Public acceptance of policies to reduce forest loss: Evidence from a large-N cross-national survey in East Africa

IF 4.6 2区 农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Forest Policy and Economics Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-11 DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2026.103727
Aloyce Hepelwa , Peter Babyenda , Michael Ndwiga , Matilda Ntiyakunze , Boscow Okumu , Hailemariam Teklewold , Jesper Stage , Daniel Slunge
{"title":"Public acceptance of policies to reduce forest loss: Evidence from a large-N cross-national survey in East Africa","authors":"Aloyce Hepelwa ,&nbsp;Peter Babyenda ,&nbsp;Michael Ndwiga ,&nbsp;Matilda Ntiyakunze ,&nbsp;Boscow Okumu ,&nbsp;Hailemariam Teklewold ,&nbsp;Jesper Stage ,&nbsp;Daniel Slunge","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2026.103727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>While environmental policy acceptance has been extensively studied in OECD contexts, comparative evidence on how different forest policy instruments are perceived across low- and middle-income countries remains limited, particularly regarding the interaction between individual attitudes and national governance conditions. This study addresses this gap by analyzing stated support of four policies aimed at reducing forest loss across five East African countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. Using survey data from 4542 respondents, we examine individual and contextual factors associated with acceptance.</div><div>At the individual level, acceptance is higher for bans and taxes on tree cutting on public lands (67–68%) than on charcoal (44–46%), suggesting that policies perceived to directly constrain household energy access face greater resistance than restrictions on tree cutting. Reliance on firewood or charcoal is negatively associated with acceptance of all policies, while environmental concern, education, and trust are positively associated. Access to clean cooking fuels is positively linked to acceptance of tree-cutting restrictions. However, households dependent on charcoal are less supportive of charcoal-related bans and taxes, even where cleaner cooking alternatives are more available. Government effectiveness is associated with higher policy acceptance primarily where trust in government is high. Tree-cover loss is positively associated with acceptance of charcoal-related measures, and environmental concern is more strongly associated with acceptance in countries experiencing greater degradation.</div><div>While the sample is skewed toward urban and more educated respondents, the regional comparative analysis offers new evidence on how socio-economic and contextual factors relate to public acceptance of forest policies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"185 ","pages":"Article 103727"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934126000328","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While environmental policy acceptance has been extensively studied in OECD contexts, comparative evidence on how different forest policy instruments are perceived across low- and middle-income countries remains limited, particularly regarding the interaction between individual attitudes and national governance conditions. This study addresses this gap by analyzing stated support of four policies aimed at reducing forest loss across five East African countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. Using survey data from 4542 respondents, we examine individual and contextual factors associated with acceptance.
At the individual level, acceptance is higher for bans and taxes on tree cutting on public lands (67–68%) than on charcoal (44–46%), suggesting that policies perceived to directly constrain household energy access face greater resistance than restrictions on tree cutting. Reliance on firewood or charcoal is negatively associated with acceptance of all policies, while environmental concern, education, and trust are positively associated. Access to clean cooking fuels is positively linked to acceptance of tree-cutting restrictions. However, households dependent on charcoal are less supportive of charcoal-related bans and taxes, even where cleaner cooking alternatives are more available. Government effectiveness is associated with higher policy acceptance primarily where trust in government is high. Tree-cover loss is positively associated with acceptance of charcoal-related measures, and environmental concern is more strongly associated with acceptance in countries experiencing greater degradation.
While the sample is skewed toward urban and more educated respondents, the regional comparative analysis offers new evidence on how socio-economic and contextual factors relate to public acceptance of forest policies.
公众对减少森林损失政策的接受程度:来自东非大型跨国调查的证据
虽然在经合发组织范围内对环境政策的接受程度进行了广泛的研究,但关于低收入和中等收入国家如何看待不同森林政策工具的比较证据仍然有限,特别是关于个人态度与国家治理条件之间的相互作用。本研究通过分析埃塞俄比亚、肯尼亚、卢旺达、坦桑尼亚和乌干达这五个东非国家对旨在减少森林损失的四项政策的支持情况,解决了这一差距。利用来自4542名受访者的调查数据,我们研究了与接受度相关的个人因素和环境因素。在个人层面上,对公共土地上砍伐树木的禁令和税收的接受度(67-68%)高于对木炭的接受度(44-46%),这表明被认为直接限制家庭能源获取的政策比限制砍伐树木面临更大的阻力。对木柴或木炭的依赖与对所有政策的接受程度呈负相关,而对环境的关注、教育和信任则呈正相关。获得清洁的烹饪燃料与接受砍伐树木的限制呈正相关。然而,依赖木炭的家庭不太支持与木炭相关的禁令和税收,即使在更清洁的烹饪替代品更容易获得的地方。政府效率与较高的政策接受度有关,主要是在对政府的信任度高的地方。树木覆盖损失与接受与炭有关的措施呈正相关,而环境问题与接受程度在经历更严重退化的国家更为密切相关。虽然样本偏向城市和受教育程度较高的受访者,但区域比较分析提供了新的证据,说明社会经济和环境因素如何与公众接受森林政策有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Forest Policy and Economics
Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
148
审稿时长
21.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书