Dynamics of indirect land-use change: Empirical evidence from Brazil

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 65, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 377-393

  Andrade de Sá, Saraly ^a   Palmer, Charles ^b   Di Falco, Salvatore ^c  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Biofuels; Deforestation; Dynamic effects; Indirect land use changes

Indexed keywords

AMAZON REGION; CATTLE RANCHING; DYNAMIC EFFECTS; DYNAMIC PROCESS; FOREST CONVERSION; INDIRECT EFFECTS; INDIRECT LAND-USE CHANGES; LAND CONVERSION;

BIOFUELS; DEFORESTATION; EXPANSION;

LAND USE;

BIOFUEL; CATTLE; DEFORESTATION; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; LAND USE CHANGE; RANCHING; SUGAR CANE;

DEFORESTATION; EXPANSION; LAND USE;

AMAZONIA; BRAZIL; SAO PAULO [BRAZIL];

BOS;

EID: 84877922319     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2013.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Alves D. An analysis of the geographical patterns of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon in the period 1991-1996. Deforestation and Land Use in the Amazon 2002, University Press Florida, Gainsville, FL. C. Wood, R. Porro (Eds.).
2. Andersen L.E., Granger C.W.J., Reis E., Weinhold D., Wunder S. The Dynamics of Deforestation and Economic Growth in the Brazilian Amazon 2002, Cambridge University Press.
3. Andrade de Sá S., Palmer C., Engel S. Ethanol, food and forests. Environmental and Resource Economics 2012, 51:1-21.
4. Angelsen A., Kaimowitz D. Rethinking the causes of deforestation. lessons from economic models. World Bank Research Observer 1999, 14:73-98.
5. Anselin L. Thirty years of spatial econometrics. Papers in Regional Science 2009, 89:3-25.
6. Arellano M., Bond S. Some tests of specification for panel data. Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies 1991, 58:277-297.
7. Arellano M., Bover O. Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of Econometrics 1995, 68:29-51.
8. Arima E.Y., Uhl C. Ranching in the Brazilian Amazon in a national context. economics, policy, and practice. Society and Natural Resources 1997, 10:433-451.
9. Arima E.Y., Richards P., Walker R., Caldas M.M. Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 2011, 6:1-7.
10. Babcock B. Measuring unmeasurable land-use changes from Biofuels. Iowa Ag Review 2009, 15:4-5.
11. Barbier E.B., Burgess J.C. The economics of tropical deforestation. Journal of Economic Surveys 2001, 15:413-421.
12. Barona E., Ramankutty N., Hyman G., Coomes O.T. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 2010, 5:024002.
13. Blundell R., Bond S. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel models. Journal of Econometrics 1998, 87:115-143.
14. Cameron A.C., Trivedi P.K. Microeconometrics using Stata 2009, Stata Press, College Station, TX.
15. Chomitz K.M., Thomas T.S. Determinants of land use in Amazonia. a fine-scale analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85:1016-1028.
16. Conservation International, Identification of responsible cultivation areas in São Paulo, Brazil. Pilot test focusing on sugarcane and cattle integration, Conservation International, downloaded from 〈〉 (20th June, 2012), 2010. http://www.conservation.org.
17. EMBRAPA-Brazilian Agriculture Research Corporation, Zoneamento Agro-ecológico da Cana-de-açucar, Rio de Janeiro, 2009.
18. FAO-Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Global forest resources assessment, FAO Forestry Paper 163, Rome, 2010.
19. Feng H., Rubin O.D., Babcock B.A. Greenhouse gas impacts of ethanol from Iowa corn. life cycle assessment versus system wide approach. Biomass and Bioenergy 2010, 34:912-921.
20. Gallagher E. The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuel Production 2008, Renewable Fuels Agency, London.
21. Kaimowitz D., Angelsen A. Economic Models of Tropical Deforestation. A Review 1998, IFOR-Indonesia.
22. Lapola D.M., Schaldach R., Alcamo J., Bondeau A., Koch J., Koelking C., Priess J.A. Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2010, 107:3388-3393.
23. Lewis D.J., Provencher B., Butsic V. The dynamic effects of open-space conservation policies on residential development density. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2009, 57:239-252.
24. MAPA-Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, Anuário Estatistico da AgroEnergia, Brasilia, 2009.
25. MAPA-Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, Anuário Estatistico da AgroEnergia, Brasilia, 2010.
26. S. Margulis, Causes of deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon, World Bank Working Paper Series, Washington, DC, 2004.
27. Nassar A.M., TRuddorf B.F., Antoniazzi L.B., Alves de Aguiar D., Bacchi M.R.P., Adami M. Prospects of the sugarcane expansion in Brazil. impacts on direct and indirect land use changes. Sugarcane Ethanol. Contributions to Climate Change Mitigation and the Environment 2008, Wageningen Academic Publishers. P. Zuurbier, J. van de Vooren (Eds.).
28. P. Pacheco, Actor and Frontier types in the Brazilian Amazon: assessing interactions and outcomes associated with Frontier expansion, Geoforum, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.02.003.
29. Pfaff A. What drives deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon? Evidence from satellite and socioeconomic data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1999, 37(1):26-43.
30. Righelato R., Spracklen D.V. Carbon mitigation by biofuels or by saving and restoring forests?. Science 2007, 317:902.
31. Rudel T.K. Tropical Forests. Regional Paths of Destruction and Regeneration in the Late Twentieth Century 2005, Columbia University Press, New York.
32. Rudorff B.F.T., de Aguiar D.A., da Silva W.F., Sugawara L.M., Adami M., Moreira M.A. Studies on the rapid expansion of sugarcane for ethanol production in São paulo state (Brazil) using landsat data. Remote Sensing 2010, 2:1057-1076.
33. R. Schneider, Brazil: An Analysis of Environmental Problems in the Amazon, Report No. 9104 BR, vol. 1, The World Bank, Washington, DC, 1992.
34. Searchinger T., Heimlich R., Houghton R.A., Dong F., Elobeid A., Fabiosa J., Tokgoz S., Hayes D., Yu T. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use changes. Science 2008, 319:1238-1240.
35. J.B. de Souza Ferreira Filho, M. Horridge, Ethanol expansion and land use change in Brazil, Center of Policy Studies Working Paper No. G-218, 2011.
36. StataCorp, Stata Statistical Software: Release 11, StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, 2009.
37. Weinhold D., Reis E. Transportation costs and the spatial distribution of land use in the Brazilian Amazon. Global Environmental Change 2008, 18:54-68.
38. White D., Holmann F., Fuijsaka S., Reategui K., Lascano C. Will intensifying pasture management in Latin America protect forests?-or is it the other way round?. Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation 2001, CAB International, Oxford. A. Angelsen, D. Kaimowitz (Eds.).
39. Windmeijer F. A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics 2005, 126:25-51.
40. World Bank, Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits?, World Bank Washington, DC, 2011.