Dataset Persistent ID
|
doi:10.17528/CIFOR/DATA.00198 |
Publication Date
|
2020-02-06 |
Title
|
Household dataset of the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS REDD+) Module 2
|
Alternative URL
|
https://www.cifor.org/gcs/modules/redd-subnational-initiatives/
|
Author
|
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
|
Contact
|
Use email button above to contact.
CIFOR-RDM (Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR))
|
Description
|
The Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS REDD+) was launched in 2009 by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) to ensure that policy-makers and practitioner communities have access to – and use – the information, analyses and tools they need to: design and implement REDD+ and other forest-based mitigation strategies in effective, efficient and equitable ways that also promote social and environmental co-benefits; and rigorously assess to what degree REDD+ has delivered. Module 2 (Subnational REDD+ and low emissions development initiatives) focuses on assessing the performance of subnational REDD+ and other low-emission development initiatives, including subnational jurisdictional programmes and local-level projects. Module 2 evaluated the impacts of 23 REDD+ project and program sites in six countries: Brazil, Cameroon, Indonesia, Peru, Tanzania and Vietnam. The research uses a before–after/control–intervention (BACI) approach. In this approach, identical data are collected both before and after the initiative starts, and in an ‘intervention’ area (that is, the location that is impacted by the REDD+ initiative) and a ‘control’ area (that is, a location that has similar characteristics to the intervention area, but is not impacted by the REDD+ initiative). Data collection for the the first round (baseline) was carried out in 2010/11 (hereafter referred as ‘Phase 1’), and for the second round (midline) in 2013/14 (hereafter referred as ‘Phase 2’). In 2018/19, a third round (endline) of data collection (hereafter referred as ‘Phase 3’) was conducted at eight of the study sites in three countries (Brazil, Peru and Indonesia). At each site, four intervention villages and four control villages were surveyed. In each village, three types of data collection instruments were implemented in Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3: a Household Questionnaire; a Village Questionnaire; and a Women’s Questionnaire. The Household dataset corresponds to the Household Questionnaire, which is used to: 1. Measure the potential effect of REDD+ on household well-being on the basis of objective metrics (livelihood, assets and income in the course of 12 months) and subjective metrics (perceived well-being status and the reasons for change for those who experience change); 2. Measure the potential effect of REDD+ on land and resource use at the level of the household; 3. Measure household knowledge of and involvement in the process of establishing and implementing REDD+. The Household Questionnaire is divided into 5 main sections: 1. Basic information on household members; 2. Household assets; 3. Household income; 4. Perceptions of wellbeing and wellbeing change in last two years; and, 5. Involvement in and assessment of forest conservation interventions. Two additional sections were added in Phase 3: 7. Risk, time, social, environmental and trust preferences of the household; 8. Experimental game to assess social preferences. The Household Questionnaire was carried out in 18 of the 23 subnational initiatives. The Household dataset includes 4524 households in phase 1 and 3988 in phase 2, of which 3529 were interviewed twice (not all the phase 1 households could be interviewed again in phase 2 due to attrition). While in Phase 3, the household dataset includes 2028 households. Variables from Phase 1 start with P1H_section&question number, variables from Phase 2 start with P2H_section&question number, and variables from Phase 3 start with P3H_section&question number. The research design and methods are further described in Sunderlin et al. (2016) as well as in several GCS REDD+ publications (see ‘Related publications’). (2019)
|
Subject
|
Climate Change, Energy and low carbon development (CCE)
|
Keyword
|
forests (GACS) http://id.agrisemantics.org/gacs/C158
deforestation (GACS) http://id.agrisemantics.org/gacs/C5797
degradation (GACS) http://id.agrisemantics.org/gacs/C1653
mitigation (GACS) http://id.agrisemantics.org/gacs/C3154
livelihoods (GACS) http://id.agrisemantics.org/gacs/C16206
income (GACS) http://id.agrisemantics.org/gacs/C2750
well-being (GACS) http://id.agrisemantics.org/gacs/C20979
tenure (GACS) http://id.agrisemantics.org/gacs/C7315
|
Topic Classification
|
Climate change
Livelihoods
Land Tenure and Systems
|
Related Publication
|
Global Comparative Study on REDD+ url: REDD+ Subnational Initiatives. https://www.cifor.org/gcs/modules/redd-subnational-initiatives/main-publications/
Angelsen, A., Martius, C., de Sy, V., Duchelle, A. E., Larson, A. M., & Pham, T. T. 2018. Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. url: https://www.cifor.org/library/7045/
Angelsen, Arild, Maria Brockhaus, William D. Sunderlin, Louis V. Verchot. 2012. Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. url: http://www.cifor.org/library/3805/analysing-redd-challenges-and-choices/
Awono, Abdon, Olufunso A. Somorin, Richard Eba’a Atyi, and Patrice Levang. 2014. Tenure and participation in local REDD+ projects: Insights from southern Cameroon. Environmental Science & Policy 35: 76-86. url: http://www.cifor.org/library/4078/tenure-and-participation-in-local-redd-projects-insights-from-southern-cameroon/
Awono, Abdon, Patrice Levang. 2018. Contribution of Environmental Products to the Household Economy in Cameroon: Essential, Complementary or Trivial? Forestry Research and Engineering: International Journal. 2(1): 00018. url: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2fa2/4190cbb07c58a6cde1c162074a8e20882372.pdf
