Conserving Forests: Mandates, Management or Money?
Decision‐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.
|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
References listed on IDEAS
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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea12:124983. 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: (AgEcon Search)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.