Home » Biblio

The Value of Tropical Forest to Local Communities: Complications, Caveats, and Cautions

Publication Type  Journal Article
Authors  Douglas, Sheil; Wunder, Sven
Journal Title  Conservation Ecology
Year of Publication  2002
Volume  6
Pages  9
Key Words  valuation; doorstep accounting; plot survey
Notes   The authors discuss methods for valuing tropical forests and the relation of forest valuations to policy-making. They focus on two studies: Peters et al.?s widely cited paper (1989) on Peru, and Godoy et al.?s paper on Honduras (2000), which presented findings at odds with Peters? study. According to the authors, Peters et al.?s paper ?changed the world?s perceptions of [non-timber forest products (NTFPs)],? by claiming that the gross annual per hectare value of NTFPs in Mishana, Peru, was $6330/ha more than 10 times the site?s timber potential, and more than twice the value for converted land uses in other Amazon studies. Sheil and Wunder, however, critique the research methods underlying the paper, surveys of a 1 ha plot and prices in a nearby (30 km) market. Some key criticisms are that a) the paper had a spatial bias as the site selected had exceptionally low transport costs; b) the paper scaled up values inappropriately: the authors ignored the elasticity of prices (i.e. the prospect that prices would decline if NTFPs were marketed on a larger scale); and c) the paper calculated values based on the potential extractable NTFPs in the plot, whereas the actual extracted value is likely many times lower. Despite these problems, the Peters et al. study found a wide audience in policy circles, and continues to be cited widely. In the authors? view, the article?s influence led to an undue and unrealistic focus on NTFPs in conservation and development policy. The paper by Godoy and his colleagues focused on actual forest use instead of potential use, over a larger forest area and a longer time period, using a ?doorstep accountingi? approach that quantified the products brought into 32 Indian households in two villages in Honduras over 2.5 years. In contrast to Peters et al., this study valued forests around US $18-24. The authors suggest that this low figure may omit a range of values including a) goods consumed away from home, b) materials used for construction of homes and structures outside the home, c) the insurance value of forest products, and d) hydrologic benefits of forests. They also argue that the spatial and temporal samples in Godoy et al.?s study may be inadequate, and express concern that the paper?s conclusions may lead to the neglect of NTFPs in policy. Finally, the authors suggest aspects of context that may have been ignored in both studies. As they argue, per hectare values implicitly assume that land is scarce, when the main constraint on utilization may actually be labor. Likewise, neither study addresses non-economic aspects of forest value. In conclusion, they argue that valuation studies need more participatory components to understand ?what actually determines local behavior and decision making? and warn against a focus on ?quantifying the per hectare economic value of forest extraction without questioning its relevance.? Prepared by: : Derick Fay [DF], S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, July 2006.
URL  http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art9
Export  Tagged XML BibTex

Feedback