IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v91y2015i1p149-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protected Area Effectiveness in European Russia: A Postmatching Panel Data Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly J. Wendland
  • Matthias Baumann
  • David J. Lewis
  • Anika Sieber
  • Volker C. Radeloff

Abstract

We estimate the impact of strict and multiple-use protected areas on forest disturbance in European Russia between 1985 and 2010. We construct a spatial panel dataset that includes five periods of change. We match protected areas to control observations and compare coefficients from fixed-versus random-effects models. We find that protected areas have few statistically significant impacts on disturbance, with little difference across parks closer to or farther from major cities or roads. Random-effects estimates differ qualitatively and quantitatively from those of fixed effects in our study, serving as a cautionary note for evaluations where time-invariant unobservables are important.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly J. Wendland & Matthias Baumann & David J. Lewis & Anika Sieber & Volker C. Radeloff, 2015. "Protected Area Effectiveness in European Russia: A Postmatching Panel Data Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 149-168.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:91:y:2015:i:1:p:149-168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/91/1/149
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles Mason & Andrew Plantinga, 2011. "Contracting for Impure Public Goods: Carbon Offsets and Additionality," NBER Working Papers 16963, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Sven Wunder & Paul J. Ferraro, 2010. "Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 254-274, Summer.
    3. Lyudmila Ivanova, . "From Management to Mediation: Local Forestry Management and the Forestry Crisis in Post-Socialist Russia," Publications of researchers of the Institute for Economic Studies KSC RAS, Socionet, pages 1-9.
    4. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    5. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, January.
    6. Rodrigo A. Arriagada, & Paul J. Ferraro & Erin O. Sills & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Silvia Cordero-Sancho, 2012. "Do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Forest Cover? A Farm-Level Evaluation from Costa Rica," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 382-399.
    7. Emi Uchida & Scott Rozelle & Jintao Xu, 2009. "Conservation Payments, Liquidity Constraints, and Off-Farm Labor: Impact of the Grain-for-Green Program on Rural Households in China," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 70-86.
    8. Blackman, Allen, 2013. "Evaluating forest conservation policies in developing countries using remote sensing data: An introduction and practical guide," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 1-16.
    9. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2008. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9787111235767, April.
    10. Juan Robalino & Alexander Pfaff, 2013. "Ecopayments and Deforestation in Costa Rica: A Nationwide Analysis of PSA’s Initial Years," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(3), pages 432-448.
    11. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    12. Pfaff, Alexander & Robalino, Juan & Lima, Eirivelthon & Sandoval, Catalina & Herrera, Luis Diego, 2014. "Governance, Location and Avoided Deforestation from Protected Areas: Greater Restrictions Can Have Lower Impact, Due to Differences in Location," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 7-20.
    13. Pfaff Alexander & Robalino Juan & Sanchez-Azofeifa G. Arturo & Andam Kwaw S & Ferraro Paul J, 2009. "Park Location Affects Forest Protection: Land Characteristics Cause Differences in Park Impacts across Costa Rica," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-26, July.
    14. Uchida, Emi & Rozelle, Scott & Jintao, Xu, 2009. "AJAE appendix for ‘Conservation Payments, Liquidity Constraints and Off-Farm Labor: Impact of the Grain for Green Program on Rural Households in China’," American Journal of Agricultural Economics Appendices, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), February.
    15. David Ostergren & Peter Jacques, 2002. "A Political Economy of Russian Nature Conservation Policy: Why Scientists have Taken a Back Seat," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 2(4), pages 102-124, November.
    16. Paul Ferraro & Merlin Hanauer, 2011. "Protecting Ecosystems and Alleviating Poverty with Parks and Reserves: ‘Win-Win’ or Tradeoffs?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 269-286, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yong Chen & David J. Lewis & Bruce Weber, 2016. "Conservation Land Amenities And Regional Economies: A Postmatching Difference-In-Differences Analysis Of The Northwest Forest Plan," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 373-394, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:91:y:2015:i:1:p:149-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.