Impacts of Road Expansion on Deforestation and Biological Carbon Loss in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Abstract

This paper develops a nested land use model for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The model is capable of systematically representing broad land covers and allocating agricultural area to the country relevant crops. We apply the model to assess the potential environmental impacts of road development in the country. Results indicate that an ongoing plan for road network expansion in the country would cause a reduction of more than 2 % in the existing forest resources, an increase of about 16 % in the current agricultural land, and a total loss of carbon stock estimated to be 316 TgC. The DRC government should consider forest protection a priority as road development is promoted. A plan for agricultural intensification could be safely pursued if coupled with necessary resources to prevent deforestation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Agricultural sector employs over three quarters of the population in the DRC according to some official statistics.

  2. 2.

    For instance, broad land covers can be obtained via remote-sensing and GIS technique and hence are usually measured as grid cells; in contrast, crop choice and cropping pattern are generally ground-based observations and are often reported based on administrative unit or collected at a farm level.

  3. 3.

    We are aware that the decision process followed by the agent is most likely more complex than simple profit maximization. At the same time, we can assess the limits of this assumption by comparing the model land use prediction against the “known reality” on the ground. In our case, it appears that our model can replicate satisfactorily well land use choices. For countries like the DRC the major constraint is data availability rather than modeling capability.

  4. 4.

    A negative value \(\lambda \) of is inconsistent with utility maximization.

  5. 5.

    Without dividing by \(\lambda \) in this equation would not substantially change the results. However, the division by \(\lambda \) is needed for the product of conditional and marginal probabilities to equal the nested logit probabilities given in Eq. (3) [See Train (2003) for more discussion].

  6. 6.

    Urban built-up area and water bodies are excluded from the analysis.

  7. 7.

    Note that the nested structure implicitly requires that the agricultural land identified by the remote-sensing technique be consistent with the ground-based agricultural statistics. If there are large gap between the two, one might consider making adjustment to the gap or seeking other data sources.

  8. 8.

    One concern arising in generating spatial farmgate prices is that transport costs may vary across crops. However, such costs for any given crop are not available. In the absence of the data, we assume the distance decay function applies for all crops. This assumption may admittedly cause some potential measurement problem but it would not matter too much since we have allowed the coefficients on this variable varying across crops. A related issue is the assumption of nonnegative prices everywhere. We made such assumption because we believe that there is at least some small value of crop for subsistence use.

  9. 9.

    One of the reviewers concerned that a \(1\times 1\) km resolution might be large if crop parcels are relatively small, leading a potential misclassification problem. This may not matter too much in this study since most of the small parcels are picked up in the “mosaic of cropland” category, in which we assume crop represents 50 % of the cover. The 50 % coverage would be used for calculating agricultural emissions below.

  10. 10.

    This is an important assumption in the lower-level model. Caution must be exercised when the distribution of crop choice demonstrates strong heterogeneity in a region.

  11. 11.

    We lack information about how many acreages of every crop are from cropland and how many are from mosaic of cropland.

  12. 12.

    We use capital letters to denote random variables and use lower case letters to denote the corresponding values in any given experiment, i.e., the real numbers that the random variables map into. Such notations are commonly used in statistics.

  13. 13.

    The selection of the sampling ratio is about finding a proper balance between reducing spatial correlation and maintaining “sufficient” information to perform an econometric estimation. Spatial correlation was reduced using the coding scheme as demonstrated by the Moran \(I\) test statistic computed using the method developed by Kelejian and Prucha (2001). With the data set of 1-out-of-9 sample the value for the Moran’s \(I\) is 337.5. As the distance between observations increases from 3 to 5 km (that is, from a 1-out-of-9 sample to a 1-out-of-25 sample), the value decreases to 160.6. The test statistic becomes smaller as the distance between observations increase, however, more information is lost during the process of sampling to the point of non-convergence in the estimation.

  14. 14.

    We thank one of the reviewers for his/her suggestion on this nonlinearities test.

  15. 15.

    Sequential estimation creates consistent estimates, but biased downward standard errors at the upper-level model (Train 2003). Because the main purpose of this study is to assess the effect of road construction on land use and because the upper-level identification has provided evidence for this effect, adjusting the standard errors by using some procedures is straightforward but complicates the algorithm without changing the overall conclusion of this paper.

