IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v69y2017icp112-122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Local ecological knowledge reveals effects of policy-driven land use and cover change on beekeepers in Costa Rica

Author

Listed:
  • Galbraith, Sara M.
  • Hall, Troy E.
  • Tavárez, Héctor S.
  • Kooistra, Chad M.
  • Ordoñez, Jenny C.
  • Bosque-Pérez, Nilsa A.

Abstract

Land use and cover (LUC) change is a major driver of ecosystem service loss worldwide. In response, policymakers have designed conservation strategies that incentivize the establishment and maintenance of LUC types associated with higher ecosystem service provision. Many of these policies also aim to promote social and economic goals such as reducing poverty. Attempts to measure the impact of policy-driven LUC change on stakeholders typically focus only on economic outcomes for landowning participants or aggregate the socio-economic outcomes of diverse groups. In this study, we applied local ecological knowledge (LEK) held by beekeepers in Costa Rica to understand the impact of policy-driven LUC change on this specific group of often non-landowning stakeholders. Beekeeping is a globally important rural livelihood and provides pollination services to crops and wild plants. We synthesized beekeeper LEK using a mixed-methods approach including apiary mapping exercises (n=215 apiaries), questionnaires (n=50 participants), and follow-up interviews (n=21 participants). Our study revealed that some policy-driven LUC changes have limited beekeepers’ access to preferred land uses, such as secondary and mature forests with native trees. Participants reported concern for their livelihoods due to policy-driven spatial and temporal change of floral resources via the establishment of tree plantations, changes in pasture management, and laws that prohibit beekeeping in national parks and reserves. Our study provides evidence of unintended outcomes from land use policies, including Payment for Ecosystem Services, with disproportionate negative impacts on non-landowning residents who depend on natural resources in the landscape for their livelihoods. Our study illustrates potential inequality rising from current incentive mechanisms associated with Payments for Ecosystem Services and other conservation policies and calls for policymakers to consider LUC change impacts on non-landowning stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Galbraith, Sara M. & Hall, Troy E. & Tavárez, Héctor S. & Kooistra, Chad M. & Ordoñez, Jenny C. & Bosque-Pérez, Nilsa A., 2017. "Local ecological knowledge reveals effects of policy-driven land use and cover change on beekeepers in Costa Rica," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 112-122.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:69:y:2017:i:c:p:112-122
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716313059
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    2. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    3. Pfaff Alexander & Robalino Juan & Sanchez-Azofeifa G. Arturo & Andam Kwaw S & Ferraro Paul J, 2009. "Park Location Affects Forest Protection: Land Characteristics Cause Differences in Park Impacts across Costa Rica," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Baasch, David M. & Tyre, Andrew J. & Millspaugh, Joshua J. & Hygnstrom, Scott E. & Vercauteren, Kurt C., 2010. "An evaluation of three statistical methods used to model resource selection," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(4), pages 565-574.
    5. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    6. Rodrigo A. Arriagada, & Paul J. Ferraro & Erin O. Sills & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Silvia Cordero-Sancho, 2012. "Do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Forest Cover? A Farm-Level Evaluation from Costa Rica," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 382-399.
    7. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    8. Daniels, Amy E. & Bagstad, Kenneth & Esposito, Valerie & Moulaert, Azur & Rodriguez, Carlos Manuel, 2010. "Understanding the impacts of Costa Rica's PES: Are we asking the right questions?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2116-2126, September.
    9. Cerdán, C.R. & Rebolledo, M.C. & Soto, G. & Rapidel, B. & Sinclair, F.L., 2012. "Local knowledge of impacts of tree cover on ecosystem services in smallholder coffee production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 119-130.
