Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How effective are protected natural areas when roads are present? An analysis of the Peruvian case

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Economics and Policy Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Establishing protected natural areas (PNA) has been one of the main policy mechanisms used for protecting flora and fauna species. However, in the last 18 years we have seen a sharp reduction in forest cover in Peru and this may have been exacerbated by the development of road infrastructure. Despite the accepted fact that roads can bring about socioeconomic benefits, it can also have negative environmental effects, such as deforestation. Using a difference in difference model with two treatments, we study the effectiveness of PNA to prevent deforestation in the presence of road infrastructure over panel data information. Our findings suggest that the expansion of the road network over the last decade has had an impact, increasing the rate of deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon. However, the increase in protected areas has partially neutralized this effect. On average, the approach of roads to within 10 km of the forests has been associated with reductions in forest coverage of around 7.1 km per 400 km2. In spite of this, the simultaneous creation of protected areas has led to a reduction in the deforestation rate of around 6.5 km2 per 400 km2. It seems that regardless of the “deforestation” effect of roads, PNA  fulfill their protective role.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: National Environmental Information System (SINIA), Ministry of Environment

Fig. 2

Source: SERNANP, MTC, and INEI

Fig. 3

Source: SERNANP

Fig. 4

Source: Ministry of Transportation and Communications of Peru

Fig. 5

Source: Own elaboration based on De Luca (2007)

Fig. 6

Source: Geobosques, INEI. Compiled by authors

Fig. 7

Source: Own elaboration

Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Source: Own elaboration

Fig. 10

Source: Own elaboration

Fig. 11

Source: Own elaboration

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Following to The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2003),the ecosystem services provided by the forest ecosystem services that contribute to a range of human outcomes can be: (i) provisioning services: providing food, timber, fiber, and others forest products contributing to poverty eradication and income generation, (ii) regulating services: sequestering and storing carbon from the atmosphere contributing to regulation of the global carbon cycle and climate change mitigation, (iii) cultural services: providing recreational opportunities, esthetic enjoyment and spiritual enrichment, and (iv) supporting services: producing and conserving soil, and stabilizing stream flows and water runoff -preventing land degradation and desertification and reducing the risks of natural disasters such as droughts, floods, and landslides.

  2. The marine coverage is measured over national waters.

  3. According to the Ministry of Transports and Communications (MTC) between 2000 and 2016 the road infrastructure in Peru was expanded from 78,213 to 165,905 km (that is, by 112%).

  4. The construction of the Inter-Oceanic Highway in Madre de Dios (US$ 2.8 billion, 1600-mile paved road from the coast of Peru to Brazil) completed in 2011 had considerable impact on forest cover and structure-mainly, migration and (illegal) gold mining activities-although it has opened access to isolated forest regions (Oliveira et al. 2007; Smith and Schwartz 2015).

  5. Our paper focuses its impact analysis on deforestation but not on socioeconomic outcomes, such as revenues, poverty, migration, etc. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the socioeconomic impacts of PNA are not clear at all. Díaz and Miranda (2012) find that the estimated effect on welfare at the level of income and expenses is largely negative (but higher in income than for expenses) for different types of PNA, including parks or reserves, and economic activities (direct-use, indirect-use, and tourism). In a subsequent study, Miranda et al. (2014) do not detect any improvements in welfare among households close to protected areas. Moreover, Robalino et al. (2012) found that PNAs had a largely negative impact on different socioeconomic indicators, including population growth, income inequality, and poverty. Conversely, other studies point to positive effects on welfare. For instance, Andam et al. (2010) showed that the implementation of protected areas reduces poverty in comparison to similar localities without PNA due to a greater tourist activity. Specifically, in Costa Rica, the income of populations situated close to park entrances was 13.5% higher than that corresponding to populations living farther from these locations. Additionally, in Thailand, the average monthly household consumption increased by 4.5% in places with protected areas. Along this line, Sims (2010) studied the Thailand case and found that the PNA reduced local poverty although it may have increased overall local inequality. Some other studies that point to positive effects of PNA on welfare are Robalino and Villalobos-Fiatt, (2010), and Canavire and Hanauer (2013).

  6. “Protected Natural Areas are the continental and/or marine spaces of the national territory, expressly recognized and declared as such, including their categories and zoning, to conserve biological diversity and other associated values of culture, landscape and science, as well as for its contribution to the sustainable development of the country. The Natural Protected Areas constitute patrimony of the Nation. It´s natural condition must be maintained in perpetuity, allowing the regulated use of the area and the use of resources, or determine the restriction of direct uses.” (Article No. 1 of Law No. 26834 of the year 1997).

  7. See: https://www.ositran.gob.pe/nosotros/ositran-en-cifras/.

  8. References cited by Khandker et al.(2009).

  9. References cited by Khandker et al.(2009).

  10. See https://gestion.pe/peru/adex-90-deforestacion-bosques-peruanos-consecuencia-cultivos-agricolas-superveniencia-260294-noticia/?ref=gesr.

