The effect of integrated conservation and development programs in protected areas on human wellbeing
Considering the current debate over which strategies are most effective in promoting environmental and human welfare in protected areas, we focus on Integrated Conservation and Development Programs, an approach which seeks to find ‘win-win’ outcomes by supporting environmentally sustainable and prof...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Second cycle, A2E |
| Lenguaje: | sueco Inglés |
| Publicado: |
2016
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/8790/ |
| Sumario: | Considering the current debate over which strategies are most effective in promoting environmental and human welfare in protected areas, we focus on Integrated Conservation and Development Programs, an approach which seeks to find ‘win-win’ outcomes by supporting environmentally sustainable and profitable income generating sources. Counter, the predominant literature, we measure program effectiveness in terms of human welfare, accounted for by relative changes in household income and asset growth. Specifically, we seek to determine the additionality of Integrated Conservation and Development Programs in protected areas over the short run. Using a case study, additionality was determined by comparing two proximate reserves in the Brazilian Bolsa Floresta Programme that received the programme to varying degrees. An impact evaluation approach using parametric and non-parametric techniques was used, demonstrating key findings of no significant change in income and a large (65%) and significant effect on asset growth due to treatment under one matching approach. This dual result may be explained by the narrative where households reinvest program gains in productive assets. However, this narrative may overstate willingness to invest gains considering low levels of household education and risk aversion. Moreover, results in terms of asset growth are likely biased and overstated due to unobservable variable bias and remaining imbalance in key observables- particularly the amount of time participating in the direct cash transfer component of the Bolsa Floresta Programme. Evaluation at a later date when the program has had full potential to be implemented and adopted by households is recommended. |
|---|