Environment versus economy: local communities find economic benefits from living next to conservation areasJeremy Hance
June 12, 2011
Forest temple in protected area in Thailand. Photo by: Katharine Sims.
"Protected areas can help local economies by attracting tourists who spend money in nearby communities, by protecting ecosystem services (such as water provision, flood protection, generation of non-timber forest products) which increase productivity, or through improved infrastructure and institutional development. However, protected areas also impose costs by restricting access to land and natural resources. So the question is whether the benefits actually have or have not outweighed the costs at the local level," explains Katharine Sims, the author of a study which appeared last year in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management and a co-author of a related study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Entrance sign for Chiang Dao Wildlife Sanctuary. Photo by: Katharine Sims.
So, why are these findings different from past studies, according to Sims?
"Much of the conventional wisdom that protected areas will lead to greater poverty is driven by obvious correlations between protected areas and poverty. These correlations hold up in both Thailand and Costa Rica: communities with more land in protected areas are substantially poorer than regional averages. […] But we have to be careful because correlation does not imply causation: protected areas have usually been located further from cities and in areas with rugged terrain and lower agricultural potential, so it is not surprising that they are associated with poverty," says Sims, who compared test communities to similarly situated communities in the country, instead of overall national or regional averages.
She adds that Costa Rica and Thailand have both succeeded in creating extensive protected area networks with an eye toward eco-tourism. Down the road, the REDD program and other ecosystem services payments could further benefit communities.
However, she warns that people should not take the studies' findings too far.
"My opinion is that we should not think about environmental protection as a tool for poverty alleviation, but rather to remember that we tend to overestimate the costs of environmental protection because we underestimate human adaptability and ingenuity," says Sims. "This lesson has been learned repeatedly in the US context: four decades ago there was major opposition to the restrictions imposed by the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, etc. on the grounds that this would bring the U.S. economy to a standstill. These regulations have not been costless but it is clear that they have dramatically improved our health and environment."
In a June 2011 interview Katharine Sims discussed the economic benefits for communities living near protected areas, the differing worldviews of environmentalists and economists, and the limitations of measuring a society's success solely on GDP.
INTERVIEW WITH KATHARINE SIMS
Mongabay: What is your background?
Katharine Sims. Photo courtesy of Katharine Sims.
Prior to graduate school, I worked as a researcher for non-profit and business organizations in the field of socially responsible investing/shareholder activism and I taught science in Chiang Mai, Thailand. My undergraduate degree is from Princeton in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (B.A. 1998).
PROTECTED AREAS AND ECONOMY
Mongabay: Your papers find that protected areas may actually alleviate poverty. How?
Katharine Sims: The goal of the research was to find out whether over the medium to long term, communities with more land in protected areas had been helped or harmed by that environmental protection.
Guest house sign attracting tourists in Thailand. Photo by: Katharine Sims.
To try to answer this question, I collected data on protected area locations and local-level indicators of material well-being in Thailand and worked with researchers who did the same for Costa Rica. We also collected information on numerous other characteristics that might be determinants of both poverty and the locations of protected areas. We needed to try to control for these other factors in order to ascertain whether communities near protected areas were poor because of protected area policies or simply because of their location. The two studies used a variety of statistical techniques (matching, multiple regression analysis, instrumental variables) to answer this question. We found that protected areas appear to have actually improved economic indicators in nearby communities.
Mongabay: How much economic improvement was seen in these local communities?
Katharine Sims: In Thailand, economic outcomes were measured using poverty headcount ratios (the number of households below a defined poverty line) and average household consumption for each locality. In Costa Rica we used a poverty index for each census tract. In Thailand we found an approximately 8 percentage point decrease in the poverty headcount ratio, which is approximately a 30% reduction in the average headcount ratio of non-protected communities. I also found an increase of approximately 12% in average household consumption levels (in the JEEM paper). In Costa Rica, the results suggest that a 10% reduction in the poverty index could be attributed to the protected areas.
Mongabay: Were you surprised by these findings?
