The Benefits of Titling Indigenous Communities in the Peruvian Amazon: A Stated Preference Approach

References

1. 1. Abildtrup, J.,
   2. S. Garcia,
   3. S. Olsen, and
   4. A. Stenger

   . 2013. Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecological Economics 92: 67–77.

   OpenUrl
2. 1. Adamowicz, W.,
   2. P. Boxall,
   3. M. Williams, and
   4. J. Louviere

   . 1998. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 64–75.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
3. 1. Alden Wily, L.

   2018. Collective land ownership in the 21st century: Overview of global trends. Land 7: 68: doi:10.3390/land7020068.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
4. 1. Bennett, J., and
   2. R. Blamey

   . 2001. The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
5. 1. Besley, T.

   1995. Property rights and investment incentives: Theory and evidence from Ghana. Journal of Political Economy 103(5): 903–37.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
6. 1. Blackman, A.,
   2. L. Corral,
   3. E. Lima, and
   4. G. Asner

   . 2017. Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114: 4123–4128.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
7. 1. Bloom, Howard.

   1995. Minimum detectable effects. Evaluation Review 19(5): 547–56.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
8. 1. Börger, T.,
   2. Q. T. K. Ngoc,
   3. L. Kuhfuss,
   4. T. T. Hien,
   5. N. Hanley, and
   6. D. Campbell

   . 2021. Preferences for coastal and marine conservation in Vietnam: Accounting for differences in individual choice set formation. Ecological Economics 180: 106885.

   OpenUrl
9. 1. Calderón, L.A.

   2021. Bajo lupa: Los resultados del III Censo de Comunidades Nativas 2017. In La Situación de Tierras, Territorios y Recursos Naturales de los Pueblos Indígenas en la Amazonía Peruana. Lima: Ministerio de Desarrollo Agrario y Riego Dirección General de Saneamiento. Chapter 4.
10. 1. Campbell, D.

    2007. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: Combining mixed logit and random-effects models. Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(3): 467–83.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
11. 1. Carlsson, F., and
    2. P. Martinsson

    2003. Design techniques for choice experiments in health economics. Health Economics 12: 281–94.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 1. Carlsson, F.,
    2. M.R. Mørkbak, and
    3. S.B. Olsen

    . 2012. The first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments. Journal of Choice Modelling 5(2): 19–37.

    OpenUrl
13. 1. Chirif, A.

    2021. Titulación de comunidades nativas, vacíos y dilaciones. In La Situación de Tierras, Territorios y Recursos Naturales de los Pueblos Indígenas en la Amazonía Peruana. Lima: Ministerio de Desarrollo Agrario y Riego Dirección General de Saneamiento. Chapter 2.
14. 1. Czajkowski, M.,
    2. W. Budziński,
    3. D. Campbell,
    4. M. Giergiczny, and
    5. N. Hanley

    . 2017. Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management. Environmental and Resource Economics 68(3): 705–27.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
15. 1. Dandler, J.

    1998. Pueblos Indígenas de la Amazonía Peruana y Desarrollo Sostenible. Working paper 68. Lima: United Nations International Labor Organization.
16. Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (DGM). 2020. Annual Report. Available at: https://www.dgmglobal.org/documents.
17. 1. Dong, N., and
    2. R. Maynard

    . 2013. PowerUp! A tool for calculating minimum detectable effect sizes and minimum required sample sizes for experimental and quasi-experimental design studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 6(1): 24–67.

    OpenUrl
18. 1. Farr, M.,
    2. N. Stoeckl,
    3. M. Esparon,
    4. D. Grainger, and
    5. S. Larson

    . 2016. Economic values and indigenous protected areas across northern Australia. Townsville: James Cook University.
19. 1. Gao, L.,
    2. D. Sun, and
    3. J. Huang

    . 2017. Impact of land tenure policy on agricultural investments in China: Evidence from a panel data study. China Economic Review 45: 244–52.

    OpenUrl
20. 1. Garnett, S.,
    2. N. Burgess,
    3. J. Fa

    , et al. 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability. DOI: 10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
21. 1. Gayatri, D.,
    2. X. Del Carpio, and
    3. V. Hoffman

    . 2009. Can a market-assisted land redistribution program improve the lives of the poor? Evidence from Malawi. Policy Research working paper 5093. Washington, DC: World Bank.
22. 1. Ghosh, R.,
    2. S. Gupta,
    3. V. Singh, and
    4. P. Ward

    . 2021. Demand for crop insurance in developing countries: New evidence from India. Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(1): 293–320.

    OpenUrl
23. 1. Giergiczny, M.,
    2. S. Valasiuk,
    3. M. Czajkowski,
    4. M. De Salvo, and
    5. G. Signorello

    . 2012. Including cost income ratio into utility function as a way of dealing with ‘exploding’ implicit prices in mixed logit models. Journal of Forest Economics 18(4): 370–380.

