Cited by 113Socioeconomics of Resources and ConservationConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementAgricultural Economics and Policy

‘Spillovers from conservation programs’

Pfaff, Alexander, Robalino, Juan·2017·Annual Review of Resource Economics

Abstract

Conservation programs have increased significantly, as has the evaluation of their impacts. However, the evaluation of their potential impacts beyond program borders has been scarce. Such spillovers can significantly reduce or increase net impacts. In this review, we discuss how conservation programs might affect outcomes beyond their borders and present some evidence of when they have or have not. We focus on five major channels by which spillovers can arise: (1) input reallocation; (2) market prices; (3) learning; (4) nonpecuniary motivations; and (5) ecological-physical links. We highlight evidence for each channel and emphasize that estimates often may reflect multiple channels. Future research could test for spillovers within different contexts and could separate the effects of different channels.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053543

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Input reallocation can move forest clearings beyond programme borders.

    “Pfaff and Robalino (2017) argue that input reallocation can move forest clearings beyond programme borders.”

    From The Effect of Rural Credit on Deforestation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon (2020) · cites this paper as Pfaff and Robalino (2017)

  • Recent studies have documented that the impact of conservation efforts may extend beyond direct effects and programme borders.

    “However, recent studies have further documented that the impact of conservation efforts may extend beyond direct effects and programme borders, as inputs can be spatially reallocated and interventions can interact with both geographical features and other policies (Herrera, 2015; Andrade, 2016; Pfaff and Robalino, 2017; Robalino et al., 2017).”

    From The Effect of Rural Credit on Deforestation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon (2020) · cites this paper as Pfaff and Robalino, 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pfaff, A., & Robalino, J.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Universidad de Costa Rica (CR)
Venue
Annual Review of Resource Economics
Published
2017-10-05
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
299-315
ISSN
  • 1941-1340 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-1359
OpenAlex
W2606448216
Cited by
113
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Annual Review of Resource Economics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Economics and Policy
Keywords
conservation programs, spillover effects, program evaluation, market prices, learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review