Börner, Jan, Sven Wunder, Florian Reimer, Riyong Kim Bakkegaard, Virgilio Viana, João Tezza, Thais Pinto, Luiza Lima, and Suelen Marostica. 2013. Promoting Forest Stewardship in the Bolsa Floresta Programme: Local Livelihood Strategies and Preliminary Impacts. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Manaus, Brazil: Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (FAS). Bonn, Germany: Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung (ZEF). url: http://www.cifor.org/library/4481/promoting-forest-stewardship-in-the-bolsa-floresta-programme-local-livelihood-strategies-and-preliminary-impacts/
Cromberg, Marina, Amy E. Duchelle, and Isa de Oliveira Rocha. 2014. Local participation in REDD+: Lessons from the eastern Brazilian Amazon. Forests 5:579-598. url: http://www.cifor.org/library/4500/local-participation-in-redd-lessons-from-the-eastern-brazilian-amazon/
Dokken, Therese and Arild Angelsen. 2015. Forest reliance across poverty groups in Tanzania. Ecological Economics 117:203-211. url: http://www.cifor.org/library/5678/forest-reliance-across-poverty-groups-in-tanzania/
Duchelle, Amy E., Marina Cromberg, Maria Fernanda Gebara, Raissa Guerra, Tadeu Melo, Anne Larson, Peter Cronkleton, Jan Börner, Erin Sills, Sven Wunder, Simone Bauch, Peter May, Galia Selaya, William D. Sunderlin. 2014. Linking Forest Tenure Reform, Environmental Compliance, and Incentives: Lessons from REDD+ Initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development 55, 53-67. url: http://www.cifor.org/library/4080/linking-forest-tenure-reform-environmental-compliance-and-incentives-lessons-from-redd-initiatives-in-the-brazilian-amazon/
Duchelle AE, de Sassi C, Jagger P, Cromberg M, Larson AM, Sunderlin WD, Atmadja SS, Resosudarmo IAP and Pratama CD. 2017. Balancing carrots and sticks in REDD+: Implications for social safeguards. Ecology & Society 22(3) 2: url: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss3/art2/
Ickowitz, Amy, Erin O. Sills, Claudio de Sassi. 2017. Estimating smallholder opportunity costs of REDD+: A pantropical analysis from households to carbon and back. World Development 95:15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.022
Jagger, Pamela, Sills, Erin O., Kathleen Lawlor, and William D. Sunderlin. 2010. A Guide to Learning about Livelihood Impacts of REDD+. Occasional Paper No. 56. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. url: http://www.cifor.org/library/3283/a-guide-to-learning-about-livelihood-impacts-of-redd-projects/
Resosudarmo, Ida Aju Pradnja, Stibniati S. Atmadja, Andini Desita Ekaputri, Dian Y. Intarini, Yayan Indriatmoko, and Pangestuti Astri. 2014. Does Tenure Security Lead to REDD+ Project Effectiveness? Reflections from Five Emerging Sites in Indonesia. World Development 55, 68-83; doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.015
Sills, Erin O., Stibniati S. Atmadja, Claudio de Sassi, Amy E. Duchelle, Demetrius L. Kweka, Ida Aju Pradjna Resosudarmo, and William D. Sunderlin (eds.). 2014. REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. url: http://www.cifor.org/redd-case-book/
Sills, Erin O., Claudio de Sassi, Pamela Jagger, Kathleen Lawlor, Daniela A. Miteva, Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, William D. Sunderlin. 2017. Building the evidence base for REDD+: Study design and methods for evaluating the impacts of conservation and interventions on local well-being. Global Environmental Change 43:148–160. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.02.002
Simonet, G., Subervie, J., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Cromberg, M., & Duchelle, A. E. 2018. Effectiveness of a REDD+ Project in Reducing Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 101(1), 211-229. url: https://academic.oup.com/ajae/article/101/1/211/5039934
Sunderlin, William D., Anne M. Larson, Amy E. Duchelle, Erin O. Sills, Cecilia Luttrell, Pam Jagger, Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, Peter Cronkleton, Andini D. Ekaputri, Claudio de Sassi, Riza Aryani, Gabriela Simonet. 2016. Technical guidelines for research on REDD+ subnational initiatives. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). url: http://www.cifor.org/library/6009/technical-guidelines-for-research-on-redd-subnational-initiatives/
Sunderlin, William D., Claudio de Sassi, Andini Desita Ekaputri, Mara Light, Christy Desta Pratama. 2017. REDD+ Contribution to Well-being and Income Is Marginal: The Perspective of Local Stakeholders. Forest, 8(4), 125. url: http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/8/4/125
Sunderlin, W. D., de Sassi, C., Sills, E. O., Duchelle, A. E., Larson, A. M., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., ... & Huynh, T. B. 2018. Creating an appropriate tenure foundation for REDD+: The record to date and prospects for the future. World Development, 106, 376-392. url: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X18300202
|
Language
|
English
|
Production Date
|
2019
|
Contributor
|
Project Leader : Duchelle, A.E
Data Curator : Komalasari, M.
Data Curator : Muchlish, U.
Researcher : Gabriela, S.
|
Grant Information
|
The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad)
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)
The European Commission (EC)
The International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment
Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB)
The United Kingdom Department for International Development (UKAID)
The CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA)
|
Distributor
|
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) http://www.cifor.org 
|
Depositor
|
Muchlish, Usman
|
Deposit Date
|
2019-03-22
|
Time Period Covered
|
Start: 2009 ; End: 2014
|
Date of Collection
|
Start: 2009 ; End: 2014
|
Kind of Data
|
survey data
|
Software
|
-
|
Related Datasets
|
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 2019, "Village dataset of the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS REDD+) Module 2", https://doi.org/10.17528/CIFOR/AP0US4, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR),
|