  11. See http://geobosques.minam.gob.pe/geobosque/descargas_geobosque/perdida/documentos/GUIA_DE_USO_Y_ANALISIS_DE_LA_INFORMACION_GEORREFERENCIADA_DE_BOSQUES.pdf.

  12. And also, Michalopoulus and Papaioannou (2014).

  13. We constructed a variable to identify whether a district pertains primarily to the coast, highlands, or the jungle based on the average altitude of the settlements therein.

  14. It could be possible that a road was destroyed between these two years or some PNA became deactivated, but in our dataset we do not have cases like these.

References

  • Aguirre J, Campana Y, Guerrero E, De La Torre UD (2018) Roads and agriculture: impacts of connectivity in Peru. Int J Transport Econ 45(4):605–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Amadi BC (1988) The impact of rural road construction on agricultural development: an empirical study of Anambra state in Nigeria. Agric Syst 27(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Robalino JA (2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(42):16089–16094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Sims KR, Healy A, Holland MB (2010) Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(22):9996–10001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asher S, Garg T, Novosad P (2020) The ecological impact of transportation infrastructure. Econ J 130(629):1173–1199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber CP, Cochrane MA, Souza CM Jr, Laurance WF (2014) Roads, deforestation, and the mitigating effect of protected areas in the Amazon. Biol Cons 177:203–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BIDS (2004) Poverty Impact of Rural Roads and Markets Improvement and Maintenance Project of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, Dhaka

    Google Scholar 

  • Binswanger HP, Deininger K, Feder G (1993) Agricultural land relations in the developing world. Am J Agric Econ 75(5):1242–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boucher D, Roquemore S, Fitzhugh E (2013) Brazil’s success in reducing deforestation. Trop Conserv Sci 6(3):426–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockerhoff EG, Barbaro L, Castagneyrol B, Forrester D, Gardiner B, González-Olabarria JR, Lyver PO’B, Meurisse N, Oxbrough A, Taki H, Thompson ID, van der Plas F, Jactel H, (2017) Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv 26:3005–3035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB, Gerlach J, Hoffmann M, Lamoreux JF, Mittermeier CG, Pilgrim JD, Rodrigues ASL (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313(5783):58–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess R, Hansen M, Olken BA, Potapov P, Sieber S (2012) The political economy of deforestation in the tropics. Q J Econ 127(4):1707–1754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canavire-Bacarreza G, Hanauer MM (2013) Estimating the impacts of Bolivia’s protected areas on poverty. World Dev 41:265–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarty S, Ghosh SK, Suresh CP, Dey AN, Shukla G (2012) Deforestation: causes, effects and control strategies. Glob Perspect Sustain For Manag 1:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlery LC, Qaim M, Smith-Hall C (2016) Impact of infrastructure on rural household income and inequality in Nepal. J Dev Effect 8(2):266–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomitz KM, Buys P, De Luca G, Thomas TS, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S (2008) At loggerheads: agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. World Bank Policy Research Report, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropper M, Puri J, Griffiths C (2001) Predicting the location of deforestation: the role of roads and protected areas in North Thailand. Land Econ. 77(2):172–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Luca GD (2007) Roads, development and deforestation: a review. Development Research Group Paper. World Bank, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell M (2010) The persistent effects of Peru’s mining mita. Econometrica 78(6):1863–1903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz R, Miranda JJ (2012) Áreas Naturales Protegidas en el Perú: Efectos sobre la Deforestación y su relación con el Bienestar de la Población Amazónica. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos IEP, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Faber B (2014) Trade integration, market size, and industrialization: evidence from China’s National Trunk Highway System. Rev Econ Stud 81:1046–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan S, Hazell P, Thorat S (2000) Government spending, growth, and poverty in rural India. Am J Agric Econ 82:1038–1051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2018) The State of the World’s Forests 2018—forest pathways to sustainable development. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim B, Lurie I, Simon K (2015) The impact of the Affordable Care Act young adult provision on labor market outcomes: evidence from tax data. Tax Policy Econ 29(1):133–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdsworth AR, Uhl C (1997) Fire in Amazonian selectively logged rain forest and the potential for fire reduction. Ecol Appl 7(2):713–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland PW (1986) Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat Assoc 81(396):945–960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INEI (2019) Perú, Anuario de estadísticas ambientales 2019. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby HG, Minten B (2008) On measuring the benefits of lower transport costs. J Dev Econ 89:28–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2011) Global protected area impacts. Proc R Soc B 278:1633–1638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khandker SR, Bakht Z, Koolwal GB (2009) The poverty impact of rural roads: evidence from Bangladesh. Econ Dev Cult Change 57(4):685–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakerveld RP, Lele S, Crane TA, Fortuin KPJ, Springate-Baginski O (2015) The social distribution of provisioning forest ecosystem services: evidence and insights from Odisha, India. Ecosyst Serv 14:56–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledec G, Posas PJ (2003) Biodiversity Conservation in Road Projects. Lessons from World Bank Experience in Latin America. Transportation Research Record 1819. Paper Nº LVR8-1154

