[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ugidic/159089.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic analysis of afforestation of marginal croplands in Uzbekistan

Author

Listed:
  • Djanibekov, Utkur
  • Khamzina, Asia
  • Villamor, Grace B.
  • Lamers, John P.A.
Abstract
Irrigated agricultural production in Uzbekistan is threatened by the impacts of land degradation, irrigation water scarcity and climate change. The conversion of marginal croplands to tree plantations is an option for rehabilitation of nutrient-depleted cropland soils, saving of irrigation water, carbon sequestration, and improving population welfare. The economic benefits and impacts of tree planting on marginal croplands, and policies that may facilitate the adoption of this land use are not well known. We employed various methods at different scales to investigate economically viable options of afforestation on marginal croplands on example of irrigated drylands of Uzbekistan. This includes analyzing the impacts of afforestation supported by the carbon (C) sequestration reward on the rural livelihoods. At field level (one hectare), the stochastic dominance analysis was employed to investigate the financial attractiveness of afforestation on marginal farmlands under uncertainty. At the farm level, the expected utility method was employed to analyze effects of this land use change on farm incomes. To consider the bimodal structure of agriculture in Uzbekistan, the stochastic dynamic farm-household model was developed. The results indicate that due to benefits from non-timber products, afforestation is a more viable land use option on marginal lands than crop cultivation. Allowing the exemption of marginal lands from cotton cropping in favor of tree planting would incentivize afforestation. At the same time, the field level analysis indicates that due to variability in returns a substantial increase in C prices would make afforestation as financially attractive as crops on marginal lands. However, when considering uncertainties in land use returns at the whole farm level, afforestation would occur without the C incentives due to improved irrigation water use efficiency and reduced revenue risks through land use diversification. Through the considered farm-household wage-labor relationship, the benefits of afforestation on marginal croplands at farm would be also transferred to rural smallholders employed at this farm. This would mainly result from improved payment structure by tree products, particularly fuelwood and foliage for livestock fodder.

Suggested Citation

  • Djanibekov, Utkur & Khamzina, Asia & Villamor, Grace B. & Lamers, John P.A., 2013. "Economic analysis of afforestation of marginal croplands in Uzbekistan," International Conference and Young Researchers Forum - Natural Resource Use in Central Asia: Institutional Challenges and the Contribution of Capacity Building 159089, University of Giessen (JLU Giessen), Center for International Development and Environmental Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ugidic:159089
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.159089
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/159089/files/Djanibekov%20et%20al_Economic%20analysis%20of%20afforestation.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.159089?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    2. Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
    3. Djanibekov, Nodir & Sommer, Rolf & Djanibekov, Utkur, 2013. "Evaluation of effects of cotton policy changes on land and water use in Uzbekistan: Application of a bio-economic farm model at the level of a water users association," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-13.
    4. Glomsrød, Solveig & Wei, Taoyuan & Liu, Gang & Aune, Jens B., 2011. "How well do tree plantations comply with the twin targets of the Clean Development Mechanism? -- The case of tree plantations in Tanzania," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1066-1074, April.
    5. Olschewski, Roland & Benítez, Pablo C. & de Koning, G.H.J. & Schlichter, Tomás, 2005. "How attractive are forest carbon sinks? Economic insights into supply and demand of Certified Emission Reductions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 77-94, September.
    6. Djanibekov, Utkur & Khamzina, Asia & Djanibekov, Nodir & Lamers, John P.A., 2012. "How attractive are short-term CDM forestations in arid regions? The case of irrigated croplands in Uzbekistan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 108-117.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juan Miguel Benito-Ostolaza & Nuria Osés-Eraso, 2013. "Incentives to give up resource extraction and avoid the tragedy of the commons," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 1305, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
    2. Legrand, Thomas & Froger, Géraldine & Le Coq, Jean-François, 2013. "Institutional performance of Payments for Environmental Services: An analysis of the Costa Rican Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 115-123.
    3. Kisaka, Lily & Obi, Ajuruchukwu, 2015. "Farmers’ Preferences for Management Options as Payment for Environmental Services Scheme," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1-22, September.
    4. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    5. Kwayu, Emmanuel J. & Sallu, Susannah M. & Paavola, Jouni, 2014. "Farmer participation in the equitable payments for watershed services in Morogoro, Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-9.
    6. Clements, Tom & John, Ashish & Nielsen, Karen & An, Dara & Tan, Setha & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1283-1291, April.
    7. Djanibekov, Utkur & Djanibekov, Nodir & Khamzina, Asia, 2012. "CDM afforestation for managing water, energy and rural income nexus in irrigated drylands," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126765, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Xiaoping Li & Yan Yan & Liuyang Yao, 2020. "‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-13, April.
    9. Laura Villalobos & Juan Robalino & Catalina Sandoval & Francisco Alpízar, 2023. "Local Effects of Payments for Ecosystem Services on Rural Poverty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(3), pages 753-774, March.
    10. Dale Whittington & Stefano Pagiola, 2012. "Using Contingent Valuation in the Design of Payments for Environmental Services Mechanisms: A Review and Assessment," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 27(2), pages 261-287, August.
    11. Vignola, Raffaele & McDaniels, Tim L. & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Negotiation analysis for mechanisms to deliver ecosystem services: The case of soil conservation in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 22-31.
    12. Astrid Zabel & Karen Pittel & Göran Bostedt & Stefanie Engel, 2011. "Comparing Conventional and New Policy Approaches for Carnivore Conservation: Theoretical Results and Application to Tiger Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 287-301, February.
    13. Blackman, Allen & Woodward, Richard T., 2010. "User financing in a national payments for environmental services program: Costa Rican hydropower," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1626-1638, June.
    14. Sanga, G.J. & Mungatana, E.D., 2016. "Integrating ecology and economics in understanding responses in securing land-use externalities internalization in water catchments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 28-39.
    15. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    16. Strand, Jon, 2018. "Forest Preservation Under REDD+ Schemes With Incentives Distortions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 343-348.
    17. Wang, Xialin & Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2021. "Modelling payments for ecosystem services for solving future water conflicts at spatial scales: The Okavango River Basin example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    18. Luca Corato & Michele Moretto & Sergio Vergalli, 2013. "Land conversion pace under uncertainty and irreversibility: too fast or too slow?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 45-82, September.
    19. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.
    20. Scheufele, Gabriela & Bennett, Jeff, 2013. "Payments for Environmental Services: Concepts and Applications," Research Reports 244011, Australian National University, Effective Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services in Lao PDR.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development; International Development; Land Economics/Use; Production Economics; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ugidic:159089. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zegiede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.