manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends
manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends
manual for social impact assessment of land-based ... - Forest Trends
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Advantages and Disadvantages <strong>of</strong> Participatory Economic Valuation<br />
Main Advantages or Benefits Main Disadvantages or Limitations<br />
• Attribution can be factored in<br />
• It is very useful <strong>for</strong> ranking a range <strong>of</strong> benefits<br />
• Monetization makes comparisons easy to<br />
understand<br />
• Order <strong>of</strong> magnitude numbers can be derived<br />
relatively quickly<br />
• It uses local data and knowledge<br />
• It can be done individually or with focus groups<br />
Main Sources and Further Guidance<br />
• As regards the generation <strong>of</strong> absolute numbers,<br />
this method has been critiqued by economists<br />
due to various theoretical and methodological<br />
problems: the mixing <strong>of</strong> stock and flow values;<br />
non-independent and inconsistent values (e.g.,<br />
in terms <strong>of</strong> unit area); WTP values depend on<br />
whether people own the ‘numeraire’ item;<br />
seasonality issues; bias caused by group<br />
dynamics; and other issues<br />
• It is less effective <strong>for</strong> costs or negative <strong>impact</strong>s<br />
• It is inappropriate in situations where people<br />
are unused to monetary valuation<br />
• It should be combined with other methods<br />
Campbell B., Vermeulen S. & Lynam T. 1991. Value <strong>of</strong> Trees in the Small-Scale Farming Sector <strong>of</strong><br />
Zimbabwe. IDRC-MR302e. International Development Research Centre. Ottawa, Canada.<br />
Franks, P. (Undated) Promoting Equity in the Management <strong>of</strong> Protected Areas: New evidence <strong>of</strong> the<br />
need <strong>for</strong> action. CARE International. http://www.povertyandconservation. info/docs/20080524-<br />
Phil_Franks_CARE_International2.pdf<br />
Emerton, L. 1996. Valuing the subsistence use <strong>of</strong> <strong>for</strong>est products in Oldonyo Orok <strong>Forest</strong>, Kenya. Rural<br />
Development <strong>Forest</strong>ry Network Paper 16e, ODI, London.<br />
IIED. 1994. Economic Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Tropical Land Use Options: A Review <strong>of</strong> Methodology and<br />
Applications. Environmental Economics Programme, International Institute <strong>for</strong> Environment and<br />
Development, London.<br />
Richards, M., Davies, J. & Yaron, G. 2003. Stakeholder Incentives in Participatory <strong>Forest</strong> Management. A<br />
Manual <strong>for</strong> Economic Analysis. London: ITDG Publishing.<br />
Schreckenberg, K., Camargo, I., Withnall, K., Corrigan, C., Franks, P., Roe, D. and Scherl, L.M. 2010. Social<br />
Assessment <strong>of</strong> Protected Areas: a review <strong>of</strong> rapid methodologies. A report <strong>for</strong> the Social<br />
Assessment <strong>of</strong> Protected Areas (SAPA) Initiative. International Institute <strong>for</strong> Environment and<br />
Development. London, UK.<br />
Social Impact Assessment <strong>of</strong> Land-Based Carbon Projects (1.0) – Part II | 64