3.2.1 Study Area
Lebanon is a small (10,452 km2), predominantly mountainous country located in the eastern
Mediterranean basin and recognised as a centre for plant diversity (Davis et al. 1994). My study area comprised the western slopes of Mount Lebanon where 10 of Lebanon’s 20 newly designated Important Plant Areas (IPAs) are located (Radford et al. 2011). This area is
bioclimatic zones. The vegetation types are typical of Mediterranean forest, woodland and scrub communities containing coniferous, deciduous and mixed forest/woodland (Abi-Saleh and Safi 1988). Habitats are increasingly threatened by land-use including intensive agriculture, overgrazing, urbanisation and quarrying, as well as fires (Talhouk et al. 2001; Sattout and Abboud 2007; Darwish et al. 2010a).
3.2.2 Sampling
I focused on villages within 877 Important Plant Areas (IPAs) from Akkar to Chouf districts
given their priority status for conservation and reforestation potential (Figure 3.1). A stratified random sample78 of 17 villages within these IPAs were selected from a near- complete sampling frame of 248 villages (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1. Sampled respondents and villages and their respective districts and Important Plant Areas
IPA No.‡ Name District Elevation (Ave.) No. of landowners
LB07 Qammouaa* Dinniyeh 1695 5
LB09 Bcharre-Ehden Bcharre / Ehden 1425 3
LB11 Tannourine Batroun 1500 3
LB13 Wadi Jannah Keserouan 950 1
LB14 Keserouan Keserouan 1300 7
LB15 Sannine-Kneisseh Metn 1325 6
LB16 Chouf Chouf 1100 5
LB17 Nahr ed-Damour Chouf 1050 4
*Excludes Akkar and Hermel districts
‡ ‘LB’ denotes Lebanon
77 I excluded the whole of LB20, and villages in LB07 in the Akkar district due to security concerns in those
Chapter 3 Landowner Perceptions
Figure 3.1. Map of Lebanon showing the eight Important Plant Areas (IPAs) in the study area in green (Yazbek et al. 2010). Landowners from 17 villages located within these IPAs were sampled for this study. Source for base mapping: Google Earth.
Due to social and political sensitivities associated with conducting research in rural Lebanon, especially at the time when the field work was conducted, it was necessary to obtain contact details of landowners from mayors and other key informants from these villages who acted as my gatekeepers and facilitated my research79. I obtained contact details for 52 landowners who were sole proprietors of their holdings, who were then contacted by telephone. After at least two attempts I spoke to 46 landowners, informed them of the study objectives, and
79 Gatekeepers distributed recruitment flyers I produced to landowners (an English version is available in
Appendix 3.1.). Academic experts and national officials also recommended that I take this approach especially given my foreign status as a visiting researcher.
asked for their oral consent80. Twelve landowners declined to participate for various reasons ranging from lack of land, land tenure issues (decisions shared between family members), age and inconvenience. The final survey was conducted with 34 participants with their written consent; all were newly recruited and had not participated in the pilot (see section 3.2.4).
3.2.3 Conceptualising PES in Lebanon
I presented three hypothetical schemes to respondents in order to gauge their acceptability and to stimulate discussion of the key research themes identified above.
Scheme 1 – Results-based loan
The first scheme presented would provide the landowner with free seedlings81 and technical assistance at no charge. In addition, they would receive money up-front to cover the direct costs of planting and maintenance, in the form of an interest-free loan, repayable over a period of five years. It was explained that repayments would be cancelled each year if survival was above 80% of the initial planting, but if below this threshold, participants would be required to pay the proportion of the seedlings lost from the total, e.g. 65% survival = 35% repayment. Seedling survival would be estimated by a monitoring team using randomly selected plots (e.g. Griscom et al. 2005), assessed on a yearly basis during the five-year period. Respondents were assured that repayments would be cancelled if the project collapsed for any reason, thus reducing external risks to participants.
