This study identifies the demand for distributional impact assessment related to forest policies
and projects and the linkages between distributional impacts and sustainable development. An
integrated model is developed to assess distributional impact of forest policies and projects. The
procedures of distributional impact assessment are discussed Emphasis is placed on the
usefulness of the model in practice by integrating monetary and nonmonetary measures. The
distributional impacts of the introduction of structural particleboard technology are assessed to
illustrate the use of the model. The results show that useful information can be obtained by this
integrated approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, D., and R. Haynes.1980. The 1980 softwood timber assessment market model: Structure, projections, and policy simulations. Forest Science Monograph 22.
2.
Akino, M., and Y. Hayami.1975. Efficiency and equity in public research: Rice breeding in Japan's economic development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics57:1-10.
3.
Ayer, H., and G. Schuh.1972. Social rates of return and other aspects of agricultural research: The case of cotton research in Sao Paulo, Brazil . American Journal of Agricultural Economics54:557-69.
4.
Barnes, D.F., and J. Olivares.1988. Sustainable resource management in agriculture and rural development projects: A review of bank policies, procedures and results. Environment Department Working Paper no. 5. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
5.
Bengston, D.1984. Economic impacts of structural particleboard research . Forest Science30(3): 685-97.
6.
Bengston, D., H. Gregersen, and J. Haygreen.1988. Seesawing across the forty-ninth parallel: The international diffusion of a wood-based technology. Journal of Forest History32(2): 82-8.
7.
Brown, T.C.1984. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics60(3): 231-46.
Data Resource, Inc.1984a. North American structural panel markets. Vol. 1, Forecast and analysis. Lexington, MA: Author.
10.
—. 1984b. North American structural panel markets. Vol. 2, Forecast tables. Lexington, MA: Author.
11.
Delp, P., A. Thesan, J. Motiwalla, and N. Seshadri.1977. Systems tolls for project planning. MUCIA, Program of Advanced Studies in Institution Building and Technical Assistance Methodology.
12.
Ehrenfeld, D.1988. Why put a value on biodiversity? In Biodiversity , edited by E. O. Wilson, 212-6. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
13.
Finsterbusch, K., L.G. Llewellyn, and C.P. Wolf.1983. Social impact assessment methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
Gregersen, H., J. Arnold, A. Lundgren, and D. Gow.1993. Assessing forestry project impacts: Issues and strategtes. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.
15.
Gregersen, H.M., and A. Lundgren.1990. Forestry for sustainable development: Concepts and a framework. Working Paper no. 1. St. Paul : University of Minnesota, Forestry for Sustainable Development Program, College of Natural Resources.
16.
Gregersen, H.M., and S. McGauhey.1983. Including income redistribution effects in forestry project planning: Current practice and suggested guidelines. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.
17.
Hansen, J.1978. Guide to practical project appraisal: Social benefit-cost analysis in developing countries. Project Formulation and Evaluation Series no. 3. UNIDO. New York: United Nations, UNIDO.
18.
Haygreen, J., H. Gregersen, A. Hyun, and P. Ince.1985. Innovation and productivity change in the structural panel industry. Forest Products Journal35:32-8.
19.
Inter-American Developmental Bank (IDB).1979 . A methodology for measuring and recording distributional effects of projects in the bank's portfolio. Paper on Project Analysis no. 10. Washington, DC: Author.
20.
Iverson, D., and R. Alston.1993. Ecosystem-based forestry requires a broader economic focus. Journal of Sustainable Forestry1(2):97-106.
21.
Kalter, R.J., and T.H. Stevens.1971. Resource investments, impact distribution, and evaluation concepts. American Journal of Agricultural Economics53:206-15.
22.
Little, I.M.D., and J.A. Mirrlee.1974. Project appraisal and planning for developing countries. New York: Basic Books .
23.
McFarlane, P.B.1981. The role of research in the development of the waferboard industry. In 1980 Canadian Waferboard Symposium Proceedings, Forintek Canada Corp., SP 505E. Ottawa, Ontario : Forintek Canada Corp.
24.
Norton, B.1992. Sustainability, human welfare, and ecosystem health. Environmental Values1:97-111.
25.
Pearce, D.W., E. Barbier, and A. Markandya.1990. Sustainable development. Brookfield, VT: Gower.
26.
Randall, A.1991. Total and nonuse values. In Measuring the demand for environmental quality, edited by J. B. Braden and C. D. Kolstad, 303-22. Amsterdam , The Netherlands: North Holland.
27.
Random Lengths.1989. OSB/Waferboard Survey, 1988-1989, summary. Eugene, OR: Author.
28.
Redclift, M.1987. Sustainable development: Exploring the conditions. London: Methuen.
29.
Repetto, R.1986. World enough and time. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press
30.
Rolston, H , III. 1985. Valuing wildlands. Environmental Ethics7(1): 23-48.
31.
Rutan, V.W.1991. Sustainable growth in agricultural production: Poetry, policy and science. Staff Paper P91-47. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics .
32.
Sagoff, M.1988. Some problems with environmental economicsEnvironmental Ethics10 (Spring): 55-74.
33.
Scherr, S.J., and E.U. Muller.1990. Evaluating agroforestry intervention in extension projects. Agroforestry Systems11:259-80.
34.
Schmitz, A., and D. Seckler1970. Mechanical agriculture and social welfare: The case of the tomato harvester. American Journal of Agricultural Economics52:269-78.
35.
Schroeder, H.W.1991. The spiritual aspect of nature: A perspective from depth psychology. Paper presented at the 1991 Northeast Recreation Research Symposium, April, Saratoga Springs, NY.
36.
Scobie, G., and R. Posada.1978. The impact of technical change on income distribution: The case of rice in Columbia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics60:85-91.
37.
Spelter, H.1984. Price elasticity for softwood plywood and structural particleboard in the United States. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research14:528-35.
38.
Squire, L., and H.G. van der Tak .1975. Economic analysis of projects . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
Stier, J., and D. Bengston.1992. Technical change in the North American forestry sector: A review. Forest Science38(1): 134-59.
40.
Stockholm Group for Studies on Natural Resource Management.1988. Perspectives of sustainable development . Stockholm: Author.
41.
Sun, M.1987. UC told to review impact of research. Science238(November): 12-21.
42.
Swinkels, R.1990. Review of methods used for on-farm economic evaluation of agroforestry technologies. Workshop on methods for participatory on-farm agroforestry research for the International Center for Research in Agroforestry, February, Nairobi, Kenya.
43.
Turner, R. K., ed. 1988. Sustainable environmental management: Principles and practice. Boulder, CO: Westview.
44.
United Nations Industrial Development Organization.1972. Guidelines for project evaluation. Project Formulation and Evaluation Series, no. 3. New York: United Nations.
45.
Wear, D., and W. Hyde.1992. Distributive issues in forestry policy . In Emerging issues inforestry policy, edited by P. Nemetz, 297-314. Vancouver: UPC Press.
46.
Weber, R.1982. Review of CILSS forestry sector program analysis papers . Unpublished report prepared for the USAID/USDA/USFS Forestry Support Program.
47.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future . Oxford: Oxford University Press .
48.
Xu, Z.1992. Distributional impacts of forest-based projects in relation to sustainable development. Ph.D. diss , University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
49.
Xu, Z., D. Bengston, H. Gregersen, and A. Lundgren.1992. Regional impacts of technical change: The case of structural particleboard in the United States. Research Paper NC-304. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.