Katharine Sims: Yes, I was surprised by the findings because the conventional wisdom is that protected areas will harm local development opportunities by restricting use of resources. In Thailand there has often been grassroots opposition to new or expanded protected areas and other studies have found that community members perceive that protected areas have made them worse off. So our finding that protected areas improved material economic indicators, at least on average, does contradict this conventional wisdom. (Of course, from a theoretical standpoint, the results are not surprising, since previous research has argued that the benefits from protected areas could in theory be large enough to outweigh the costs at the local level.)
Mongabay: What have past studies done poorly when linking protected areas to worsening poverty?
Ziplining is a popular tourist activist in Costa Rica. Here tourists zipline near Arenal National Park. Photo by: Katharine Sims.
Mongabay: Down the road could these communities further benefit from carbon credits, the REDD program, or biodiversity and other 'ecosystem service' payments?
Tourist bungalows in Thailand. Photo by: Katharine Sims.
Costa Rica and Mexico are two great examples of countries which are currently experimenting with payments for ecosystem services programs and these are likely to become part of REDD programs in the future. (For more information on Mexico's program, check out the Mexican National Forestry Commission: http://www.conafor.gob.mx/portal/index.php/proarbol )
Mongabay: What have Thailand and Costa Rica done right? What could other nations learn from these models?
Katharine Sims: Costa Rica and Thailand were two of the first middle-income countries to invest heavily in their protected area systems as well as develop with tourists in mind, and these strategies have clearly paid off. Of course, there is always the question of whether international tourism is a "sustainable" means of economic growth—but one trend that has been encouraging is the increasing amount of domestic tourism within the two countries as well. Both countries have also invested heavily in technical expertise, including in remote-sensing systems to monitor deforestation and in park management, and more broadly in good national data collection systems.
It will always be tempting for countries (including our own!) to cut budgets for environmental protection in the wake of economic or political crisis. It is my hope that more countries will be able to take the long-term view and continue making substantial investments to protect resources for the future.
THE COST OF CONSERVATION
Costa Rica scenery with a tourist boat in the background. Photo by: Katharine Sims.
Mongabay: What are the economic costs usually attributed to conservation?
Katharine Sims: We usually think about the cost of conservation in terms of "opportunity cost": i.e. the possible benefits from using a resource that are given up when it is protected. For instance, if we set aside land for a park in the U.S., the opportunity costs might be from forgone agricultural production, forgone residential or commercial use of the land or forgone extraction of natural resources (minerals/timber/oil/gas/coal). There is also an administrative cost to setting up and maintaining protected areas, but usually administrative costs are smaller than the opportunity costs.
Mongabay: Is there any assurance that the economic wealth of not establishing a protected area—i.e. allowing agriculture, mining, logging, etc.—would actually uplift local communities?
Katharine Sims: There is a perennial debate in the economics literature about whether resource exploitation is a good or bad strategy for long-term economic growth and whether it benefits local communities. This is an ongoing debate and the empirical evidence is mixed (see for example a classic articles by Sachs and Warner 2001: "The Curse of Natural Resources" in the European Economic Review; also Ross 1999: "The Political Economy of the Resource Curse" in World Politics). Economic theory suggests that if the scarcity rents (or profits) from resource extraction are reinvested in ways that will improve future growth—such as in human capital (better education) and technology improvements, then resource use can lead to sustained growth over time. However it is clear that in reality this has rarely happened—and there are countless instances of rapid resource depletion which have left impoverished communities in their wake.
ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT
Items for sale to tourists in Thailand. Photo by: Katharine Sims.
Mongabay: Economists and environmentalists are often placed in opposing camps. Why do you think this is?
Katharine Sims: I think economists and environmentalists have fundamentally different mental models of technological progress, human behavior, and valuation. Economists tend to be great optimists that technological innovation will overcome environmental limits while environmentalists are much more skeptical that we will be able to find substitutes for our natural capital assets (so environmentalists tend to be much more wary of using and degrading our resources). On the other hand, economists are great pessimists about human behavior towards the environment (generally assuming selfish motives) while environmentalists are often more optimistic that people can be educated to care about the greater good. This is perhaps ironic because models which assume people are selfish tend to imply a greater need for environmental regulation!
The other major difference is that economic value is by definition based on tradeoffs people are willing to make and so is anthropocentric in nature. Environmentalists often espouse a broader view of valuation (as do many environmental economists—after all, we don't have to sign some kind of pledge committing us only to think about the economic definition of value). All of these different world views lead economists and environmentalists to misunderstand each other, and often to promote different types of policy responses based on their mental models.
