Jacob P. Hochard

Does Land Degradation Increase Poverty in Developing Countries

Land degradation is a global problem that particularly impacts the poor rural inhabitants of low and middle-income countries. We improve upon existing literature by estimating the extent of rural populations in 2000 and 2010 globally on degrading and improving agricultural land, taking into account the role of market access, and analyzing the resulting impacts on poverty. Using a variety of spatially referenced datasets, we estimate that 1.33 billion people worldwide in 2000 were located on degrading agricultural land (DAL), of which 1.26 billion were in developing countries. Almost all the world’s 200 million people on remote DAL were in developing countries, which is about 6% of their rural population. There were also 1.54 billion rural people on improving agricultural land (IAL), with 1.34 billion in developing countries. We find that a lower share of people in 2000 on DAL, or a higher share on IAL, lowers significantly how much overall economic growth reduces poverty from 2000 to 2012 across 83 developing countries. As the population on DAL and IAL in developing countries grew by 13% and 15% respectively from 2000 to 2010, these changing spatial distributions of rural populations could impact significantly future poverty in developing countries.

Poverty and the Spatial Distribution of Rural Population

According to global spatial data sets in 2000 more than one-third of the rural population in developing countries was located on less favored agricultural land and areas. Less favored agricultural lands are susceptible to low productivity and degradation, because their agricultural potential is constrained biophysically by terrain, poor soil quality, or limited rainfall. Less favored agricultural areas include less favored agricultural lands plus favorable agricultural land that is remote, that is, land in rural areas with high agricultural potential but with limited access. The paper presents tests of whether these spatial distributions of rural population influence poverty directly or indirectly via income growth in 83 developing countries from 2000 to 2012. The analysis finds no evidence of a direct impact on poverty, but there is a significant indirect impact via the elasticity of poverty reduction with respect to growth. Reducing poverty requires targeting rural populations in less favored lands and remote areas, in addition to encouraging out-migration in some areas.

The Impacts of Climate Change on the Poor in Disadvantaged Regions

Populations in developing countries that are located in less-favored agricultural areas (LFAAs)— agricultural lands constrained by difficult terrain, poor soil quality, limited rainfall, etc. or with limited access to markets—and rural low-elevation coastal zones (LECZs)—coasts that have less than 10 meters elevation—are not only at risk from the most severe and long-lasting climate change impacts, they are also susceptible to poverty-environment traps (overreliance on marginal agricultural land and resource commons, which leads to stagnant, low incomes) that further increase their vulnerability to these impacts. We estimate that approximately 586 million people with high infant mortality live in LFAAs and 85 million with high infant mortality live in rural LECZs, although both of these populations declined between 2000 and 2010. Nearly all of these people are in low-income or lower middle-income countries, with twenty countries accounting for most of the LFAA or rural LECZ populations with high infant mortality. We also examine the economic and environmental impacts of climate change on the rural poor in LFAAs and LECZs and discuss policy strategies for mitigating the impacts of climate change on poverty among rural households in LFAAs and LECZs.

Listing and Delisting Thresholds under the Endangered Species Act

We consider the case where a species provides a flow of economic benefits, is at risk of extinction, and is being considered for addition to the Endangered Species List. Listing a species as endangered is costly but increases the flow of social benefits and reduces the likelihood of extinction. If the species recovers sufficiently, additional costs can be incurred to subsequently delist the species. By treating listing and delisting as a pair of linked investment options, we provide an alternative to current practice for listing and delisting decisions that maximizes the return from public conservation investments. Under this alternative framework, we show that economic considerations may actually afford greater protection for at‐risk species if these decisions are initiated early. However, biological sources of uncertainty may cause those species most in need of protection to be passed over in favor of more stable species that represent a “sure bet” for species preservation.

Land degradation and poverty

Land is one of the few productive assets owned by the rural poor, and almost all such households engage in some form of agriculture. Over 2000–2010 the rural poor on degrading agricultural land increased in low-income countries and in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Although degradation threatens the livelihoods of the poor, this interaction is complex and conditioned by key economic, social and environmental factors. These factors also limit the poverty-reducing impacts of economic growth and economy-wide reforms. A comprehensive development strategy requires investments that improve the livelihoods of affected populations and regions, and facilitates outmigration in severely impacted areas.The interaction between land degradation and the livelihoods of the poor is complex and conditioned by important economic, social and environmental factors. These factors are also in part responsible for the limited success of economic growth policies to reduce poverty.

Cross-jurisdictional management of a trophy-hunted species

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) are managed for competing uses in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Tourism benefits Yellowstone National Park (YNP) visitors while trophy hunting benefits hunters outside of the park. We investigate the policy scope of gray wolf management across jurisdictional boundaries by incorporating three foundations of the behavioral ecology of wolves: refuge-seeking behavior, optimal foraging group size and territoriality. Tradeoffs between and within consumptive and non-consumptive human benefits and wolf population fitness and life history indicators are quantified as a set of elasticities, providing clear implications to resource managers. Our approach highlights that hunting intensity affects the provision of consumptive and non-consumptive human benefits across jurisdictional boundaries and ought to be managed accordingly. We also show that population levels are an incomplete indicator of species fitness, which may depend on how hunting policies impact underlying group ecology. Our findings suggest traditional optimization approaches to wildlife management may lead to suboptimal policy recommendations when the boundaries on the natural system are oversimplified. Highlighting the human element of wildlife management, we show that understanding tourist and hunter responses to wildlife population abundances is critical to balancing provision of consumptive and non-consumptive human uses.

Poverty, rural population distribution and climate change

Our spatial analysis indicates that in 2000 over one third of the rural population in developing countries was located on less favored agricultural land and areas, which are constrained by biophysical conditions or poor market access. We examine whether these spatial distributions of rural population in 2000 influence subsequent changes in the rate of poverty from 2000 to 2012 in 83 developing countries. We find no evidence of a direct impact on changes in poverty, but there is a significant indirect impact via the elasticity of poverty reduction with respect to growth. If climate change leads to more people concentrated in these areas, or an increase in unfavorable agricultural regions, then the poverty-reducing impact of overall per capita income growth could be further weakened. Reducing poverty will require targeting rural populations in less favored lands and remote areas and encouraging out-migration.