| Literature DB >> 26285776 |
Krister Andersson1, Duncan Lawrence2, Jennifer Zavaleta3, Manuel R Guariguata4.
Abstract
Tree plantations play a controversial role in many nations' efforts to balance goals for economic development, ecological conservation, and social justice. This paper seeks to contribute to this debate by analyzing the socioeconomic impact of such plantations. We focus our study on Chile, a country that has experienced extraordinary growth of industrial tree plantations. Our analysis draws on a unique dataset with longitudinal observations collected in 180 municipal territories during 2001-2011. Employing panel data regression techniques, we find that growth in plantation area is associated with higher than average rates of poverty during this period.Entities:
Keywords: Chile; Forest policy; Forestry; Poverty; Rural development; Tree plantations
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26285776 PMCID: PMC4700076 DOI: 10.1007/s00267-015-0594-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Manage ISSN: 0364-152X Impact factor: 3.266
Fig. 1Area of tree plantations in Chile 1950–2010 (all species in hectares). Source Authors’ elaboration based on data from CONAF
Fig. 2Average poverty level in sample, 2001–2011. Source Authors’ elaboration based on data from SINIM
Fig. 3Average tree plantation coverage (percent municipal land area) in Sample, 2001–2011. Source Authors’ elaboration based on data from CONAF
Effects of tree plantations on poverty: fixed- and random-effects estimates
| Variables | (1) | (2) |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed effects | Random effects | |
| Tree plantations (percent area covered) | 0.300* | 0.492*** |
| (0.125) | (0.104) | |
| Budget dependence on common fund | −0.003 | 0.109*** |
| (0.028) | (0.022) | |
| Rural population | −0.089** | −0.123*** |
| (0.032) | (0.023) | |
| Population (thousands) | −0.030 | −0.099*** |
| (0.043) | (0.018) | |
| Municipal expenditures (thousands) | 0.001*** | 0.001*** |
| (0.000) | (0.000) | |
| Total sterile land | 0.051 | |
| (0.069) | ||
| Distance to capital | −0.008 | |
| (0.009) | ||
| Constant | 0.300* | 0.492*** |
| (0.125) | (0.104) | |
|
| 0.515 | 0.497 |
|
| 0.030 | 0.320 |
|
| 0.157 | 0.364 |
| Observations | 647 | 627 |
| Number of municipalities | 180 | 174 |
Robust standard errors in parentheses (*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05). Both models include time fixed effects, coefficient estimates not shown
Effect of tree plantation cover on poverty rates: random-effects historical model
| Variables | (1) |
|---|---|
| Random effects | |
| Tree plantations (percent area covered) | 0.448** |
| (0.138) | |
| Budget dependence on common fund | 0.055* |
| (0.028) | |
| Rural population | −0.114*** |
| (0.027) | |
| Population (thousands) | −0.079*** |
| (0.021) | |
| Municipal expenditures (thousands) | 0.001*** |
| (0.000) | |
| Total sterile land | 0.073 |
| (0.072) | |
| Distance to capital | −0.025* |
| (0.010) | |
| Indigenous land holdings (1975) | 2.378*** |
| (0.497) | |
| Number of small farms (1975) | −0.009*** |
| (0.003) | |
| Total land area (1965) | 0.000 |
| (0.000) | |
| Constant | 0.448** |
| (0.138) | |
|
| 0.496 |
|
| 0.347 |
|
| 0.370 |
| Observations | 436 |
| Number of municipalities | 122 |
Robust standard errors in parentheses (*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05). Model includes time fixed effects, coefficient estimates not shown
Effect of tree plantations on rural population size
| Variables | (1) |
|---|---|
| Fixed effects | |
| Tree plantations (percent area covered) | −0.054 |
| (0.179) | |
| Constant | 51.578*** |
| (0.679) | |
|
| 0.128 |
|
| 0.073 |
|
| 0.001 |
| Observations | 1774 |
| Number of municipalities | 180 |
Robust standard errors in parentheses (*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05). Model includes time fixed effects, coefficient estimates not shown
Comuna-level predictors of industrial tree-plantation expansion 2001–2011
| Variables | (1) |
|---|---|
| Random effects | |
| Tree plantations 1997 (hectares/1000) | 0.000 |
| (0.000) | |
| Budget dependence on common fund | −0.011 |
| (0.006) | |
| Rural population (percent) | 0.003 |
| (0.009) | |
| Population (thousands) | −0.006 |
| (0.005) | |
| Municipal expenditures (thousands) | −0.000 |
| (0.000) | |
| Total sterile land | 0.032 |
| (0.017) | |
| Distance to capital | 0.004 |
| (0.002) | |
| Number of small farms (1997) | −0.002 |
| (0.001) | |
| Indigenous land holdings (1997) | −0.093* |
| (0.037) | |
| Constant | 1.139 |
| (0.781) | |
|
| 0.443 |
|
| 0.254 |
|
| 0.296 |
| Observations | 1735 |
| Number of municipalities | 173 |
Robust standard errors in parentheses (*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05). Model includes time fixed effects and region fixed effects, coefficient estimates not shown
Effects of tree plantations on poverty using alternative years and data on poverty (fixed effects)
| Variables | (1) | (2) |
|---|---|---|
| SINIM original poverty data | Interpolated poverty data | |
| Tree plantations (percent area covered) | 0.421** | 0.198 |
| (0.152) | (0.121) | |
| Budget dependence on common fund | 0.018 | −0.007 |
| (0.020) | (0.015) | |
| Rural population | −0.088 | −0.035 |
| (0.045) | (0.033) | |
| Population (thousands) | −0.011 | 0.007 |
| (0.058) | (0.043) | |
| Municipal expenditures (thousands) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| (0.000) | (0.000) | |
| Constant | 32.986*** | 30.407*** |
| (2.749) | (2.062) | |
|
| 0.535 | 0.583 |
|
| 0.095 | 0.004 |
|
| 0.248 | 0.121 |
| Observations | 1765 | 1793 |
| Number of municipalities | 180 | 180 |
Robust standard errors in parentheses (*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05). Model includes time fixed effects, coefficient estimates not shown