Perceptions, socio-economic factors, and differences in income effects of payment for ecosystem services and labour intensive public works in Mt. Elgon Region, Uganda

Abstract

This study investigates household dynamics related to ecosystem services restoration in Mt. Elgon, focusing on Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Labor-Intensive Public Works (LIPW). Utilizing a mixed methods approach, qualitative data from participatory rural appraisal methods and quantitative insights from a household survey were combined. The research explores the alignment of PES with farmers' interests in addressing agro-environmental challenges, examines socioeconomic factors influencing the adoption of sustainable land management (SLM) practices, and assesses the differences in income effect between PES and LIPWs on households. Environmental challenges in both lowlands and highlands, including flooding, soil erosion, drought, hailstorms, land loss, reduced soil fertility, and deforestation, were identified. Matrix scoring highlighted key SLM practices such as Agro forestry, Trenches, Mulching, Terraces, and grass bands. Despite reservations, PES is perceived as highly successful in addressing community environmental challenges, with positive views on the associated cash incentives. The study scrutinizes factors influencing the adoption of specific SLM practices under PES. Trench adoption is influenced by household size, livestock ownership, and access to agricultural extension services. Agroforestry adoption correlates with PES incentives and nonfarm income sources. Terracing is affected by PES incentives, location, female-headed households, and education level. Mulching adoption is linked to female household heads and extension services access, while grass bands adoption relates to land parcels and extension services, with highland location negatively impacting it. Before propensity score matching (PSM), PES-participating households exhibited significantly higher income, in comparison to LIPWs but on matching based on common socio-economic factors, the income difference reduced, indicating non-significant income effect differences between PES and LIPWs.