    OpenUrl
24. 1. Gilbert, J.

    2016. Land grabbing, investors, and indigenous peoples: new legal strategies for an old practice? Community Development Journal 51(3): 350–366.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
25. 1. Hensher, D.

    2007. Attribute processing in choice experiments and implications on willingness to pay. In Kanninen, B. (ed.), Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies. A common sense approach to theory and practice. Netherlands: Springer, 135–58.
26. 1. Hensher, D., and
    2. W. Greene

    . 2003. The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation 30: 133–76.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
27. 1. Higgins, D.,
    2. T. Balint,
    3. H. Liversage, and
    4. P. Winters

    . 2018. Investigating the impacts of increased rural land tenure security: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Rural Studies 61: 34–62.

    OpenUrl
28. 1. Hole, A.

    2007. Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata Journal 7: 388–401.

    OpenUrl
29. 1. Holmes, T.,
    2. W. Adamowicz, and
    3. F. Carlsson

    2017. Choice Experiments. In P. Champ, K. Boyle, and T. Brown (eds.), A primer on nonmarket valuation. The economics of non-market goods and resources, vol. 13. Dordrecht: Springer.
30. 1. Hoyos, D.,
    2. P. Mariel, and
    3. J. Fernández-Macho

    . 2009. The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence. Ecological Economics 68: 2372–81.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
31. Instituto del Bien Común (IBC). 2013. Directorio de Comunidades Nativas del Perú. Lima.
32. Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). 2014. Costos detallados componente 1 (Sierra y Selva). Lima.
33. Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). 2015. Perú Perfil de Proyecto. Programa de Titulación y Registro de Tierras—PTRT III—Inversión. Washington, DC.
34. 1. Ito, J.,
    2. Z. Bao, and
    3. J. Ni

    . 2016. Land rental development via institutional innovation in rural Jiangsu, China. Food Policy 59: 1–11.

    OpenUrl
35. 1. Johnston, R.,
    2. K. Boyle,
    3. W. Adamowicz,
    4. J. Bennett,
    5. R. Brouwer,
    6. T.A. Cameron,
    7. M. Hanemann,
    8. N. Hanley,
    9. M. Ryan,
    10. R. Scarpa,
    11. R. Tourangeau, and
    12. C. Vossler

    . 2017. Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4(2): 319–405.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
36. 1. Killick, E.

    2007. Creating community: Land titling, education, and settlement formation among the Asheninka of Peruvian Amazonia. Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 13, 22–47.

    OpenUrl
37. 1. Kuhfeld, W.

    2010. Experimental design: Efficiency, coding, and choice designs. Available from http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/mr2010c.pdf. [Accessed August 16, 2022].
38. 1. Lancaster, K.

    1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74: 132–57.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
39. 1. Manski, C.

    1977. The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8(3): 229–54.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
40. 1. McFadden, D.

    1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (ed.), Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press.
41. 1. Mendola, M., and
    2. F. Simtowe

    . 2015. The welfare impact of land redistribution: Evidence from a quasi-experimental initiative in Malawi. World Development 72: 53–69.

    OpenUrl
42. 1. Monterroso, I.,
    2. A. Larson,
    3. Y. Guitiérez,
    4. J. Quaedvlieg, and
    5. L. Jarma

    . 2019a. Guía práctica para el proceso de titulación de comunidades nativas. Bangor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
43. 1. Monterroso,
    2. I. A. Larson,
    3. J. Quaedvlieg,
    4. F. Valencia,
    5. L. Jarama, and
    6. J. Saldaña

    . 2019b. Formalization of the collective rights of native communities in Peru The perspective of implementing officials. CIFOR InfoBrief No. 247. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia
44. 1. Monterroso, I. and
    2. A. Larson

    . 2018. Challenges in formalizing the rights of native communities in Peru. CIFOR InfoBrief No. 220. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.
45. 1. Monterroso, I.,
    2. P. Cronkleton,
    3. D. Pinedo, and
    4. A. Larson

    . 2017. Reclaiming collective rights: Land and forest tenure reforms in Peru (1960–2016). Working Paper 224. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.
46. 1. Montes, G. and
    2. K. Barthel

    . 2017. Legal and institutional framework: Lessons learned from the design and implementation of land titling projects. InterAmerican Development Bank/RE3/EN3.
47. 1. Mueller, V.,
    2. A. Quisumbing,
    3. H. L. Lee, and
    4. K. Droppelmann

    . 2014. Resettlement for food security’s sake: Insights from a Malawi land reform project. Land Economics 90(2): 222–36.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
48. 1. Notess, L.,
    2. P. Veit,
    3. I. Monterroso,
    4. Andiko,
    5. E. Sulle,
    6. A.. Larson,
    7. A.-S. Gindroz,
    8. J. Quaedvlieg, and
    9. A. Williams

    . 2018. The scramble for land rights: Reducing inequity between communities and companies. Washington: World Resources Institute.
49. 1. Oleson, K.,
    2. M. Barnes,
    3. L. Brander,
    4. T. Oliver,
    5. I. van Beek,
    6. B. Zafindrasilivonona, and
    7. P. van Beukering

    . 2015. Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows among indigenous fishers: A discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods. Ecological Economics 114: 104–16.

