watershed Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran , amir.sadoddin@gau.ac.ir
3- Department of Arid Zone Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
4- General Office of South Khorasan, Birjand, Iran
Abstract: (1571 Views)
Aims: This paper aimed to evaluate the socioeconomic impacts of an international carbon sequestration project in Hossein Abad Ghinab in southern Khorasan Province of Iran.
Materials & Methods: The performance of the project has been assessed from the standpoint of changes in demographic conditions, local communities’ participation, literacy rate, access to health facilities, access to energy sources, satisfaction rate, and status of microfinance funds. The changes in these indicators have been monitored from 2004 to 2017. The required information was also elicited from a social survey, and a questionnaire was completed for 142 households as well through analysis of the previous reports.
Findings: According to the findings of this research for the main indicators, the project has successfully improved the economic status for access to credits. As for annual income, the average household income from agriculture, livestock, and handicrafts have declined significantly from 2004 to 2017. Concerning the social implications, although some progress could be seen in access to energy sources and literacy rates, however, the project faces a reduction in public acceptance and satisfaction (from moderate to low).
Conclusion: We have concluded that the project has been partly successful in bringing positive socioeconomic changes to the region, yet given the present obstacles such as budget limitation and public participation, the sustainability of the outputs, in the long run, could be a major challenge for project managers.
Materials & Methods: The performance of the project has been assessed from the standpoint of changes in demographic conditions, local communities’ participation, literacy rate, access to health facilities, access to energy sources, satisfaction rate, and status of microfinance funds. The changes in these indicators have been monitored from 2004 to 2017. The required information was also elicited from a social survey, and a questionnaire was completed for 142 households as well through analysis of the previous reports.
Findings: According to the findings of this research for the main indicators, the project has successfully improved the economic status for access to credits. As for annual income, the average household income from agriculture, livestock, and handicrafts have declined significantly from 2004 to 2017. Concerning the social implications, although some progress could be seen in access to energy sources and literacy rates, however, the project faces a reduction in public acceptance and satisfaction (from moderate to low).
Conclusion: We have concluded that the project has been partly successful in bringing positive socioeconomic changes to the region, yet given the present obstacles such as budget limitation and public participation, the sustainability of the outputs, in the long run, could be a major challenge for project managers.
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Desert Ecosystems
Received: 2019/09/9 | Accepted: 2020/04/22 | Published: 2020/10/31
Received: 2019/09/9 | Accepted: 2020/04/22 | Published: 2020/10/31
References
1. IPCC. Third assessment report: Climate change 2001 [Internet]. Geneva: IPCC; 2001 [Unknown Cited]. Available from: https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=333 [Link]
2. Jindal R, Swallow B, Kerr J. Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges. Nat Resour Forum. 2008;32(2):116-30. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00176.x]
3. Farajollahi A, Asgari HR, Ownagh M, Mahboubi MR, Salman Mahini A. Socio-economic factors influencing land use changes in Maraveh Tappeh region, Iran. Ecopersia. 2017;5(1):1683-97. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.18869/modares.ecopersia.5.1.1683]
4. Barbier EB, Hochard JP. Does land degradation increase poverty in developing countries?. Pl One. 2016;11(5):0152973. [Link] [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0152973]
5. Tipper R. Helping indigenous farmers to participate in the international market for carbon services: The case of Scolel Te. In: Bishop J, Pagiola S. Selling forest environmental services: Market-based mechanisms for conservation and development. Londan: Earthscan; 2002. [Link]
6. Molua EL. Global warming and carbon sequestration in Africa's forests: Potential rewards for new policy directions in the Congo basin. In: Ayuk ET, Unuigbe NF. New frontiers in natural resources management in Africa. New York: Springer; 2019. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-11857-0_5]
7. Macaskill C. The national agricultural directory 2011. Johannesburg: RainbowSA; 2010. [Link]