Scheme 2 – Action-based grant
Scheme 2 contained the same baseline support as Scheme 1 (i.e. free seedlings and technical assistance) along with the same payments to cover planting and maintenance costs. However, in this case these were in the form of a grant, conditional only on planting taking place, but unconditional on survival. Comparison of uptake across Schemes 1 and 2, in addition to discussion with participants, allowed me to assess their perceptions of risk and negative conditionality, without focussing on specific payments levels.
80 Thirty-seven orally consented to participate of whom three declined to participate due to inconvenience
(surveys were conducted at the height of the apple harvesting period).
81 A printed list of native tree and shrub species was provided for the respondents that included productive, e.g.
stone pine (Pinus pinea L.), and non-productive trees (see Appendix 3.2.). The list was derived from a native tree species database developed through research conducted by the American University of Beirut’s Nature Conservation Center (AUB-NCC). The database also includes GPS data and images of species used for
Chapter 3 Landowner Perceptions
Scheme 3 – Results-based payments
The last scheme offered the same free seedlings and technical assistance as Schemes 1 and 2, together with payments to cover direct planting costs82. In addition, participants would receive annual performance payments at US$3.00 per seedling conditional on and proportional to survival outcomes (e.g. 65% overall survival = 65% payment). Planting and survival would be assessed through annual monitoring (same methods as first scheme) over five years. Analogously, if survival were less than 25%, participants would receive no results- based payments.
3.2.4 Data Acquisition and Survey Instruments
A questionnaire-based survey was conducted in Arabic by my field assistant in my presence. An extensive pilot was conducted with twenty landowners over a two week period in August, 2012 to ensure it was locally appropriate. Surveys were conducted in the participants’ villages, either at their farm, home, workplace, or the municipality office. Each participant was given an introduction to the study, and explanation of how and why they were contacted. The introduction was kept general in order to reduce biased responses. Participants were presented with a written consent form prior to commencing83. Each survey took approximately 40-50 minutes to complete and each respondent received a small gift for their participation following the interviews84.
Section 1 of the survey85 focussed on current and intended land-use, including the kinds of crops planted, quantities of each and their densities (% coverage), and area in hectares (‘ha’ here onwards), how long ago, and land-use/land-cover characteristics. This section also contained questions related to planting objectives, any difficulties faced, and whether they had received any third-party support (e.g. MOA, cooperatives, NGOs, etc.).
Section 2 of the survey introduced the first of three hypothetical PES schemes. A preamble informed the respondents that this section would involve presenting hypothetical planting
82 Because this scheme introduced specified results-based payments in later years, these planting payments were
also specified at US$7.00 for every seedling planted. This rate was a generous estimate of the planting costs mentioned, but unspecified in Schemes 1 and 2.
83 The study received ethics approval from both Bangor University and AUB review boards
84 As compensation, each participant received a book (Plants and People, AUB-NCC publication) at the end of
the interview. Cost of each book was US$12.99. All books were donated to me by AUB-NCC.
schemes. Follow-up questions were asked after each scheme was presented, which included where they would plant the seedlings and on how much land (in 1,000 m2). They were also asked whether schemes would change their intended planting plans for that plot, e.g. if they had previous plans to plant crop trees. In addition, they were asked open-ended questions regarding perceived benefits or advantages of the proposed schemes. Respondents who did not wish to participate in any of the schemes were prompted to discuss why they would opt out.
Section 3 of the survey contained questions aimed at determining what sort of constraints or possible land-use changes the participants envisaged in the future. Open-ended questions were coded with responses seen only by the interviewer, thus encouraging the respondents to give more qualitative answers. This was followed by a short section on socioeconomic questions (section 4).
3.2.5 Data Analysis
Quantitative data was analysed using SPSS version 20 (Pallant 2010) to determine 1) whether there was a significant difference in uptake and area enrolled for reforestation under each consecutive scheme, 2) whether there was a significant difference in land-use types that would be reforested to determine agricultural displacement86, and 3) whether landowner type, age or landholding size influenced participation and land enrolment into corresponding schemes. Qualitative data was transcribed and translated into English by my field assistant. Audio recordings and transcriptions were analysed using Atlas.ti® (qualitative data analysis software) to identify important themes.