Conservation works best where it’s often most contested: developed and populated areas.
Environmental economist Alex Pfaff believes parks should be created where they will be most effective for blocking deforestation. He met with students and faculty at the Baker Center on Thursday to discuss specifics on preventing environmental degradation in a lecture titled “Avoided Amazonian Deforestation and Policy Design.”
“I’m very interested in impacts of policies,” Pfaff said. “If you can see policy Type 1 has more impact than policy Type 2, that can be more of an influence for changing policy on the ground … you point to places and actions that will do more, versus places and actions that will do less.”
Pfaff asserts that land conservation can be fine-tuned to achieve greater impacts in protecting the environment.
“If you think that protected areas here and there have different impacts, then where they are positioned determines impact,” Pfaff said. “Who makes these decisions also matters. It’s pretty likely that a federal actor will put protection in a different area than a state actor.”
In conducting his research, Pfaff focuses on exposing the specific characteristics of land reserve locations to determine which yield most benefit for society.
“The basic idea is to split up space, and ask what the impact will be,” Pfaff said.
His findings have specific implications for planning preservation regions.
“Is it correct that protected areas in threat zones have greater impacts than protected areas farther from cities?” Pfaff said. “Yes. Parks closer to roads have larger impacts. Conservation impacts vary over space.”
Surprisingly, road positioning is a major factor in the effectiveness of land preserves in blocking deforestation.
“Different places in space have different economic activity going on, in which a park will intervene,” Pfaff said. “Here I told you if a park is far from a road, it’s not doing much.”
Parks situated in sparsely populated areas, however, are not always ill-placed.
“Conservation has tended to be in lower threat zones,” Pfaff said. “That doesn’t mean it’s not optimal. There are many costs and benefits to be taken into consideration. Here I am only focusing on impacts on the rate of deforestation. It might still be worth it, but if you only have 100 bucks would you want to put it in a place with greater impact or less?”
State and federal governments take dissimilar approaches to conservation.
“Would you want to hand money to federal actor or local actor?” Pfaff asked. “I argue it matters for deforestation. There is a large difference in impact between state and federal protection. Any location choice has implications for impact. Federal sustainable parks have more impacts.”
The deforestation rate is only one of many factors involved in environmental protection, and while Pfaff focuses on spatial configurations, he was careful to stress the importance of other factors like species habitat, as well.
“The private and the public sectors are playing this interactive game,” Pfaff said. “Let’s say then you place a park. Could you have an extra effect of shaping where development goes? Sure. People are evaluating their future payments from being in a certain place.”
During the course of his lecture, Pfaff was intent on providing workable solutions to immediate threats in the developing world.
“He works frequently with projects focusing on developing countries,” Jacob LaRiviere, professor of economics, said. “His work has been supported by grants from numerous agencies.”
Pfaff is an associate professor of public policy, economics and environment at Duke University. From his base in Durham, N.C., Pfaff focuses his attention on the relationship between economic development and natural resources.
This event was part of a series sponsored by the Baker Center’s Interdisciplinary Group on Energy and Environmental Policy.
