@article{weber_sills_bauch_pattanayak_2011, title={Do ICDPs Work? An Empirical Evaluation of Forest-Based Microenterprises in the Brazilian Amazon}, volume={87}, ISSN={["1543-8325"]}, DOI={10.3368/le.87.4.661}, abstractNote={This paper evaluates public investments in forest-based microenterprises as part of an integrated conservation and development project (ICDP) in the Brazilian Amazon. We combine matching with regression to quantify the effects of program participation on household income, wealth, and livelihoods. We find that participation increased cash and total income and asset accumulation, suggesting that the microenterprises contributed to the development goals of the ICDP. There is no clear evidence, however, that the microenterprise program helped achieve the ICDP’s conservation goals of shifting household livelihoods away from agriculture and into sustainable forest use. (JEL O12, O13)}, number={4}, journal={LAND ECONOMICS}, author={Weber, Jeremy G. and Sills, Erin O. and Bauch, Simone and Pattanayak, Subhrendu K.}, year={2011}, month={Nov}, pages={661–681} }
 @misc{beach_sills_liu_pattanayak_2008, title={The influence of forest management on vulnerability to severe weather}, journal={Encyclopedia of Forest Environmental Threats}, author={Beach, R. and Sills, E. and Liu, T. and Pattanayak, S.}, editor={Pye, J. and Sands, Y.Editors}, year={2008} }
 @article{sills_pattanayak_ferraro_alger_2006, title={Abordagens analaticas na avaliacao de impactos reais de programas de conservacao}, volume={2}, number={1-2}, journal={Megadiversidade}, author={Sills, E. and Pattanayak, S. and Ferraro, P. and Alger, K.}, year={2006}, pages={39–49} }
 @article{pattanayak_dickinson_corey_murray_sills_kramer_2006, title={Deforestation, malaria and poverty: a call for transdisciplinary research to support the design of cross-sectoral policies}, volume={2}, DOI={10.1080/15487733.2006.11907984}, abstractNote={Abstract Many of the world’s poorest people live in areas with high malaria rates and suffer the associated physical, economic, and social hardships. These same areas are often undergoing extensive forest conversion and degradation. While causality has generally not been established, the scientific literature makes it abundantly clear that the juxtaposition of deprivation, deforestation, and disease is not pure coincidence. We chart a course for using transdisciplinary research to develop more effective policies to control malaria, protect forests, and alleviate poverty. First describing the malaria problem, including its etiologic roots and its social toll, the paper then examines some shortcomings of contemporary societal responses. We discuss why understanding the role of deforestation in linking malaria to poverty is important and present the mixed empirical evidence on the malaria-deforestation-poverty link from macro- and microeconomic studies. The paper concludes with a proposal for strategically linking research and policy at the malariadeforestation- poverty nexus in a comprehensive decision-analysis framework that channels research to the most pressing policy needs, informs policy with the most conclusive research, and ensures stakeholders are effectively informed about their options.}, number={2}, journal={Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy}, author={Pattanayak, S. and Dickinson, K. and Corey, C. and Murray, B. and Sills, Erin and Kramer, R.}, year={2006}, pages={45–56} }
 @article{sills_miller_saha_pattanayak_2006, title={Forest livelihoods and iron ore mines in Orissa, India}, volume={19}, number={1}, journal={Sylvanet}, author={Sills, E. and Miller, J. and Saha, S. and Pattanayak, S.}, year={2006} }
 @article{ferraro_pattanayak_2006, title={Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments}, volume={4}, ISSN={["1545-7885"]}, DOI={10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105}, abstractNote={The field of conservation policy must adopt state-of-the-art program evaluation methods to determine what works, and when, if we are to stem the global decline of biodiversity and improve the effectiveness of conservation investments.}, number={4}, journal={PLOS BIOLOGY}, author={Ferraro, PJ and Pattanayak, SK}, year={2006}, month={Apr}, pages={482–488} }
 @inbook{sills_pattanayak_2006, title={Tropical trade-offs: an economic perspective on tropical forests}, booktitle={Tropical Deforestation}, publisher={Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.}, author={Sills, E. and Pattanayak, S.}, editor={Spray, S. and McGlothlin, K.Editors}, year={2006} }
 @article{beach_pattanayak_yang_murray_abt_2005, title={Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management a review and synthesis}, volume={7}, DOI={10.1016/S1389-9341(04)00065-0}, number={3}, journal={Forest Policy and Economics}, author={Beach, R. H. and Pattanayak, S. K. and Yang, J. C. and Murray, B. C. and Abt, R. C.}, year={2005}, pages={261–281} }