    10. Zbinden, Simon & Lee, David R., 2005. "Paying for Environmental Services: An Analysis of Participation in Costa Rica's PSA Program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 255-272, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guadilla-Sáez, Sara & Pardo-de-Santayana, Manuel & Reyes-García, Victoria, 2019. "The role of traditional management practices in shaping a diverse habitat mosaic in a mountain region of Northern Spain," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Maderson, Siobhan, 2023. "Co-producing agricultural policy with beekeepers: Obstacles and opportunities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    3. Sun, Qiangqiang & Zhang, Ping & Jiang, Wanbei & Qu, Wei & Sun, Yanan & Sun, Danfeng, 2022. "Navigating local environment and scientific knowledge in dryland social-ecological systems through linking ecological policy-household interactions with land surface dynamics," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    4. Simeon Marnasidis & Apostolos Kantartzis & Chrisovalantis Malesios & Fani Hatjina & Garyfallos Arabatzis & Efstathia Verikouki, 2021. "Mapping Priority Areas for Apiculture Development with the Use of Geographical Information Systems," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, February.
    5. Dongyan Guo & Dongyan Wang & Xiaoyong Zhong & Yuanyuan Yang & Lixin Jiang, 2021. "Spatiotemporal Changes of Land Ecological Security and Its Obstacle Indicators Diagnosis in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sims, Katharine R.E. & Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M., 2017. "Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 8-28.
    2. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    3. Gwenolé Le Velly & Céline Dutilly, 2016. "Evaluating Payments for Environmental Services: Methodological Challenges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    4. Zanella, Matheus A. & Schleyer, Christian & Speelman, Stijn, 2014. "Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 166-176.
    5. Lewis, Kate & Porras, Ina & Miranda, Miriam & Barton, David & Chacon, Adriana, 2012. "De Rio a Rio+ Lecciones de 20 años de experiencia en servicios ambientales en Costa Rica [From Rio to Rio + Lessons from 20 years of experience in environmental services in Costa Rica]," MPRA Paper 43649, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Zhu, Lanlan & Zhang, Chunman & Cai, Yinying, 2018. "Varieties of agri-environmental schemes in China: A quantitative assessment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 505-517.
    7. Legrand, Thomas & Froger, Géraldine & Le Coq, Jean-François, 2013. "Institutional performance of Payments for Environmental Services: An analysis of the Costa Rican Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 115-123.
    8. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    9. Iván Pérez-Rubio & Daniel Flores & Christian Vargas & Francisco Jiménez & Iker Etxano, 2021. "To What Extent Are Cattle Ranching Landholders Willing to Restore Ecosystem Services? Constructing a Micro-Scale PES Scheme in Southern Costa Rica," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.
    10. Robalino, Juan & Pfaff, Alexander & Sandoval, Catalina & Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. Arturo, 2021. "Can we increase the impacts from payments for ecosystem services? Impact rose over time in Costa Rica, yet spatial variation indicates more potential," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    11. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    12. Mudaca, Joao Daniel & Tsuchiya, Toshiyuki & Yamada, Masaaki & Onwona-Agyeman, Siaw, 2015. "Household participation in Payments for Ecosystem Services: A case study from Mozambique," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 21-27.
    13. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Coomes, Paul A. & Jepsen, Christopher & Koford, Brandon C. & Troske, Kenneth R., 2014. "Estimating the social value of higher education: willingness to pay for community and technical colleges," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 3-41, January.
    14. Martin Persson, U. & Alpízar, Francisco, 2013. "Conditional Cash Transfers and Payments for Environmental Services—A Conceptual Framework for Explaining and Judging Differences in Outcomes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 124-137.
    15. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    16. Stefan Eriksson & Per Johansson & Sophie Langenskiöld, 2017. "What is the right profile for getting a job? A stated choice experiment of the recruitment process," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 803-826, September.
    17. David A Keiser & Joseph S Shapiro, 2019. "Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(1), pages 349-396.
    18. Pham, Thu Thuy & Loft, Lasse & Bennett, Karen & Phuong, Vu Tan & Dung, Le Ngoc & Brunner, Jake, 2015. "Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From myth to reality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 220-229.
    19. Ahlheim, Michael & Schneider, Friedrich, 2013. "Considering household size in Contingent Valuation studies," FZID Discussion Papers 68-2013, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    20. Duke, Esther Alice & Goldstein, Joshua H. & Teel, Tara L. & Finchum, Ryan & Huber-Stearns, Heidi & Pitty, Jorge & Rodríguez P., Gladys Beatriz & Rodríguez, Samuel & Sánchez, Luis Olmedo, 2014. "Payments for ecosystem services and landowner interest: Informing program design trade-offs in Western Panama," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 44-55.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:69:y:2017:i:c:p:112-122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.