  • Levy H (1996) Morocco—socioeconomic influence of rural roads: fourth highway project. World Development Sources, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano FA, Sorensen T (2011) The labor market value to legal status. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5492

  • MA (2003) Ecosystems and Human Well-being. A framework for assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalopoulos S, Papaioannou E (2014) National institutions and subnational development in Africa. Q J Econ 129(1):151–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miranda JJ, Corral L, Blackman A, Asner G, Lima E (2014) Effects of protected areas on forest cover change and local communities evidence from the Peruvian Amazon. IDB Working Paper Series No IDB-WP-559

  • Nagendra H, Paul S, Pareeth S, Dutt S (2009) Landscapes of protection: forest change and fragmentation in Northern West Bengal, India. Environ Manag 44(5):853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson A, Chomitz KM (2011) Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6(8):e22722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira PJ, Asner GP, Knapp DE et al (2007) Land-use allocation protects the Peruvian Amazon. Science 317(5842):1233–1236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff A, Robalino J (2012) Protecting forests, biodiversity, and the climate: predicting policy impact to improve policy choice. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 28(1):164–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff A, Robalino J, Walker R, Aldrich S, Caldas M, Reis E, Kirby K (2007) Road investments, spatial spillovers, and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. J Region Sci 47(1):109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff A, Sills EO, Amacher GS et al (2010) Policy impacts on deforestation: lessons learned from past experience to inform new initiatives. Nicholas Institute, Duke University, North Carolina

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff A, Robalino J, Herrera D, Sandoval C (2015) Protected areas’ impacts on Brazilian Amazon deforestation: examining conservation—development interactions to inform planning. PLoS ONE 10(7):e0129460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robalino J, Villalobos-Fiatt L (2010) Conservation Policies and Labor Markets: Unraveling the Effects of National Parks on Local Wages in Costa Rica. Environment for Development—Discussion Paper Series DP 10-02

  • Robalino J, Villalobos L, Blackman A, Pfaff A (2012) Impacts of protected areas on population growth, inequality and marginalization in Mexico. Environment for Development Initiative, CATIE

    Google Scholar 

  • Robalino J, Sandoval C, Barton DN, Chacon A, Pfaff A (2015) Evaluating interactions of forest conservation policies on avoided deforestation. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0124910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin DB (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol 66(5):688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin DB (1978) Bayesian inference for causal effects: the role of randomization. Ann Stat 34–58

  • Shih K (2016) Labor market openness, h-1b visa policy, and the scale of international student enrollment in the United States. Econ Inq 54(1):121–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims K (2010) Conservation and development: evidence from Thai protected areas. J Environ Econ Manag 60:94–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith J, Schwartz J (2015) In-Depth Deforestation in Peru. How indigenous communities, government agencies, nonprofits and businesses work together to stop the clearing of forests, World Wildlife Magazine, Fall

  • Soares-Filho BS, Nepstad DC, Curran LM, Cerqueira GC, Garcia RA, Ramos CA, Voll E, McDonald A, Lefebvre P, Schlesinger P (2006) Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440(7083):520–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swenson JJ, Carter CE, Domec JC, Delgado CI (2011) Gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon: global prices, deforestation, and mercury imports. PLoS ONE 6(4):e18875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. Earthman: London and Washington

  • UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, NGS (2018) Protected Planet Report 2018. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN and NGS: Cambridge, Gland, Switzerland and Washington DC

  • Warr P (2010) Roads and poverty in rural Laos: an econometric analysis. Pac Econ Rev 15(1):152–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb R (2013) Conexión y Despegue Rural. Universidad de San Martín de Porres, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Werth D, Avissar R (2002) The local and global effects of Amazon deforestation. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 107 (8087)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank participants at the 9th Bolivian Conference on Development Economics in 2018 and at the 2019 annual congress of the Peruvian Economic Association for their useful comments and suggestions. We extend our gratitude to Pedro Rojas for his valuable research assistant support. Finally, the authors want to acknowledge the Economic and Social Research Consortium (CIES)—Grant Number PMA1AN60-969 for financing the research. The opinions contained herein represent those of the author only.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Universidad del Pacífico, Jr. Sánchez Cerro 2050, Jesús María, 15072, Lima, Peru

    Julio Aguirre

  2. Department of Economics, Universidad de San Andrés, Vito Dumas 284 (B1644BID), Victoria, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Elmer Guerrero

  3. Macroconsult S.A., Av. Santa Cruz 830, Piso 2, Miraflores, 15073, Lima, Peru

    Yohnny Campana

Authors
  1. Julio Aguirre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elmer Guerrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yohnny Campana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julio Aguirre.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aguirre, J., Guerrero, E. & Campana, Y. How effective are protected natural areas when roads are present? An analysis of the Peruvian case. Environ Econ Policy Stud 23, 831–859 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-021-00304-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-021-00304-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation