Conserving Forests: Mandates, Management or Money?
AbstractDecision‐makers are keen to learn which policy instruments are most effective at producing forest conservation outcomes. Using data from a patchwork of programs designed to preserve the overwintering habitat of the Monarch butterfly in central Mexico, we compare the effectiveness of three conservation instruments in limiting deforestation and forest degradation: protected areas, payment for ecosystem services (PES), and forest management. Using a matched sample of one hectare parcels and a spatial lag model of deforestation, we find that for preserving forest, PES is the most effective. Protected area status is ineffective for forest protection while forest management permits also help preserve forest. Forest degradation is not limited by PES or protected area status alone, but the combination of the two instruments significantly reduces forest degradation. Forest management, however, has the largest effect on limiting forest degradation.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Agricultural and Applied Economics Association in its series 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington with number 124983.
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
Phone: (414) 918-3190
Fax: (414) 276-3349
Web page: http://www.aaea.org
More information through EDIRC
Payment for Environmental Services; Mexico; deforestation; logging regulation; protected area status; spatial econometrics.; Environmental Economics and Policy; Farm Management; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy; Q23; Q28; Q56; R14;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
- Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
- Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
- R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- repec:oup:renvpo:v:6:y::i:1:p:20-44 is not listed on IDEAS
- Paul J. Ferraro & Kathleen Lawlor & Katrina L. Mullan & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, 2012. "Forest Figures: Ecosystem Services Valuation and Policy Evaluation in Developing Countries," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 6(1), pages 20-44.
- Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.