CitationGrundy, Isla; Turpie, Jane; Jagger, Pamela; Witkowski, Ed; Guambe, Isabelle; Semwayo, Daniel; & Solomon, Anastelle (2000). Special Section: Land Use Options in Dry Tropical Woodland Ecosystems in Zimbabwe: Implications of Co-Management for Benefits from Natural Resources for Rural Households in North-Western Zimbabwe. Ecological Economics, 33(3), 369-381.
AbstractAddressing issues of resource management in sub-Saharan Africa has prompted the consideration of joint management policies that incorporate the needs of several stakeholder groups. This study examines the short and long-term use of natural resources in north-western Zimbabwe in a complex ecological–economic setting using a simulation model. Land and resource ownership in the model is divided between communal lands, which are managed by local inhabitants, and State Forest, which is managed by the Forestry Commission. Three different resource users rely on the stock of resources that the woodlands and grasslands (dambos) produce: the Zimbabwe Forestry Commission, communal land residents and illegal occupants of the State Forest. Net benefits to each of the three user groups are estimated under four different management scenarios, two of which advocate for the expulsion of illegal forest dwellers from the State Forest, and two of which involve a degree of joint management of the State Forest by the Forestry Commission and inhabitants neighbouring the forest. If the status quo is maintained, or if access by local people to the forest is severely limited, forest quality will decline due to the impacts of increased fires (which are limited when livestock are in abundance). Eviction of the forest dwellers results in a serious loss of benefits for that stakeholder group, but does not result in a significant increase of benefits for other stakeholder groups. The economic impacts of the different management scenarios are not very different because of the low values of the forest resources. Compared to the status quo, co-management provides for slightly greater net benefits, but the transaction costs associated with the establishment of co-management may be too high to justify this option.
Reference TypeJournal Article
Journal TitleEcological Economics