Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on ecosystem services in Indonesia: In Search of Spatial Complementarities

Daniela MitevaBrian MurraySubhrendu Pattanayak

Duke University

Should protected areas work?

Non-random location of protected areas Tend to be established on “rock and ice”

Spillover effects Extraction activities may be displaced to

the buffer zones or other unprotected nearby areas

Different levels of protection IUCN categories I-VI Enforcement

How to evaluate the effectiveness of protected areas?

Methodology Need to compare protected units with

observationally similar unprotected units▪ This yields only an average estimate of the

impact Test for heterogeneity of the impact

Outcomes Ecosystem structure vs. function

Previous studies (1)

*Indigenous reserves and wetlands excluded

Previous studies (2)

**The study selected 5 % of each country’s PA (treatment) and an area 4 times as large to serve as control

To recap: main research questions

Do the protected areas in Indonesia protect habitats and ecosystem services?

Does the impact of protected areas vary with the characteristics of the area?

Where do the tradeoffs and complementarities occur in space?

This is still very much work in progress…

Data

Biophysical characteristics Location (distance to ports by type; proximity

to district capitals, mills and markets; slope, elevation, river length, urban vs. rural)

Climate (average temperature & precipitation, aridity index, organic content and pH levels of the soils)

Socio-economic (road length, number, area and type of timber concessions, population density, village accessibility)

Protected Areas (IUCN categories I-IV)

Why do we care about mangroves?

Provision of multiple ecosystem services Blue carbon sequestration Habitat for species Storm protection

Very rapid loss of mangroves in Indonesia

Cut for timber Cleared for aquaculture & agriculture Image source: http://aquaviews.net/scuba-guides/mangrove-diving/

Methodology

Propensity score matching (PSM) to identify observationally similar protected and unprotected villages Does not rely on a specific functional

form Reduces the dimensionality of the

matching Partial Linear Models (PLM) Sensitivity analysis & robustness

checks

Methodology (cont’d): PLM Semi-parametric regression of the form

Estimated in 2 stages Least squares on m-th order difference to estimate Non-parametric (loess) estimation for

Properties Allows some variables to enter non-parametrically Reduces the dimensionality of the problem Consistent estimation for , but the efficiency depends on the order of differencing (m)

iiii xzfy )(

)( izf

Results: Deforestation 2000-2005

Protected areas do not seem to protect forests: ATT=20.91, t=0.47 Hard to match the very high propensity

scores The impact varies Covariate

Coefficient

Organic content in the topsoil

-31.628***(5.811)

Forest area at baseline0.076***

(0.007)

Distance to the nearest mill (m)

-0.003**(0.001)

Length of the river network (m)

0.015***(0.004)*** 1%, ** 5%, *10%

R2=0.19, n=2214

The impact seems to vary non-linearly with the slope

-200

00

-100

00

01

00

00

200

00

0 10 20 30Average slope (degrees)

Deforestation 95% CI

Defo

rest

ati

on

P<0.01

Results: Mangrove loss 2000-2005

Protected areas do not seem to protect mangrove patches, either (ATT=-0.14 , t=-0.17) Hard to match the very high propensity

scores The impact varies

Covariate Coefficient

Aridity index0.0005**(0.0002)

Mangrove area @ baseline

0.0613***(0.0137)

Average slope (degrees)

-0.5618**(0.2705)

Distance to market w/ permanent structures

-0.0406*

(0.0236)*** 1%, ** 5%, *10%

R2=0.4, n=139

Impact seems to vary nonlinearly the length of the river network

-20

24

68

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Length of the river network

ATT (mangrove loss)95% CI

Mangro

ve loss

P=0.001

Lots of caveats at present… Very preliminary results

Have not looked at the year the PA was established Have not considered spatial spillovers Numerous ecosystem services still to be analyzed

Dealing with decentralization in Indonesia Constant changes of the administrative units at all

levels Institutional drivers of change

Using geospatial data Raster resolution introduces errors in the

dependent & independent variables

Bibliography

Andam, K. S., P. J. Ferraro, et al. (2008). "Measuring the Effectiveness of Protected Area Networks in Reducing Deforestation." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(42): 16089‐16094. Andam, K. S., P. J. Ferraro, et al. (2010). "Protected Areas Reduced Poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(22): 9996‐10001. Chape, S., J. Harrison, et al. (2005). "Measuring the Extent and Effectiveness of Protected Areas as an Indicator for Meeting Global Biodiversity Targets." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360(1454): 443‐455. Das, S. and J. R. Vincent (2009). "Mangroves protected villages and reduced death toll during Indian super

cyclone." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(18): 7357-7360. Ferraro, P. and M. Hanauer (2011). "Protecting Ecosystems and Alleviating Poverty with Parks and Reserves: ‘Win‐Win’ or Tradeoffs?" Environmental and Resource Economics 48(2): 269‐286. Ferarro, P., M. Hanauer and K. Sims (Forthcoming). “Conditions associated with protected area success in conservation and poverty alleviation”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Ferraro, P. J. and S. K. Pattanayak (2006). "Money for Nothing? A Call for Empirical Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation Investments." PLoS Biol 4(4): e105. Joppa, L. and A. Pfaff (2010). "Reassessing the Forest Impacts of Protection." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185(1): 135‐149. Nagendra, H. (2008). "Do Parks Work? Impact of Protected Areas on Land Cover Clearing." AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 37(5): 330‐337. Naughton‐Treves, L., M. B. Holland, et al. (2005). "The Role of Protected Areas in Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Local Livelihoods." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30(1): 219‐25

Thank you!

Protected areas* by category

DecadeIUCN Category

TotalIa Ib II III IVPrior to 1920 8      1 91920s 10 0 1 2 0 131930s 12 0 3 0 1 161940s 0 0 0 0 0 01950s 3 0 0 0 0 31960s 3 0 0 0 0 31970s 29 0 0 0 18 471980s 26 0 14 0 14 541990s 4 0 13 0 5 22After 2000 0 0 3 0 0 3Total 95 0 34 2 39 170*Only the ones that have been formally designated as such; categories V and VI have also been excluded from the analysis

Propensity Score Distribution (Forests)

Propensity Score Distribution (Mangroves)