 @article{pattanayak_butry_2005, title={Spatial complementarity of forests and farms: Accounting for ecosystem services}, volume={87}, ISSN={["1467-8276"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00783.x}, abstractNote={Our article considers the economic contributions of forest ecosystem services, using a case study from Flores, Indonesia, in which forest protection in upstream watersheds stabilize soil and hydrological flows in downstream farms. We focus on the demand for a weak complement to the ecosystem services—farm labor—and account for spatial dependence due to economic interactions, ecosystem processes, and data integration. The estimated models have theoretically expected properties across eight different specifications. We find strong evidence that forest ecosystem services provide economically substantive benefits to local people and that these services would be substantially undervalued if spatial dependence is ignored. Forests provide an array of ecosystem services by sequestering carbon, maintaining habitat and biodiversity, stabilizing hydrological flows, mitigating soil erosion, and improving microclimates. Deforestation and forest degradation can irreversibly and substantively impair these ecosystem functions. This raises the question of why society and governments would allow rapid or excessive deforestation. One reason is the failure to consider the full range of goods and services provided by the forests, particularly any latent and complex ecosystem services (Dasgupta). The economic contributions of forest ecosystem services are not well understood and rarely quantified. This article illustrates a method for estimating the value of watershed services from protected tropical forests in Flores, Indonesia. Specifically, we respond to three challenges posed in the literature. First, valuation studies have typically overlooked livelihood values of natural resources in developing countries, focusing largely on amenity values in developed countries (Deacon et al., Dasgupta). Second, a detailed consideration of the spatial aspects of ecosystems and ecological processes, such}, number={4}, journal={AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS}, author={Pattanayak, SK and Butry, DT}, year={2005}, month={Nov}, pages={995–1008} }
 @article{sills_pattanayak_2004, title={Reflections on West Africa}, volume={17}, number={1}, journal={Sylvanet}, author={Sills, E. and Pattanayak, S.}, year={2004}, pages={17} }
 @article{pattanayak_sills_kramer_2004, title={Seeing the forest for the fuel}, volume={9}, DOI={10.1017/S135570X03001220}, number={2004 Apr}, journal={Environment and Development Economics}, author={Pattanayak, S. K. and Sills, Erin and Kramer, R. A.}, year={2004}, pages={155–179} }
 @inbook{wear_pattanayak_2003, title={Aggregate timber supply}, ISBN={1402010281}, DOI={10.1007/978-94-017-0219-5_8}, abstractNote={Timber supply modeling is a means of formalizing the production behavior of heterogeneous landowners managing a wide variety of forest types and vintages within a region. The critical challenge of timber supply modeling is constructing theoretically valid and empirically practical aggregate descriptions of harvest behavior. Understanding timber supply is essential for assessing tradeoffs between forest production and the environment, for forecasting timber market activity and timber prices, and for evaluating the level and distribution of costs and benefits of forest policies. It follows that timber supply modeling is an essential interface between forest production economics and policy and decision making. This chapter examines timber supply modeling, focusing especially on issues regarding aggregation of timber stocks (some of this chapter is based on Wear and Parks 1994). A section on general theory is followed by a discussion of various contemporary modeling approaches. The explicit aggregation of forest capital and description of capital structure in the analysis of timber supply remain as core research issues. We conclude with an empirical example that explores these topics.}, booktitle={Forests in a market economy}, publisher={Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers}, author={Wear, D. N. and Pattanayak, S. K.}, editor={E. O. Sills and Abt, K. L.Editors}, year={2003} }
 @inbook{mercer_pattanayak_2003, title={Agroforestry adoption by smallholders}, ISBN={1402010281}, booktitle={Forests in a market economy}, publisher={Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers}, author={Mercer, D. E. and Pattanayak, S. K.}, editor={E. O. Sills and Abt, K. L.Editors}, year={2003} }