    OpenUrl
50. Organismo de Formalización de la Propiedad Informal (COFOPRI). 2008. Demarcación y titulación de comunidades nativas. Power Point Presentation.
51. 1. Pender, J.,
    2. S. Suyanto,
    3. J. Kerr and
    4. E. Kato

    . 2008. Impacts of the Hutan Kamasyarakatan social forestry program in the Sumberjaya watershed, West Lampung District of Sumatra, Indonesia. Discussion paper 0079. Bogor: International Food Policy Research Institute.
52. 1. Qin, P.,
    2. F. Carlsson, and
    3. J. Xu

    . 2010. Forest tenure reform in China: A choice experiment on farmers’ property rights preferences. Land Economics 87(3): 473–87.

    OpenUrl
53. 1. Revelt, D., and
    2. K. Train

    . 2000. Customer-specific taste parameters and mixed logit. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of California.
54. Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). 2015. Who owns the world’s land? A global baseline of formally recognized indigenous and community land rights. Washington, DC.
55. Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). 2018. At a crossroads: Consequential trends in recognition of community-based forest tenure from 2002–2017. Washington, DC.
56. 1. Rolfe, J., and
    2. J. Windle

    . 2003. Valuing the protection of aboriginal cultural heritage sites. Economic Record 79: 85–95.

    OpenUrl
57. 1. Sarmiento, J.,
    2. B. Begert

    , M. and Loza. 2021. Is the formalization of collective tenure rights supporting sustainable indigenous livelihoods? Insights from comunidades nativas in the Peruvian Amazon. International Journal of the Commons 15(1): 381–394.
58. 1. Thiede, B., and
    2. C. Gray

    . 2020. Characterizing the indigenous forest peoples of Latin America: Results from census data. World Development 125: 104685.

    OpenUrl
59. 1. Train, K.

    2009. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. 1. Tseng, T.,
    2. B. Robinson,
    3. M. Bellemare

    , et al. 2020. How do tenure interventions influence socio-ecological conditions? 2020. Nature Sustainability 4 (March): 242–51. DOI 10.1038/s41893-020-00648-5.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
61. United Nations (UN). 2021. State of the world’s indigenous peoples: Rights to lands, territories and resources. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York.
62. 1. Vélez, M. A.,
    2. J. Robalino,
    3. J. C. Cardenas,
    4. A. Paz, and
    5. E. Pacay

    . 2020. Is collective titling enough to protect forests? Evidence from Afro-descendant communities in the Colombian Pacific region. World Development 128: 104837.

    OpenUrl
63. 1. Venn, T., and
    2. J. Quiggin

    . 2007. Accommodating indigenous cultural heritage values in resource assessment: Cape York Peninsula and the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Ecological Economics 61(2–3): 334–44.

    OpenUrl
64. 1. Vincent, J.,
    2. R. Carson,
    3. J. DeShazo,
    4. K. Schwabe,
    5. I. Ahmad,
    6. S. Chong,
    7. Y. Chang and
    8. M. Potts

    . 2014. Tropical countries may be willing to pay more to protect their forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(28): 10113–10118.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
65. 1. Xu, Y.,
    2. X. Huang,
    3. H. Bao,
    4. X. Ju,
    5. T. Zhong,
    6. Z. Chen, and
    7. Y. Zhou

    . 2018. Rural land rights reform and agro-environmental sustainability: Empirical evidence from China. Land Use Policy 74: 73–87.

    OpenUrl
66. 1. Yao, R.,
    2. R. Scarpa,
    3. J. Turner,
    4. T. Barnard,
    5. J. Rose,
    6. J. Palma, and
    7. D. Harrison

    . 2014. Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand’s planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay. Ecological Economics 98: 90–101.

    OpenUrl
67. 1. Zander, K., and
    2. S. Garnett

    . 2011. The economic value of environmental services on indigenous-held lands in Australia. PLoS One 6(8): e23154.

    OpenUrlPubMed
68. 1. Zemo, K.,
    2. H. Kassahun, and
    3. S. Olsen

    . 2019. Determinants of willingness-to-pay for attributes of power outage: An empirical discrete choice experiment addressing implications for fuel switching in developing countries. Energy 174: 206–15.

    OpenUrl