8. Wossen T, Berger T, Mequaninte T, Alamirew B. Social network effects on the adoption of sustainable natural resource management practices in Ethiopia. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 2013;20(6):477-83. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/13504509.2013.856048]
9. Nasry M, Ghorbani M, Jafari M, Rafiee H. An analysis of the impact of socioeconomic variables upon local communities' participation in rangeland protection (Case study: Gomorgan village-malard county). Ecopersia. 2017;5(3):1829-36. [Persian] [Link]
10. Pullanikkatil D, Shackleton CM. Poverty reduction through non-timber forest products. New York: Springer; 2019. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-75580-9]
11. To P, Dressler W. Rethinking success: The politics of payment for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam. Land Use Policy. 2019;81:582-93. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.010]
12. Humphries S, Holmes T, Andrade DFC, McGrath D, Dantas JB. Searching for win-win forest outcomes: Learning-by-doing, financial viability, and income growth for a community-based forest management cooperative in the Brazilian Amazon. World Dev. 2020;125:104336. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.005]
13. Li Z, Liu C, Dong Y, Chang X, Nie X, Liu L, et al. Response of soil organic carbon and nitrogen stocks to soil erosion and land use types in the Loess hilly-gully region of China. Soil Tillage Res. 2017;166:1-9. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.still.2016.10.004]
14. Walters BB. Migration, land use and forest change in Saint Lucia, west Indies. Land Use Policy. 2016;51:290-300. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.11.025]
15. Kapila M, Singla A, Gupta ML. Impact of microcredit on women empowerment in India: An empirical study of Punjab state. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, June 29 - July 1 2016, London, U.K. Unknown city: WCE; 2016. [Link]
16. Setia M, Tandon M. Impact study of women empowerment through Self-Help Groups-A Study of Haryana. Glob J Enterp Inf Syst. 2017;9(2):50. [Link] [DOI:10.18311/gjeis/2017/16010]
17. Robinson CJ, Renwick AR, May T, Gerrard E, Foley R, Battaglia M, et al. Indigenous benefits and carbon offset schemes: An Australian case study. Environ Sci Policy. 2016;56:129-34. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.007]
18. Reyes-Garcia V, Fernandez-Llamazares A, McElwee P, Molnar Z, Ollerer K, Wilson SJ, et al. The contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restor Ecol. 2019;27(1):3-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/rec.12894]
19. Evans V. Assessing the link between rural food security and rangeland woody biomass in Limpopo [Dissertation]. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand; 2017. [Link]
20. Feng Q, Miao Z, Li Z, Li J, Si J, Yonghong S, et al. Public perception of an ecological rehabilitation project in inland river basins in northern China: Success or failure. Environ Res. 2015;139:20-30. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2014.12.030]
21. Seher W, Loschner L. Balancing upstream-downstream interests in flood risk management: experiences from a catchment-based approach in Austria. J Flood Risk Manag. 2018;11(1):56-65. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/jfr3.12266]
22. Lavrakas PJ. Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2008. [Link] [DOI:10.4135/9781412963947]
23. Lindtjørn B, Alemu T, Bjorvatn B. Population growth, fertility, mortality and migration in drought prone areas in Ethiopia. Trans Royal Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1993;87(1):24-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/0035-9203(93)90407-H]
24. Liu Y, Zhang F, Zhang Y. Appraisal of typical rural development models during rapid urbanization in the eastern coastal region of China. J Geogr Sci. 2009;19(5):557-67. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11442-009-0557-3]
25. Syano NM, Wasonga OV, Nyangito M, Kironchi G, Egeru A. Ecological and socioeconomic evaluation of dryland agroforestry systems in East Africa. Fifth African Higher Education Week and Ruforum Biennial Conference 2016, 17-21 October 2016, Cape Town, South Africa. Kampala: RUFORUM; 2016. [Link]
26. Stavi I. Seeking environmental sustainability in dryland forestry. Forests. 2019;10(9):737. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/f10090737]
27. Yirdaw E, Tigabu M, Monge A. Rehabilitation of degraded dryland ecosystems-review. Silva Fonnica. 2017;51(1):1673. [Link] [DOI:10.14214/sf.1673]
28. Mwenzwa EM. A public-private partnership scheme to avert desertification in the drylands of Kenya: Lessons for social scientists. Univ Daresalam J. 2016;36(1):25-38. [Link]
29. Reuveny R, Moore WH. Does environmental degradation influence migration? emigration to developed countries in the late 1980s and 1990s. Soc Sci Q. 2009;90(3):461-79. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00569.x]
