Nicholas Hogarth

Nicholas Hogarth

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

20Years (2007-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 December 2014 in World Development
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Arild AngelsenArild Angelsen
Arild Angelsen
PJPamela Jagger
Pamela Jagger
RBRonnie Babigumira
Ronnie Babigumira
BBBrian Belcher
Brian Belcher
NHNicholas Hogarth
Nicholas Hogarth
SWSven Wunder
Sven Wunder
This paper presents results from a comparative analysis of environmental income from approximately 8000 households in 24 developing countries collected by research partners in CIFOR’s Poverty Environment Network (PEN). Environmental income accounts for 28% of total household income, 77% of which comes from natural forests. Environmental income shares are higher for low-income households, but differences across income quintiles are less pronounced than previously thought. The poor rely more heavily on subsistence products such as wood fuels and wild foods, and on products harvested from natural areas other than forests. In absolute terms environmental income is approximately five times higher in the highest income quintile, compared to the two lowest quintiles.

1 November 2018 in Global Environmental Change
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
AMArttu Malkamäki
Arttu Malkamäki
DDDalia D'Amato
Dalia D'Amato
NHNicholas Hogarth
Nicholas Hogarth
MKMarkku Kanninen
Markku Kanninen
RPRomain Pirard
Romain Pirard
WZWen Zhou
Wen Zhou

1 March 2013 in World Development
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NHNicholas Hogarth
Nicholas Hogarth
BBBrian Belcher
Brian Belcher
BCBruce Campbell
Bruce Campbell
NSNatasha Stacey
Natasha Stacey

12 September 2016 in Environmental Evidence
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LRLUCAS GUTIERREZ RODRIGUEZ
LUCAS GUTIERREZ RODRIGUEZ
NHNicholas Hogarth
Nicholas Hogarth
WZWen Zhou
Wen Zhou
CXChen Xie
Chen Xie
KZKun Zhang
Kun Zhang
LPLouis Putzel
Louis Putzel
Background: Farming on sloping lands has historically led to forest loss and degradation in China, which coupled with unsustainable timber extraction activities, was deemed responsible for catastrophic flooding events in the late 1990s. These events led to the introduction of forest policies targeting ecological conservation and rural development in China, a process epitomized by the launch of the conversion of cropland to forest program (CCFP) in 1999. This systematic review responds to the question:What are the environmental and socioeconomic effects of China’s Conversion of Cropland to Forest Program after the first 15 years of implementation?Methods: Based on the published protocol, we searched for English language studies published between 1999 and 2014, and screened them for relevance and eligibility in two stages (titles and abstracts followed by full texts), after which they were further assessed for potential sources of bias before data extraction and analyses. Following initial screening of 879 titles and abstracts, 169 studies underwent full text screening, followed by 61 studies being subjected to quality assessment. Eighteen papers did not meet minimum quality criteria, while the remaining 43 papers were eligible and underwent data extraction and subsequent analyses. Among the final set of 43 studies were four national-level studies, seven regional-level studies, and 32 county-level (or below) studies. The majority of studies were published after 2009 and evaluated impacts within the first 5 years of CCFP implementation, such that the long-term impacts of the program remain open for further investigation.Results: A skewed temporal and geographic distribution of the examined studies limits the generalizability of the results, though the evidence base confirms a substantial increase in forest cover and associated carbon stocks linked to reallocation of sloping agricultural land to forest. To some degree, soil erosion has been controlled and flood risk reduced at local scales. Meanwhile household incomes have increased and rural employment has readjusted towards off-farm sectors. However, some studies also indicate instances of diminished food security and increasing social inequality. Finally, several studies indicate suboptimal regional or localized trade-offs among specific ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration vs. water discharge rates, flood control vs. riparian soil replacement, and forest productivity vs. biodiversity.Conclusions: Additional research on long-term environmental impacts and program effects in under-studied regions, particularly southern and western provinces, is necessary. In terms of recommendations for future research on the CCFP, there is a significant need to examine confounding factors, ideally through the selection of matching control groups to CCFP participants, and to ensure that sampling methodologies are more representative of selected study sites and the overall targeted area. There remain many opportunities to assess specific socioecological effects, upon which to base future policy decisions and more broadly inform ecological restoration and eco-compensation in both theory and practice.

1 February 2019 in Journal of Cleaner Production
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JLJ. Luukkanen
J. Luukkanen
JKJ. Kaivo-Oja
J. Kaivo-Oja
NVN. Vähäkari
N. Vähäkari
TOT. O’mAhony
T. O’mAhony
MKM. Korkeakoski
M. Korkeakoski
NHNicholas Hogarth
Nicholas Hogarth

25 September 2014 in Forests
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MBMichael Bennett
Michael Bennett
CXChen Xie
Chen Xie
NHNicholas Hogarth
Nicholas Hogarth
DPDaoli Peng
Daoli Peng
LPLouis Putzel
Louis Putzel
China’s Conversion of Cropland to Forests Program (CCFP) is the world’s largest afforestation-based Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) program, having retired and afforested over 24 million ha involving 32 million rural households. Prior research has primarily focused on the CCFP’s rural welfare impacts, with few studies on program-induced environmental improvements, particularly at the household level. In this study, data from a 2010 survey covering 2808 rural households from across China was analyzed using an interval regression model to explain household-reported survival rates of trees planted on program-enrolled cropland. In addition to household-level factors, we explore the influence of local conditions and institutional configurations by exploiting the wide diversity of contexts covered by the data set. We find that households with more available labor and more forestry experience manage trees better, but that higher opportunity costs for both land and labor have the opposite effect. We also find that the local implementation regime- e.g., the degree of prior consultation with participants and regular monitoring - has a strong positive effect on reported survivorship. We suggest that the level of subsidy support to participating households will be key to survivorship of trees in planted CCFP forests for some time to come.