Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:04:52.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Poverty and spatial dimensions of non-timber forest extraction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

ALEJANDRO LÓPEZ-FELDMAN  and
JAMES E. WILEN
ALEJANDRO LÓPEZ-FELDMAN*
Affiliation:
Escuela de Economía, Universidad de Guanajuato, Campus UCEA-Marfil, Guanajuato, México, 36250. Email: [email protected]
JAMES E. WILEN
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, USA. Email: [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author. Financial support was provided at various stages of this research by Mexico's Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT), the University of California Institute for Mexico and the United States (UCMEXUS) and the Institute of International Education's Programa Regional de Becas de Posgrado en Ciencias Sociales. We thank participants at the 9th Occasional Workshop on Environmental and Natural Resource Economics (Santa Barbara, 2006), the International Conference on Economics of Poverty, Environment and Natural Resource Use (Wageningen, 2006), and at seminars at UDLA-P, and University of Guanajuato. The authors acknowledge helpful comments from three anonymous referees of this journal and from the guest editor of this special issue.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conservationists promote non-timber forest products (NTFP) to simultaneously alleviate poverty and conserve ecosystems. Unfortunately, little is known about how such products actually contribute to poverty alleviation, or how various complementary policies such as green marketing campaigns or cooperative management might impact resource health and users' welfare. This paper develops a simple NTFP extraction model that focuses on spatial and labor market dimensions of use in both managed and unmanaged settings. The model contrasts patterns of spatial use, resource health, and income generation under open access and community-managed institutions. We then test the conceptual model by investigating the case of xate production in the rainforest of Chiapas, Mexico, using survey work conducted over two separate periods. The empirical investigation reveals spatial patterns and labor market outcomes predicted by the model. We find NTFP use is mainly conducted by households with low opportunity costs of time and fewer income generation opportunities.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 5: THE ECONOMICS OF POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE USE , October 2008 , pp. 621 - 642
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angelsen, A. and Wunder, S. (2003), ‘Exploring the forest–poverty link: key concepts, issues and research implications’, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 40, CIFOR, Bogor.Google Scholar
Belcher, B., Ruíz-Pérez, M., and Achdiawan, R. (2005), ‘Global patterns and trends in the use and management of commercial NTFPs: implications for livelihoods and conservation’, World Development 33: 1435–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhat, M.G. and Huffaker, R.G. (1991), ‘Private property rights and forest preservation in Karnataka Western Ghats, India’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bluffstone, R. (1995), ‘The effect of labor market performance on deforestation in developing countries under open access: an example from rural Nepal’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29: 42–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browder, J. (1992), ‘The limits of extractivism: tropical forest strategies beyond extractive reserves’, BioScience 42: 174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, C. (1990), Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources, 2nd edition, New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B., and Acheson, J. (1990), ‘The tragedy of the commons: twenty-two years later’, Human Ecology 18: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, H.S. (1954), ‘The economic theory of a common property resource: the fishery’, Journal of Political Economy 62: 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunatileke, H. and Chakravorty, U. (2003), ‘Protecting forests through farming: a dynamic model of nontimber forest extraction’, Environmental and Resource Economics 24: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartwick, J. and Olewiler, N. (1998), The Economics of Natural Resource Use, Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Jacoby, H. (1993), ‘Shadow wages and peasant family labor supply: an econometric application to the Peruvian Sierra’, Review of Economics Studies 60: 903–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Feldman, A. (2006), ‘Rural households, natural resources and poverty: three essays on the economics of extraction in the Lacandona Rainforest, México’, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
López-Feldman, A., Mora, J., and Taylor, J.E. (2007), ‘Does natural resource extraction mitigate poverty and inequality? Evidence from Rural México and a Lacandona Rainforest Community’, Environment and Development Economics 12: 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lybbert, T., Barrett, C., and Narjisse, H. (2002), ‘Market-based conservation and local benefits: the case of Argan Oil in Morocco’, Ecological Economics 41: 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, R. and Hirsch, E. (2000), ‘Commercialization of non-timber forest products: review and analysis of research’, CIFOR, Bogor.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., and Walker, J. (1993), Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources, University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, E., Williams, J., and Albers, H. (2002), ‘The influence of markets and policy on spatial patterns of non-timber forest product extraction’, Land Economics 78: 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Carrillo, D. and Valtierra-Pacheco, E. (2003), ‘Social organization for the exploitation of Camedor Palms (Chamaedorea spp.) in the Lacandona Rainforest, Chiapas’, Agrociencia 37: 545–552.Google Scholar
Sanchirico, J.N. and Wilen, J.E. (1999), ‘Bioeconomics of spatial exploitation in a patchy environment’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 37: 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skoufias, E. (1994), ‘Using shadow wages to estimate labor supply of agricultural households’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76: 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tejeda Cruz, C. (2004), ‘Apropriación territorial y aporvechamiento de recursos forestales en la comunidad Frontera Corozal, Selva Lacandona, Chiapas, México’, Unpublished document presented at the 10th congress of the International Association for the Study of Common Property.Google Scholar
Wunder, S. (2001), ‘Poverty alleviation and tropical forests – what scope for synergies?’, World Development 29: 1817–1833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar