CONSERVATION POLICIES AND LABOR MARKETS: Unraveling the effects of national parks on local wages in...
-
Upload
ramon-brassfield -
Category
Documents
-
view
226 -
download
2
Transcript of CONSERVATION POLICIES AND LABOR MARKETS: Unraveling the effects of national parks on local wages in...
CONSERVATION POLICIES AND LABOR MARKETS: Unraveling the effects of national parks on local wages in Costa Rica
CAMP RESOURCES XVII
Laura VillalobosJuan Robalino
Research Questions
1. Is there a gap in the wages received by people living close to national parks with respect to wages in other rural areas?
2. If there is, where are these differences coming from?
2
Volcán Tenorio National Park, Costa Rica
Motivation
DEMAND FOR LAND Demand for land : 12% global land area under protection
(Coad et al. 2008), incentives to increase PAs in developing countries: REDD
ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT How will these policies affect the well being of individuals in
localities where these policies are implemented? Effects on labor markets
POLICY IMPLICATIONS More informed decisions To whom to address policies?
3
Literature review Parks Literature
Parks literature studies environmental effects: deforestation
Previous Socioeconomic StudiesPositive effects on:
Poverty: Costa Rica and Thailand (Andam et al 2009, Sims 2009) Household consumption: Thailand (Sims 2009) Bolivia Yanez (2006)
Our contribution Look at the effect of being close to the entrance Split the data so we can look at the effects for different groups Labor Market: wages
4
5
Methodology
Data
Socioeconomic variables Household surveys (INEC 2000-2007) Dependent Variable: Real wages per hour (log) Gender, age, education level, migrant status, nationality, marital status,
and full-year employment, place of residency two years before, economic activity and occupation
These households are geographically referenced with census tracks
Geographic variables Map from ITCR 2005: National Parks’ map precipitation, slope, road density, distances to: schools, clinics,
coasts, rivers and San José We located visitors’ access to parks (entrances)
6
Our treatment and control groups
7
Treatment 2:Close to park, near the
entrance
Treatment 3:Close to park, far from
the entrance
Treatment 1:Close to park
Control Group: rural areas, far
from parks
24 National Parks
10% CR of territory
RESULTS8
9
Treatment 1: Close to park
OLS Effect 0.0726*** 0.0406*** 0.0643*** 0.0485*** Standard Error [0.011] [0.010] [0.010] [0.009] #obs 24,946 24,916 24,916 24,916 PSM Effect 0.0445*** 0.0622*** 0.0429*** Standard Error [0.012] [0.011] [0.011]
#obs 9,954 9,755 9,632
Naive Workers'
characteristics+ Geographic characteristics
+ Occupation/activity characteristics
Treatment 2 : Close to park AND close to the entrance
OLS Effect 0.1349*** 0.0758*** 0.0758*** 0.0583*** Standard Error [0.013] [0.011] [0.011] [0.011] #obs 23,782 23,752 23,752 23,752 PSM Effect 0.0897*** 0.0903*** 0.0435*** Standard Error [0.014] [0.014] [0.013]
#obs 7,116 6,850 6,764
Treatment 3: Close to park AND far from the entrance
OLS Effect -0.0597*** -0.0350** 0.0258 0.0194 Standard Error [0.018] [0.016] [0.016] [0.016] #obs 22,789 22,761 22,761 22,761 PSM Effect -0.0318 0.0243 0.0227 Standard Error [0.019] [0.022] [0.021]
#obs 3,944 2,942 2,903
10
0.0
25.0
5.0
75.1
.125
.15
Fra
ctio
n
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5Propensity Score
a. Before Matching
0.0
25.0
5.0
75.1
.125
.15
0 .1 .2 .3 .4Propensity Score
b. After Matching
Solid: Treated; Dashed: Controls
Histogram of Estimated Propensity Matching Score Close to National Park Entrances versus Far from Parks
RESULTS: Gap by groups (close to entrance)
11
Robustness Tests: Different distances
12
Close to park Close to entrance Far from entrance
5km ring 0.0429*** 0.0435*** 0.0227Standard Error [0.011] [0.013] [0.021]#obs 9,632 6,764 2,9034km ring 0.0451*** 0.0549*** 0.0198Standard Error [0.014] [0.019] [0.023]#obs 5,966 3,173 2,5846km ring 0.0481*** 0.0631*** -0.0154Standard Error [0.010] [0.011] [0.019]#obs 12,592 9,219 3,826
20km Road 18km Road 22km Road5km ring 0.0435*** 0.0641*** 0.0430***Standard Error [0.013] [0.015] [0.011]#obs 6,764 5,209 9,388
Conclusions
1. Wages close to entrances higher compared with the no-park situation
2. No gap far from the entrance3. Shifting activities4. Women are greatly benefitted5. Costa Ricans, and non migrants6. Foreigners, agriculture sector and migrants7. Results lined up with previous studies
13
Next Steps
Develop a theoretical model Look at other welfare dimensions
Income distribution Education Infrastructure Income source diversification
14
GRACIAS!!!!
16