Mongabay: Is protecting the environment, whether through conservation or stricter regulations, actually good for the economy?
Mountain scenery in Wildlife Sanctuary in Thailand. Photo by: Katharine Sims.
I think there is an encouraging lesson from our research on protected areas, which is that economies are often more resilient than we think and can respond in surprising ways. That is one of the advantages of market structures—they are flexible and adaptable to changes.
However, our study does not suggest that protected areas are a get rich quick scheme! My opinion is that we should not think about environmental protection as a tool for poverty alleviation, but rather to remember that we tend to overestimate the costs of environmental protection because we underestimate human adaptability and ingenuity. This lesson has been learned repeatedly in the US context: four decades ago there was major opposition to the restrictions imposed by the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, etc. on the grounds that this would bring the U.S. economy to a standstill. These regulations have not been costless but it is clear that they have dramatically improved our health and environment and we have continued to see robust economic growth. So I think the broader message here is not that there are no costs to environmental regulation; it’s just that the costs are often smaller than we perceive or expect, and we should compare them to the benefits gained by current and future generations.
Mongabay: Do you think economics should be restructured to consider the loss or gain of ecosystem services in development projects?
Stairs to forest temple in Thailand. Photo by: Katharine Sims.
Mongabay: Where do studies like this go next?
Katharine Sims: Well, this research suggested that the benefits of protection for local economies have outweighed the costs, so that in net, wealth has increased. But we would like to better understand what benefits are driving this result.
One hypothesis is that communities have benefitted from an increase in tourism. Both Thailand and Costa Rica have significant numbers of international and domestic tourists and the income from tourism activities or corresponding infrastructure investments (roads, electricity, etc.) might have stimulated local economies. An alternate hypothesis is that environmental protection has safeguarded the flow of ecosystem services such as watershed protection or pollination—possibly helping local agriculture—or has improved the generation of valuable renewable forest products. We hope more work will be done to explore these possible mechanisms and make the results more useful for protected area designers or managers.
We are also hoping that the methodology will be used to see if results are similar in other countries. Knowing more about how to make protected areas work for local communities would be helpful for future reserve planners.
Despite setbacks, voluntary carbon markets booming
(06/06/2011) The voluntary carbon market posted a 34 percent gain in 2010, trading a record 131 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtC02e). While the US accounted for the majority of trading activity, worth $424 million in total, market growth was strongest in developing countries.
Is Indonesia losing its most valuable assets?
(05/16/2011) Deep in the rainforests of Malaysian Borneo in the late 1980s, researchers made an incredible discovery: the bark of a species of peat swamp tree yielded an extract with potent anti-HIV activity. An anti-HIV drug made from the compound is now nearing clinical trials. It could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year and help improve the lives of millions of people. This story is significant for Indonesia because its forests house a similar species. In fact, Indonesia's forests probably contain many other potentially valuable species, although our understanding of these is poor. Given Indonesia's biological richness — Indonesia has the highest number of plant and animal species of any country on the planet — shouldn't policymakers and businesses be giving priority to protecting and understanding rainforests, peatlands, mountains, coral reefs, and mangrove ecosystems, rather than destroying them for commodities?
Left alive and wild, a single shark worth $1.9 million
(05/02/2011) For the Pacific island nation of Palau, sharks are worth much more alive than dead. A new study by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) has found that one reef shark during its full life is worth $1.9 million to Palau in tourism revenue. Sold for consumption the shark is worth around $108. In this case a shark is worth a stunning 17,000 times more alive than dead.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu: 'quest for profit subverts our present and our future'
(05/01/2011) As the honorary speaker at an event celebrating fifty years of the conservation organization World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Archbishop Desmond Tutu stated that overconsumption and obsession with economic growth were imperiling the global environment and leaving the poor behind.
