Protecting Ecosystems and Alleviating Poverty with Parks and Reserves: ‘Win-Win’ or Tradeoffs?
- 988 Downloads
National parks and reserves are globally popular approaches to protecting biodiversity and the supply of ecosystem services. Because these protected areas limit agricultural development and exploitation of natural resources, they are frequently opposed in developing nations where reducing poverty is an important social objective. Conservation advocates argue that protected areas can alleviate poverty by supplying ecosystem services, promoting tourism and improving infrastructure. Thus ‘win-win’ scenarios may be possible in which ecosystems and their services are protected and poverty is alleviated. Previous studies (Andam et al. in Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(42):16089–16094 2008; 2010) suggest that Costa Rica’s protected area system reduced deforestation and alleviated poverty. We demonstrate that these environmental and social impacts were spatially heterogeneous. Importantly, the characteristics associated with the most avoided deforestation are the characteristics associated with the least poverty alleviation. In other words, the same characteristics that limited the conservation effectiveness of protected areas may have improved the social welfare impacts of these areas. These results suggest that ‘win-win’ efforts to protect ecosystems and alleviate poverty may be possible when policymakers are satisfied with low levels of each outcome, but tradeoffs exist when more of either outcome is desired.
KeywordsEcosystems Poverty Protected areas Impacts Program evaluation Econometrics Costa Rica
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Abadie A, Drukker D, Herr J, Imbens G (2004) Implementing matching estimators for average treatment effects in Stata. Stata J 4: 290–311Google Scholar
- Cavatassi R, Davis B, Lipper L (2004) Estimating poverty over time and space: construction of a time-variant poverty index for Costa Rica. ESA working paperGoogle Scholar
- Coad L, Campbell A, Miles L, Humphries K (2008) The costs and benefits of protected areas for local livelihoods: a review of the current literature. World Conservation Monitoring Centre working paper, UNEPGoogle Scholar
- de Camino Velozo R, de Camino R, Segura O, Arias L, Perez I (2000) Costa Rica: forest strategy and the evolution of land use. World Bank Publications, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Gindling T, Terrell K (2004) Legal minimum wages and the wages of formal and informal sector workers in Costa Rica. William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
- Manski C (2005) Social choice with partial knowledge of treatment response. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island PressGoogle Scholar
- Pfaff A, Robalino J, Sanchez-Azofeifa G, Andam K, Ferraro P (2009) Park location affects forest protection: land characteristics cause differences in park impacts across Costa Rica. BE J Econom Anal Policy 9(2): 5Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum P (2002) Observational studies. SpringerGoogle Scholar
- Rubin B, Hyman G (2000) The extent and economic impacts of soil erosion in Costa Rica. In: CAS Hall, C Perez, G Leclerc (eds) Quantifying sustainable development: the future of tropical economies. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- Sims KRE (2010) Conservation and development: evidence from Thai protected areas. J Environ Econ Manage (Forthcoming)Google Scholar
- WDPA (2009) World database on protected areas: 2009 annual release. http://www.wdpa.org/AnnualRelease.aspx