IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ukm/jlekon/v47y2013i2p25-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Pays and Who Gets What from National Parks Protection? Case of Taman Negara in Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Othman, Jamal

    (School of Economics Faculty of Economics and Management Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia)

  • Zin, Ahmad

    (School of Economics Faculty of Economics and Management Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia)

Abstract

The Malaysian National Park or Taman Negara (TN) is a totally protected forest which covers an area over 4,000 square kilometres, straddling across three relatively less developed north-eastern states of Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan in Peninsular Malaysia. Forest conservation inevitably entails equity-efficiency tradeoffs. The local communities may lose all or most of the direct benefits provided by the resource, including foregone benefits such as agricultural development and other alternative uses. While all the other indirect and non-use values may accrue to both local and external communities, foregone benefits may pose a serious policy issue should the affected communities be relatively poorer or have less access to alternative sources of economic growth and development. This study conducts an economic valuation of the benefits and costs of Taman Negara’s conservation and its resulting equity impacts to the various stakeholders - global community, Malaysian federal and state governments, and the local community. The study specifically compares the benefits from TN conservation against alternative land uses, namely sustainable logging, and sustainable logging and oil palm development. Based on a social discount rate of 2 percent and lower bound price estimates of carbon and marketed goods prices, the study shows that existing conservation policies provide higher economic benefits compared to other land use options. However, at higher discount rates of 5 and 8 percent, the benefits from the conservation management option against alternative uses may turn negative. Overall results demonstrate a clear equity issue between those who benefited from forest conservation and especially the three relatively less developed states which incurred substantial benefits foregone. To address this issue at the national level, it is recommended that national conservation policies consider the establishment of a National Forest Conservation Fund for compensation of environmental services provided by protected forests, similar to the Payment for Environmental Services scheme. Some portion of the revenue from marketed goods provided by the park particularly recreational services may also be allocated to the state governments. At the international level, the ongoing REDD Plus programmes need to take into account cross country equity issue, particularly countries that have long been involved in pre-existing conservation programme such as the Malaysian Taman Negara.

Suggested Citation

  • Othman, Jamal & Zin, Ahmad, 2013. "Who Pays and Who Gets What from National Parks Protection? Case of Taman Negara in Malaysia," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 47(2), pages 25-37.
  • Handle: RePEc:ukm:jlekon:v:47:y:2013:i:2:p:25-37
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ukm.my/jem/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/jeko_472-3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David S. Brookshire & Alan Randall & John R. Stoll, 1980. "Valuing Increments and Decrements in Natural Resource Service Flows," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 478-488.
    2. Munasinghe, M., 1993. "Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development," Papers 3, World Bank - The World Bank Environment Paper.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Weiwei Li & Pingtao Yi & Danning Zhang, 2018. "Sustainability Evaluation of Cities in Northeastern China Using Dynamic TOPSIS-Entropy Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Bergstrom, John C. & Taylor, Laura O., 2006. "Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 351-360, December.
    3. Kwo-Wuu Wang & Yuan-Yu Hsu & Wen-der Yu & Shao-tsai Cheng, 2018. "Determination of Project Procurement Method with a Graphical Analytic Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Muhammad Haseeb & Muhammad Azam, 2021. "Dynamic nexus among tourism, corruption, democracy and environmental degradation: a panel data investigation," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 5557-5575, April.
    5. Collados, Cecilia & Duane, Timothy P., 1999. "Natural capital and quality of life: a model for evaluating the sustainability of alternative regional development paths," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 441-460, September.
    6. Faruqee, Rashid, 1997. "Using economic policy to improve environmental protection in Pakistan," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1757, The World Bank.
    7. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B. L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 139-149, July.
    8. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2016. "Constructing markets: environmental economics and the contingent valuation controversy," MPRA Paper 78814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. World Bank, 2014. "Armenia : Sustainable and Strategic Decision Making in Mining," World Bank Publications - Reports 18958, The World Bank Group.
    10. Bernie J. O'Brien & Kirsten Gertsen & Andrew R. Willan & A. Faulkner, 2002. "Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost‐effectiveness in health care?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 175-180, March.
    11. Randall, Alan, 1982. "Economic Surplus Concepts and Their Use in Benefit Cost Analysis," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(02), pages 1-29, August.
    12. Richelle Winkler & Steven Deller & Dave Marcouiller, 2015. "Recreational Housing and Community Development: A Triple Bottom Line Approach," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 481-500, September.
    13. Pope, C. Arden & Stoll, John R., 1985. "The Market Value of Ingress Rights for White-Tailed Deer Hunting in Texas," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 177-182, July.
    14. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaicharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2008. "Better than their reputation - A case for mail surveys in contingent valuation," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 297/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    15. Shi, Tian, 2002. "Ecological agriculture in China: bridging the gap between rhetoric and practice of sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 359-368, September.
    16. Rodriguez, X.A. & Martínez-Roget, F. & Pawlowska, E., 2013. "Academic Tourism: a More Sustainable Tourism," Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 13(2), pages 89-98.
    17. Sardar M N Islam & Ainsley Jolley, 1996. "Sustainable development in Asia: the current state and policy options," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 20(4), pages 263-279, November.
    18. de Souza, Lorena Mendes & Mendes, Pietro A.S. & Aranda, Donato A.G., 2020. "Oleaginous feedstocks for hydro-processed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) biojet production in southeastern Brazil: A multi-criteria decision analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 1339-1351.
    19. Caudill, James D., 1987. "Information for Policy: A Short Note on the Benefits of Clean Water and the Total Value Framework," Staff Paper Series 200934, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

    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:ukm:jlekon:v:47:y:2013:i:2:p:25-37. 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: Muhammad Asri Abd Ghani (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feukmmy.html .

    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.