 @inbook{pattanayak_butry_2003, title={Forest ecosystem services as production inputs}, ISBN={1402010281}, booktitle={Forests in a market economy}, publisher={Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers}, author={Pattanayak, S. K. and Butry, D. T.}, editor={E. O. Sills and Abt, K. L.Editors}, year={2003} }
 @article{pattanayak_sills_mehta_kramer_2003, title={Local uses of parks: uncovering patterns of household production from the forests of Siberut, Indonesia}, volume={1}, number={2}, journal={Conservation and Society}, author={Pattanayak, S. and Sills, E. and Mehta, A. and Kramer, R.}, year={2003}, pages={209–222} }
 @inbook{sills_lele_holmes_pattanayak_2003, title={Nontimber forest products in the rural household economy}, ISBN={1402010281}, DOI={10.1007/978-94-017-0219-5_15}, booktitle={Forests in a market economy}, publisher={Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers}, author={Sills, Erin and Lele, S. and Holmes, T. P. and Pattanayak, S. K.}, editor={E. O. Sills and Abt, K. L.Editors}, year={2003} }
 @article{snider_pattanayak_sills_schuler_2003, title={Policy innovations for private forest management and conservation in costa rica}, volume={101}, number={5}, journal={Journal of Forestry}, author={Snider, A. and Pattanayak, S. and Sills, E. and Schuler, J.}, year={2003}, pages={18–23} }
 @article{pattanayak_mercer_sills_yang_2003, title={Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies}, volume={57}, DOI={10.1023/a:1024809108210}, number={3}, journal={Agroforestry Systems}, author={Pattanayak, S. K. and Mercer, D. E. and Sills, Erin and Yang, J. C.}, year={2003}, pages={173–186} }
 @inbook{pattanayak_abt_holmes_2003, title={Timber and amenities on nonindustrial private forest land}, ISBN={1402010281}, DOI={10.1007/978-94-017-0219-5_14}, abstractNote={Economic analyses of the joint production timber and amenities from nonindustrial private forest lands (NIPF) have been conducted for several decades. Binkley (1981) summarized this strand of research and elegantly articulated a microeconomic household model in which NIPF owners maximize utility by choosing optimal combinations of timber income and amenities. Most follow-up attempts have been limited to either simulations based on stylized characterization of joint production (Max and Lehman 1988) or to empirical representations hampered by data limitations— particularly with regard to measuring amenity production (Hyberg and Holthausen 1989). In attempting to redress this gap, Holmes (1986) was limited to binary representations of timber and amenities and did not get conclusive results. In this chapter, we use data from North Carolina that includes timber output and amenity indices to illustrate a method for empirically characterizing Binkley’s household model.}, booktitle={Forests in a market economy}, publisher={Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers}, author={Pattanayak, S. K. and Abt, K. L. and Holmes, T. P.}, editor={E. O. Sills and Abt, K. L.Editors}, year={2003} }
 @article{smith_van houtven_pattanayak_2002, title={Benefit transfer via preference calibration: "Prudential algebra" for policy}, volume={78}, ISSN={["0023-7639"]}, DOI={10.2307/3146928}, abstractNote={This paper proposes a new approach to benefit transfer. The method assumes a specific form for preferences and uses available benefit information to identify and calibrate the preference parameters to match the existing benefit estimates. This approach assures economic consistency of the transfers. Benefit measures can never be inconsistent with household income. The logic also offers a series of potentially observable “predictions” that can be used to gauge the plausibility of benefit transfers. When multiple benefit estimates from different methods are available such as hedonic property value, travel cost demand, and contingent valuation, the framework uses the definition of the benefit concept from each method in a single preference function to reconcile differences. It provides a specific way to take account of baseline conditions and scope effects (i.e., the size of the proposed change) consistently in the transfer. The method is illustrated using estimates for benefit measure changes in water quality from three studies: travel cost demand, hedonic property value, and contingent valuation analysis. (JEL Q26)}, number={1}, journal={LAND ECONOMICS}, author={Smith, VK and Van Houtven, G and Pattanayak, SK}, year={2002}, month={Feb}, pages={132–152} }
 @article{pattanayak_murray_abt_2002, title={How joint is joint forest production? An econometric analysis of timber supply conditional on endogenous amenity values}, volume={48}, number={3}, journal={Forest Science}, author={Pattanayak, S. K. and Murray, B. C. and Abt, R. C.}, year={2002}, pages={479–491} }
 @article{smith_pattanayak_2002, title={Is meta-analysis a Noah's ark for non-market valuation?}, volume={22}, number={1-2}, journal={Environmental and Resource Economics}, author={Smith, V. K. and Pattanayak, S. K.}, year={2002}, pages={271–296} }
 @article{cassingham_sills_pattanayak_mansfield_2002, title={North Carolina's natural heritage program: A case for public- private cooperation}, volume={100}, number={5}, journal={Journal of Forestry}, author={Cassingham, K. M. and Sills, E. O. and Pattanayak, S. K. and Mansfield, C. A.}, year={2002}, pages={16–23} }
 @inbook{cassingham_sills_pattanayak_mansfield_2002, title={Spatial sssessment of a voluntary forest conservation rogramme in North Carolina}, ISBN={0851995993}, DOI={10.1079/9780851995991.0129}, abstractNote={North Carolina’s Natural Heritage Program (NHP) identifies priority areas for biodiversity conservation and encourages landholders to participate in biodiversity conservation. While there are many other programmes promoting stewardship and conservation of forests and other natural resources, this chapter focuses on participation in the two voluntary programmes offered by the NHP. The chapter also focuses on private lands, which present a greater challenge for biodiversity conservation than public lands. Understanding how private landholders respond to conservation policies is important because they own a significant proportion of forest and other natural areas in North Carolina. Voluntary programmes are increasingly important in US environmental policy, and this study contributes to the literature by evaluating their effectiveness in the private land conservation arena. The North Carolina NHP is part of the Division of Parks and Recreation within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The NHP inventories, catalogues and facilitates protection of the most rare and the most outstanding elements of natural diversity. The elements include plants and animal species that are rare and/or natural communities that are so significant that they merit special consideration. Based on these elements and the feasibility of protection, the NHP has designated approximately 7% of the state as significant areas. The NHP’s purpose in designating areas is to allow the public to weigh the significance of various sites and evaluate the likelihood and nature of ecological impacts; to encourage informed evaluations of the trade-offs between biodiversity and development; and to establish priorities for protection of the state’s most significant natural areas (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, 2000). Landowners can participate in the NHP by registering or designating their land under the programme (considered ‘protection’). This chapter considers whether forested lands and lands designated as relatively more important by the NHP are more likely to be protected. Next, this chapter seeks to identify factors correlated with protection, using spatial and logistic regression analysis. The potential determinants of protection are derived from a GIS database, including physical, biological, socio-economic and historical features (Western North Carolina Data System, 2000). This analysis builds on the findings of Mansfield et al. (2000) about protection activities (including registration with NHP) in all significant natural heritage areas (including public and private) in the state. We focus in particular on registration and dedication of natural heritage areas by private landowners in western North Carolina. Our analysis suggests how the state or a non-profit agency could encourage landowners to}, booktitle={Forest Policy for Private Forestry: Global and Regional Challenges}, publisher={CABI Publishing}, author={Cassingham, K. and Sills, Erin and Pattanayak, S. and Mansfield, C.}, editor={L. Teeter, B. Cashore and Zhang, D.Editors}, year={2002}, pages={129–141} }
 @inproceedings{pattanayak_mercer_sills_cassingham_2001, title={Adopting agroforestry}, booktitle={Proceedings of the Southern Forest Economics Workshop}, author={Pattanayak, S. and Mercer, D. E. and Sills, E. and Cassingham, K.}, editor={Zhang, D. and Mehmood, S.Editors}, year={2001} }
 @inproceedings{pattanayak_mehta_sills_kramer_2001, title={Local uses of parks: economic contributions of forest products}, booktitle={Proceedings of the Southern Forest Economics Workshop}, author={Pattanayak, S. and Mehta, A. and Sills, E. and Kramer, R.}, editor={Zhang, D. and Mehmood, S.Editors}, year={2001} }
 @inproceedings{espinoza_pattanayak_sills_2000, title={Weak complementarity and ecosystem benefits estimation: soil conservation in Flores, Indonesia}, booktitle={Proceedings of the 2000 Southern Forest Economics Workshop}, publisher={University of Arkansas, Monticello}, author={Espinoza, J. and Pattanayak, S. K. and Sills, E.}, year={2000} }