As global efforts to protect ecosystems expand, the socioeconomic impact of protected areas on neighboring human communities continues to be a source of intense debate. The debate persists because previous studies do not directly measure socioeconomic outcomes and do not use appropriate comparison groups to account for potential confounders. We illustrate an approach using comprehensive national datasets and quasi-experimental matching methods. We estimate impacts of protected area systems on poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand and find that although communities near protected areas are indeed substantially poorer than national averages, an analysis based on comparison with appropriate controls does not support the hypothesis that these differences can be attributed to protected areas. In contrast, the results indicate that the net impact of ecosystem protection was to alleviate poverty.conservation policy | poverty | empirical evaluation | protected areas | ecosystems

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) policies compensate individuals or communities for undertaking actions that increase the provision of ecosystem services such as water purification, flood mitigation, or carbon sequestration. PES schemes rely on incentives to induce behavioral change and can thus be considered part of the broader class of incentive-or market-based mechanisms for environmental policy. By recognizing that PES programs are incentive-based, policymakers can draw on insights from the substantial body of accumulated knowledge about this class of instruments. In particular, this article offers a set of lessons about how the environmental, socioeconomic, political, and dynamic context of a PES policy is likely to interact with policy design to produce policy outcomes, including environmental effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and poverty alleviation.environmental policy ͉ incentive payments ͉ market-based instruments

Protected areas are the dominant approach to protecting biodiversity and the supply of ecosystem services. Because these protected areas are often placed in regions with widespread poverty and because they can limit agricultural development and exploitation of natural resources, concerns have been raised about their potential to create or reinforce poverty traps. Previous studies suggest that the protected area systems in Costa Rica and Thailand, on average, reduced deforestation and alleviated poverty. We examine these results in more detail by characterizing the heterogeneity of responses to protection conditional on observable characteristics. We find no evidence that protected areas trap historically poorer areas in poverty. In fact, we find that poorer areas at baseline seem to have the greatest levels of poverty reduction as a result of protection. However, we do find that the spatial characteristics associated with the most poverty alleviation are not necessarily the characteristics associated with the most avoided deforestation. We show how an understanding of these spatially heterogeneous responses to protection can be used to generate suitability maps that identify locations in which both environmental and poverty alleviation goals are most likely to be achieved.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Paragraph: 20Since the 1980's, decentralized forest management has been promoted as a way to enhance sustainable forest use and reduce rural poverty. Rural communities manage increasing amounts of the world's forests, yet rigorous evidence using large-N data on whether community-based forest management (CFM) can jointly reduce both deforestation and poverty remains scarce. We estimate impacts of CFM using a large 25 longitudinal dataset that integrates national-census-based poverty measures with highresolution forest cover change data, and near-complete information on Nepal's > 18,000 community forests. We compare changes in forest cover and poverty from 2000-2012 for sub-districts with presence or absence of CFM arrangements, but that are otherwise similar in terms of socioeconomic and biophysical baseline measures. Our 30 results indicate that CFM has, on average, contributed to significant net reductions in both poverty and deforestation across Nepal, and that CFM increases the likelihood of win-win outcomes. We also find that the estimated reduced deforestation impacts of community forests are lower where baseline poverty levels are high, and greater where community forests are larger and have existed longer. These results indicate that greater 35 benefits may result from longer-term investments and larger areas committed to community forest management, but that community forests established in poorer areas may require additional support to minimize tradeoffs between socioeconomic and environmental outcomes. Main text: 40Forests are critical to sustainable development 1,2 . They regulate climate, sequester carbon, harbour biodiversity, and contribute to national incomes and local livelihoods 3 .Over the past four decades, governments and international organizations have promoted decentralized community-based forest management (CFM) to achieve sustainable forest use and reduce rural poverty 4 . In decentralized decision-making arrangements, 45 the primary responsibility for day-to-day management rests with forest-user communities. Ideally, this allows communities to make better use of their time and place-specific knowledge to promote more efficient, equitable, and sustainable multifunctional landscapes 5 .Local communities now legally manage approximately 13% of the world's 50 forests 6 . Debates about whether CFM truly reduces forest loss and alleviates poverty, nonetheless, continue 7,8 . Case studies from Latin America, Africa, and South Asia show that some CFM initiatives have improved forest and livelihood outcomes 9,10 , but that others have not achieved intended objectives 4,11 . The vast majority of existing studies have focused on limited sets of cases, and have used qualitative assessments of poverty 55 and livelihood outcomes that are difficult to compare across space and over time 7 .These studies have helped to identify how land tenure, local autonomy, and collective action may contribute to effective and equitable CFM, but have not tested whether CFM programs lead to net environmental and socioe...