IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uqseee/168376.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Opportunity Cost of Engaging in Reduced-Impact Logging to Conserve the Orangutan: A Case Study of the Management of Deramakot Forest Reserve, Sabah, Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Swarna Nantha, Hemanath
  • Tisdell, Clem

Abstract

Managing the forested landscape in Malaysia and Indonesia for timber extraction while also conserving the endangered orangutan that inhabit some of the remaining forests in this region is a challenge. Heavy logging is a common feature of the Indonesian and Malaysian timber industries. It is profitable but detrimental to the survival of this primate species. A type of logging which appears to be compatible with maintaining orangutans in the forested landscape is light logging. It involves extracting fewer logs and ensures that the logged area is minimally damaged. However, switching to a light logging regime involves a financial opportunity cost, a cost which is an obstacle to the widespread adoption of this type of logging by businesses and the state. This paper reviews the case study of a unique light logging experiment conducted in the Deramakot Forest Reserve, in one of the orangutan’s strongholds, the Malaysian state of Sabah. The Deramakot experiment claims to generate revenue from low-impact logging while also sustaining its population of orangutans. Here, we survey the importance of the timber industry to Sabah, the profitability of the Deramakot scheme, the orangutan conservation aspect of this scheme, and the influence of the politico-bureaucratic factor or public economics on sustaining the domestic light-logging agenda. Then, this paper attempts to answer the question of whether economic returns could be balanced with orangutan conservation given the light and heavy logging regimes, bearing in mind the opportunity costs associated with these. More specifically, using the data that has been made available from the Deramakot case study, this paper employs a mathematical model to analyse whether the foregone profits of pursuing light logging is higher than setting aside strict protected areas while more intense logging the remaining forests, subject to the goal of maintaining a desired orangutan population size. The results reveal that, under certain conditions, the option of conserving the orangutan under mainly light logging is economically more attractive for a scenario involving Sabahan forests than the option of strictly protecting orangutan habitats and heavily logging the forests without significant orangutan populations. This finding contributes to the question asked by conservationists of how forests should be partitioned to satisfy both economic and conservation needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Swarna Nantha, Hemanath & Tisdell, Clem, 2014. "The Opportunity Cost of Engaging in Reduced-Impact Logging to Conserve the Orangutan: A Case Study of the Management of Deramakot Forest Reserve, Sabah, Malaysia," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 168376, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:uqseee:168376
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.168376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/168376/files/WP194.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.168376?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erik Meijaard & Douglas Sheil, 2007. "A logged forest in Borneo is better than none at all," Nature, Nature, vol. 446(7139), pages 974-974, April.
    2. David Pearce & Corin Pearce & Charles Palmer (ed.), 2002. "Valuing the Environment in Developing Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1838.
    3. Tisdell, Clement A., 2012. "Conserving Forest Wildlife and Other Ecosystem Services: Opportunity Costs and The Valuation of Alternative Logging Regimes," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 126230, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    4. William A. Niskanen, 1994. "Bureaucracy And Public Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 333.
    5. David Pearce, 2008. "Do We Really Care About Biodiversity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 611-611, August.
    6. Kollert, Walter & Lagan, Peter, 2007. "Do certified tropical logs fetch a market premium?: A comparative price analysis from Sabah, Malaysia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 862-868, April.
    7. Kant, Shashi, 2007. "Economic perspectives and analyses of multiple forest values and sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 733-740, April.
    8. Price, Colin, 2007. "Sustainable forest management, pecuniary externalities and invisible stakeholders," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 751-762, April.
    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. Noraida, A.W. & Abdul-Rahim, A.S. & Othman, Mohd, 2017. "The Impact of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Practices on Primary Timber-Based Production in Peninsular Malaysia," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 51(2), pages 143-154.
    2. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    3. Pavel Ciaian & Ján Pokrivčák & Dušan Drabik, 2008. "Prečo sú niektoré sektory v tranzitívnych ekonomikách menej reformované ako ostatné? prípad výskumu a vzdelávania v oblasti ekonómie [Why some sectors of transition economies are less reformed than," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2008(6), pages 819-836.
    4. Stuart Kasdin & Luona Lin, 2015. "Strategic behavior by federal agencies in the allocation of public resources," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 309-329, September.
    5. Roediger-Schluge, Thomas, 2001. "The Stringency of Environmental Regulation and the 'Porter Hypothesis'," Research Memorandum 002, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Anwar, Mumtaz, 2005. "The Political Economy of International Financial Institutions? Lending to Pakistan," HWWA Discussion Papers 338, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWA).
    7. Svensson, Jakob, 2003. "Why conditional aid does not work and what can be done about it?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 381-402, April.
    8. Henrik Christoffersen & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2002. "Bureaucratic Tax-Seeking: The Danish Waste Tax," Energy & Environment, , vol. 13(3), pages 355-366, July.
    9. Bi Goli Jean Jacques Iritie, 2015. "Economic Growth and Biodiversity: An Overview Conservation Policies in Africa," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(2), pages 196-196, February.
    10. Facchini, François & Melki, Mickaël, 2013. "Efficient government size: France in the 20th century," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 1-14.
    11. Cashore, Benjamin & Stone, Michael W., 2012. "Can legality verification rescue global forest governance?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 13-22.
    12. Martinet, Vincent & Blanchard, Fabian, 2009. "Fishery externalities and biodiversity: Trade-offs between the viability of shrimp trawling and the conservation of Frigatebirds in French Guiana," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2960-2968, October.
    13. Fouquet, Roger, 2011. "Long run trends in energy-related external costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2380-2389.
    14. Adarkwah Yaw Antwi & John Adams, 2003. "Rent-seeking Behaviour and its Economic Costs in Urban Land Transactions in Accra, Ghana," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(10), pages 2083-2098, September.
    15. Henrik Christoffersen & Martin Paldam & Allan Würtz, 2007. "Public versus private production and economies of scale," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 311-328, March.
    16. Gheorghe MATEI & Irina Maria ALEXANDRU, 2018. "Financial Management of Public Institutions," Finante - provocarile viitorului (Finance - Challenges of the Future), University of Craiova, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 1(20), pages 34-44, November.
    17. World Bank, 2008. "The Political Economy of Policy Reform : Issues and Implications for Policy Dialogue and Development Operations," World Bank Publications - Reports 7782, The World Bank Group.
    18. Rachel Parker, 2008. "Governance and the Entrepreneurial Economy: A Comparative Analysis of Three Regions," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 32(5), pages 833-854, September.
    19. Stevovic, Svetlana & Milovanovic, Zorica & Stamatovic, Milan, 2015. "Sustainable model of hydro power development—Drina river case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 363-371.
    20. Lord, Montague & Chang, Susan, 2019. "Pre-Feasibility Study of Sarawak-West Kalimantan Cross-Border Value Chains," MPRA Paper 97376, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:uqseee:168376. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decuqau.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.