30. Collett G, Chhetri R, Jackson WJ, Shepherd KR. Nepal Australia community forestry project: Socioeconomic impact study [Report]. Canberra: ANUTECH; 1996, 19970600258. [Link]
31. Nsonsi F, Heymans JC, Diamouangana J, Breuer T. Attitudes towards forest elephant conservation around a protected area in northern Congo. Environ Soc. 2017;15(1):59-73. [Link] [DOI:10.4103/0972-4923.201394]
32. Anderson J, Mehta S, Epelu E, Cohen B. Managing leftovers: Does community forestry increase secure and equitable access to valuable resources for the rural poor?. For Policy Econ. 2015;58:47-55. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2014.12.004]
33. Vecchiato D, Tempesta T. Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments. For Policy Econ. 2013;26:111-20. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.001]
34. Newton P, Gomez AEA, Jung S, Kelly T, Mendes TA, Rasmussen LV, et al. Overcoming barriers to low carbon agriculture and forest restoration in Brazil: The rural sustentavel project. World Dev Perspect. 2016;4:5-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.wdp.2016.11.011]
35. Hendrickson CY, Corbera E. Participation dynamics and institutional change in the Scolel Té carbon forestry project, Chiapas, Mexico. Geoforum. 2015;59:63-72. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.022]
36. Minang PA, Duguma LA, Bernard F, Tita DF, Tchoundjeu Z. Evolution of community forestry in Cameroon: An innovation ecosystems perspective. Ecol Soc. 2019;24(1):1. [Link] [DOI:10.5751/ES-10573-240101]
37. Smith P, Powlson D, Glendining M, Smith J. Potential for carbon sequestration in European soils: Preliminary estimates for five scenarios using results from long-term experiments. Glob Change Biol. 1997;3(1):67-79. [Link] [DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2486.1997.00055.x]
38. Walton ME, Samonte-Tan GPB, Primavera JH, Edwards-Jones G, Vay LL. Are mangroves worth replanting? The direct economic benefits of a community-based reforestation project. Environ Conserv. 2006;33(4):335-43. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/S0376892906003341]
39. Dai L, Zhao W, Shao G, Lewis BJ, Yu D, Zhou L, et al. The progress and challenges in sustainable forestry development in China. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 2013;20(5):394-403. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/13504509.2013.775193]
40. Trac CJ, Harrell S, Hinckley TM, Henck AC. Reforestation programs in Southwest China: reported success, observed failure, and the reasons why. J Mt Sci. 2007;4(4):275-92. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11629-007-0275-1]
41. Perez C, Roncoli C, Neely C, Steiner JL. Can carbon sequestration markets benefit low-income producers in semi-arid Africa? Potentials and challenges. Agric Syst. 2007;94(1):2-12. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.agsy.2005.09.009]
42. Chhatre A, Agrawal A. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106(42):17667-70. [Link] [DOI:10.1073/pnas.0905308106]
43. Chandran KM, Surendran U. Study on factors influencing the adoption of drip irrigation by farmers in humid tropical Kerala, India. Int J Plant Prod. 2016;10(3):347-64. [Link]
44. Fisher JA, Cavanagh CJ, Sikor T, Mwayafu DM. Linking notions of justice and project outcomes in carbon offset forestry projects: Insights from a comparative study in Uganda. Land Use Policy. 2018;73:259-68. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.055]
45. Handberg ON. No sense of ownership in weak participation: A forest conservation experiment in Tanzania. Environ Deve Econ. 2018;23(4):434-51. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/S1355770X18000190]
46. Amiraslani F, Dragovich D. Forest management policies and oil wealth in Iran over the last century: A review. Nat Resour Forum. 2013;37(3):167-76. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/1477-8947.12016]
47. Tanner AM, Johnston AL. The impact of rural electric access on deforestation rates. World Dev. 2017;94:174-85. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.046]
48. González-Eguino M. Energy poverty: An overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;47:377-85. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.013]
49. Aglina MK, Agbejule A, Nyamuame GY. Policy framework on energy access and key development indicators: ECOWAS interventions and the case of Ghana. Energy Policy. 2016;97:332-42. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.012]
50. Becu N, Perez P, Walker A, Barreteau O, Page CL. Agent based simulation of a small catchment water management in northern Thailand: Description of the catchscape model. J Ecol Model. 2003;170(2-3):319-31. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00236-9]
51. Ulomi GA. Afforestation for mitigating against land degradation on Kilimanjaro highlands, Kibosho west ward, moshi rural district [dissertation]. Dar es Salam: The Open University of Tanzania; 2011. [Link]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |