IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulp/sbbeta/2018-35.html

What drives the withdrawal of protected areas? Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon

Author

Listed:
  • Derya Keles
  • Philippe Delacote
  • Alexander Pfaff

Abstract

Since the late 1970s protected areas have been one of the most widely used regulatory tools for the conservation of ecosystem services. In this paper, we assess the possible drivers to the choice of withdrawing protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Protected areas are subject to inefficiencies because of the existence of conflicts over land between conservation and development activities. Further additionality is an issue, as protected areas tend to be located in areas with low opportunity cost of conservation, where forests are not likely to be cleared. This issue is particularly important in the Brazilian Amazon where growing development must be combined with the need to avoid deforestation. We first present a simple model of degazettement choice which leads us to assess how the presence of two agencies having different development and conservation objectives can lead to implementing this decision. We suggest that the probability to decide the removal of protected areas is larger in places with low and high development pressures. Then, we investigate the empirical determinants of protected area withdrawal by taking advantages of the new PADDDtracker (Protected Area Downgradement, Degazettement and Downsizement) dataset (WWF, 2017b). We confirm that the likelihood of degazettement is strongly influenced by development pressures, through characteristics of the land that enable agricultural development, and by variables related to protected area quality of enforcement and management costs. As protected areas located in highest pressure areas are more likely to be additional, there is a risk that only the most effective protected areas may loose their protection.

Suggested Citation

  • Derya Keles & Philippe Delacote & Alexander Pfaff, 2018. "What drives the withdrawal of protected areas? Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon," Working Papers of BETA 2018-35, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2018-35
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://beta.u-strasbg.fr/WP/2018/2018-35.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • 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
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • O21 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Planning Models; Planning Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ulp:sbbeta:2018-35. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask the person in charge to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bestrfr.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.