Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 63, Issue 2, pp 395–408 | Cite as

Impact Evaluation of Forest Conservation Programs: Benefit-Cost Analysis, Without the Economics

  • Jeffrey R. VincentEmail author
Article

Abstract

Economists are increasingly using impact evaluation methods to measure the effectiveness of forest conservation programs. Theoretical analysis of two complementary economic models demonstrates that the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) typically reported by these studies can be related to an economic measure of program performance only under very restrictive conditions. This is because the ATT is usually expressed in purely physical terms (e.g., avoided deforestation) and ignores heterogeneity in the costs and benefits of conservation programs. For the same reasons, clinical trials are a misleading analogy for the evaluation of conservation programs. To be more useful for economic analyses of conservation programs, impact evaluations should work toward developing measures of program outcomes that are economically more relevant, data that would enable the evaluation of impacts on forest degradation (not just deforestation) and primary forests (not forests in general), better estimates of spatially disaggregated treatment effects (not program-wide averages), and better information on the accuracy of estimated treatment effects as predictors of future risks.

Keywords

Conservation economics Deforestation Degradation Impact evaluation Primary forest  Protected area 

References

  1. Alix-Garcia JM, Shapiro EN, Sims KRE (2012) Forest conservation and slippage: evidence from Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services program. Land Econ 88:613–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Sims KRE et al (2010) Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:9996–10001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S et al (1998) Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:2126–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angrist JD, Pischke JS (2009) Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Asner GP, Powell GVN, Mascaroet J et al (2010) High-resolution forest carbon stocks and emissions in the Amazon. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:16738–16742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM et al (2013) Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341(6141):45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackman A (2013) Evaluating forest conservation policies in developing countries using remote sensing data: an introduction and practical guide. For Policy Econ. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.006
  8. Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK et al (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Env Resour 32:67–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiang AC (1992) Elements of dynamic optimization. Waveland Press, Long GroveGoogle Scholar
  10. Costello C, Polasky S (2004) Dynamic reserve site selection. Resour Energy Econ 26:157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deaton A (2010) Instruments, randomization, and learning about development. J Econ Lit 48:424–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eigenbrod F et al (2010) The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 47:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisner R, Strotz RH (1963) Determinants of business investment. In: Suits DB et al (eds) Impacts of monetary policy. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO (2010) Global forest resource assessment 2010: Main report. RomeGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM (2011) Protecting ecosystems and alleviating poverty with parks and reserves: ‘win-win’ or tradeoffs? Environ Resour Econ 48:269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM (2014) Quantifying causal mechanisms to determine how protected areas affect poverty through changes in ecosystem services and infrastructure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1307712111
  17. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM, Miteva DA et al (2013) More strictly protected areas are not necessarily more protective: evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailand. Environ Res Lett. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025011
  18. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM, Sims KRE (2011) Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty reduction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:13913–13918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferraro PJ, Lawlor K, Mullan KL et al (2012) Forest figures: ecosystems services valuation and policy evaluation in developing countries. Rev Environ Econ Policy 6:20–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol 4:482–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2001) What drives tropical deforestation? A meta-analysis of proximate and underlying causes of deforestation based on subnational case study evidence. LUCC Report Series No. 4, Department of Geography, University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP et al (2011) Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478:378–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Imbens GW, Wooldridge JM (2009) Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J Econ Lit 47:5–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joppa L, Pfaff A (2010) Global protected area impacts. Proc Roy Soc B Biol Sci. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1713
  25. Kennedy P (2008) A Guide to econometrics, 6th edn. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  26. Le Saout S, Hoffmann M, Shi Y et al (2013) Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation. Science 342:803–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mackey B, DellaSala DA, Kormos C et al (2014) Policy options for the world’s primary forests in multilateral environmental agreements. Conserv Lett. doi: 10.1111/conl.12120
  28. Miteva DA, Pattanayak SK, Ferraro PJ (2012) Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn’t? Oxford Rev Econ Policy 28:69–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miteva DA, Murray B, Pattanayak SK (2014) Do protected areas reduce blue carbon emissions? A quasi-experimental evaluation of mangroves in Indonesia. Manuscript, Duke UniversityGoogle Scholar
  30. Myers N (1988) Threatened biotas: “hot spots” in tropical forests. Environmentalist 8:187–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Myers N, Mittermeier R, Mittermeier C et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ et al (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21:681–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naidoo R, Ricketts T (2006) Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biol 4:2153–2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pattanayak SK, Kramer R (2001) Worth of watersheds: a producer surplus approach for valuing drought mitigation in Eastern Indonesia. Environ Dev Econ 6:123–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pattanayak SK, Wunder S, Ferraro PJ (2010) Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Rev Environ Econ Policy 4:254–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pearce D, Barbier E, Markandya A (1990) Sustainable development: economics and environment in the third World. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfaff A, Robalino J, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA et al. (2009) Park location affects forest protection: land characteristics cause differences in park impacts across Costa Rica. BE J Econ Anal Policy 9: article 5Google Scholar
  38. Polasky S (2008) Why conservation planning needs socioeconomic data. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:6505–6506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Polasky S, Camm JD, Garber-Yonts B (2001) Selecting biological reserves cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Land Econ 77:68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Polasky S, Costello C, Solow A (2005) The economics of biodiversity. In: Maler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Handbook of environmental economics, vol 3. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  41. Polasky S, Nelson E, Camm J et al (2008) Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biol Conserv 141:1505–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ravallion M (2008) Evaluating anti-poverty programs. In: Schultz T, Strauss J (eds) Handbook of development economics, vol 4. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  43. Robalino JA, Pfaff A (2012) Contagious development: neighbor interactions in deforestation. J Dev Econ 97:427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robalino JA, Pfaff A (2013) Ecopayments and deforestation in Costa Rica: a nationwide analysis of PSA’s initial years. Land Econ 89:432–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saatchi SS, Harris NL, Brown S et al (2011) Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:9899–9904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sims KRE (2010) Conservation and development: evidence from Thai protected areas. J Environ Econ Manage 60:94–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Somanathan E, Prabhakar R, Singh Mehta BS (2009) Decentralization for cost-effective conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:4143–4147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Syrbe RU, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. The BD, Ngoc HB (2006) Payments for environmental services in Vietnam: assessing an economic approach to sustainable forest management. EEPSEA Research Report 2006-RR3, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  50. Vincent JR, Rozali MA (2005) Managing natural wealth: environment and development in Malaysia. Resources for the Future Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  51. Wong IFT (1971) The present land use of West Malaysia (1966). Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations