IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae09/51783.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What are the social impacts of land use restrictions on local communities? Empirical evidence from Costa Rica

Author

Listed:
  • Andam, Kwaw S.
  • Ferraro, Paul J.
  • Holland, Margaret B.

Abstract

Global efforts to reduce deforestation rely heavily on protected areas and land use restrictions. The effect of these restrictions on local communities is currently the subject of heated debate among conservation and development experts. Measuring the social impacts of protected areas is difficult because the effects cannot be isolated from other factors, given the nonrandom placement of protection. We address this problem by applying a quasi-experimental approach to establish the counterfactual (“what would have been the socioeconomic outcome if a protected area had not been established?”). We use matching methods to measure the impacts of pre-1980 protected areas in Costa Rica on socioeconomic outcomes in 2000. In 2000, neighboring communities near protected areas were substantially poorer than average. However, after controlling for pre-protection characteristics associated with both protection and economic growth, the results indicate that poverty declined as a result of protection. Although the statistical significance of this decline is moderately sensitive to potential hidden bias, the results emphatically do not support a hypothesis that ecosystem protection, on average, exacerbates poverty. In contrast, conventional empirical methods implied erroneously that protection had negative social impacts, suggesting that failure to control for confounding factors or baselines can lead to substantially inaccurate estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Andam, Kwaw S. & Ferraro, Paul J. & Holland, Margaret B., 2009. "What are the social impacts of land use restrictions on local communities? Empirical evidence from Costa Rica," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51783, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae09:51783
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/51783
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    2. David J. Lewis & Gary L. Hunt & DAndrew J. Plantinga, 2002. "Public Conservation Land and Employment Growth in the Northern Forest Region," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 245-259.
    3. Ferraro, Paul J., 2002. "The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 261-275, December.
    4. Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 4-29, February.
    5. Romina Cavatassi & Benjamin Davis & Leslie Lipper, 2004. "Estimating Poverty Over Time and Space: Construction of a time-variant poverty index for Costa Rica," Working Papers 04-21, Agricultural and Development Economics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO - ESA).
    6. Skoufias, Emmanuel & Davis, Benjamin & de la Vega, Sergio, 2001. "Targeting the Poor in Mexico: An Evaluation of the Selection of Households into PROGRESA," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1769-1784, October.
    7. Michael Reibel, 2007. "Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Data Processing in Demography: a Review," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 26(5), pages 601-618, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    forest conservation; social impacts; quasi-experimental methods; Agricultural and Food Policy; Community/Rural/Urban Development; Environmental Economics and Policy; Food Security and Poverty; International Development; Land Economics/Use; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods; C14; O13; Q23;

    JEL classification:

    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • 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:ags:iaae09:51783. 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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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.