What does Nature give us? A special Earth Day article
(04/22/2011) There is no question that Earth has been a giving planet. Everything humans have needed to survive, and thrive, was provided by the natural world around us: food, water, medicine, materials for shelter, and even natural cycles such as climate and nutrients. Scientists have come to term such gifts 'ecosystem services', however the recognition of such services goes back thousands of years, and perhaps even farther if one accepts the caves paintings at Lascaux as evidence. Yet we have so disconnected ourselves from the natural world that it is easy—and often convenient—to forget that nature remains as giving as ever, even as it vanishes bit-by-bit. The rise of technology and industry may have distanced us superficially from nature, but it has not changed our reliance on the natural world: most of what we use and consume on a daily basis remains the product of multitudes of interactions within nature, and many of those interactions are imperiled. Beyond such physical goods, the natural world provides less tangible, but just as important, gifts in terms of beauty, art, and spirituality.
Bats worth billions
(04/03/2011) US agriculture stands to lose billions in free ecosystem services from the often-feared and rarely respected humble bat. According to a recent study in Science bats in North America provide the US agricultural industry at least $3.7 billion and up to a staggering $53 billion a year by eating mounds of potentially pesky insects. Yet these bats, and their economic services, are under threat by a perplexing disease known as white-nose syndrome (WNS) and to a lesser extent wind turbines.
South Sudan's choice: resource curse or wild wonder?
(02/11/2011) After the people of South Sudan have voted overwhelmingly for independence, the work of building a nation begins. Set to become the world's newest country on July 9th of this year, one of many tasks facing the nation's nascent leaders is the conservation of its stunning wildlife. In 2007, following two decades of brutal civil war, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) surveyed South Sudan. What they found surprised everyone: 1.3 million white-eared kob, tiang (or topi) antelope and Mongalla gazelle still roamed the plains, making up the world's second largest migration after the Serengeti. The civil war had not, as expected, largely diminished the Sudan's great wildernesses, which are also inhabited by buffalo, giraffe, lion, bongo, chimpanzee, and some 8,000 elephants. However, with new nationhood comes tough decisions and new pressures. Multi-national companies seeking to exploit the nation's vast natural resources are expected to arrive in South Sudan, tempting them with promises of development and economic growth, promises that have proven uneven at best across Africa.
Prince Charles: 'direct relationship' between ecosystems and the economy
(02/09/2011) At an EU meeting in Brussels, dubbed the Low Carbon Prosperity Summit, the UK's Prince Charles made the case that without healthy ecosystems, the global economy will suffer.
Is Obama's clean energy revolution possible?
(01/26/2011) Last night US President Barack Obama called for a massive green energy make-over of the world's largest economy. Describing the challenge as 'this generation's Sputnik moment' the US president set a goal of producing 80 percent of America's energy by clean sources by 2035. While this may sound improbable, two recent analyses back the president up, arguing that a global clean energy revolution is entirely possible within a few decades using contemporary technology and without breaking the bank. "Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford said in a press release. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."
Ecotourism brings home the bacon in the Peruvian Amazon
(11/15/2010) Ecotourism is one of the most profitable uses of tropical forest in the Tambopata area of the Peruvian Amazon, according to a study released on 29 September in the journal PLoS ONE. In 2002 Peru’s government passed legislation to allow ecotourism-controlled zones in the Tambopata region of southeastern Peru. Policymakers hoped such zones would preserve spectacular rainforest habitats while bringing in steady money. Critics have wondered, though, whether the strategy can succeed in the face of other profitable―yet destructive―ventures on pristine forested land.
Jackpot: how international community could raise $141 billion for biodiversity
(10/20/2010) Leaders from around the world meeting in Nahoya, Japan for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to discuss solutions to stem the current mass extinction crisis may be in need of a little book: The Little Biodiversity Finance Book. While a recent report by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) found that degradation of ecosystems—including biodiversity loss—was costing the global economy $2-5 trillion annually, one of the primary threats to wildlife around the world is simply a lack of funds to enact program. But The Little Biodiversity Finance Book says that with the right policy initiatives the burgeoning ecosystem market could be worth $141 billion by 2020.
Environmental destruction undercuts global economy to the tune of $6.6 trillion
(10/06/2010) The cost of environmental damage to the global economy hit 6.6 trillion US dollars—11 percent of the global GDP—in 2008, according to a new study by the Principles for Responsible (PRI) and UNEP Finance Initiative. If business continues as usual, the study predicts that environmental damage will cost 28 trillion dollars by 2050. The new study undercuts the popular belief that environmental health and economic welfare are at odds.