  16. 16.

    In Busch et al.’s (2012) study, the factor related to transport costs is measured by distance from road.

  17. 17.

    We assume the market prices of the six commodities are constant under the road expansion scenario. Increasing supply of agricultural products may reduce their market prices and hence lessen the impacts of deforestation. However, this is beyond the modeling technique proposed in this paper. Our sensitivity test indicates that the effects of general equilibrium on the upper-level land use changes are negligible.

  18. 18.

    To calculate changes in biological carbon stock (i.e., values in Table 9), we first generated a \(7\times 7\) transition matrix of carbon density for each of three pools based on their carbon stock statistics that are reported in columns 2–4 of Table 8, then added the values of three pools together and multiplied the summation by the \(7\times 7\) land use transition matrix caused by road construction.

  19. 19.

    \(140 = {\vert }40.5+(-180.6){\vert }\). Note that the net one-time change in biological carbon stock of cropland is positive due the high country-average SOC density on cropland (181 MgC/ha).

  20. 20.

    We acknowledge that we ignore the benefits deriving from using fuel wood to satisfy households’ energy needs.

  21. 21.

    Note that we could underestimate the cost of higher fertilizer application because it tends to increase nonpoint agricultural nitrogen emissions, which, however, is beyond the scope of this paper. The results must be interpreted with caution.

References

  1. Alix-Garcia J, McIntosh C, Sims KRE, Welch JR (2013) The ecological footprint of poverty alleviation: evidence from Mexico’s Oportunidades program. Rev Econ Stat 95(2):417–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andersen LE, Granger CWJ, Reis EJ, Weinhold D, Wunder S (2002) The dynamics of deforestation and economic growth in the Brazilian Amazon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  3. Angelsen A (1999) Agricultural expansion and deforestation: modeling the impact of population, market forces and property rights. J Dev Econ 58:185–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baccini A, Laporte N, Goetz S, Sun M, Dong H (2008) A first map of tropical Africa’s above-ground biomass derived from satellite imagery. Environ Res Lett 3:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barbier E, Burgess J (1997) The economics of tropical forest land use options. Land Econ 73:174–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Besag J (1974) Spatial interaction and the statistical analysis of lattice systems. J R Stat Soc B 36:192–225

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bhat C (1997) Covariance heterogeneity in nested logit models: econometric structure and application to intercity travel. Transp Res 31:11–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Burney J, Davis S, Lobell D (2010) Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(26):12052–12057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Busch J, Lubowski RN, Godoy F, Steininger M, Yusuf AA, Austin K, Hewson J, Juhn D, Frid M, Boltz F (2012) Structuring economic incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation within Indonesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(4):1062–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) Columbia University, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), The World Bank, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) (2004) Global rural–urban mapping project, version 1 (GRUMPv1): populatin density grid. Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), Columbia University, Palisades. http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw. Accessed 28 Oct 2011

  11. Chomitz K, Gray D (1996) Roads, land use, and deforestation: a spatial model applied to Belize. World Bank Econ Rev 10:487–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chomitz K, Thomas T (2003) Determinants of land use in Amazônia: a fine-scale spatial analysis. Am J Agric Econ 85:1016–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cropper M, Griffiths C (1994) The interaction of population growth and environmental quality. Am Econo Rev Pap Proc 84:250–254

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cropper M, Griffiths C, Mani M (1999) Roads, population pressures, and deforestation in Tailand, 1976–1989. Land Econ 75(1):58–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cropper M, Puri J, Griffiths C (2001) Predicting the location of deforestation: the role of roads and protected area in North Tailand. Land Econ 77(2):172–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Deacon RT (1999) Deforestation and ownership: evidence from historical accounts and contemporary data. Land Econ 75(3):341–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. De Pinto A, Nelson G (2007) Modeling deforestation and land-use change: sparse data environments. J Agric Econ 58:502–516

  18. De Pinto A, Nelson G (2009) Land use change with spatially explicit data: a dynamic approach. Environ Resour Econ 43:209–229

  19. De Pinto A (2010) Assessing the value of ad-hoc corrections for spatial effects in spatially explicit models of land use. Lett Spat Reg Sci 3:19–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Deininger K, Minten B (2002) Determinants of deforestation and the economics of protection: an application to Mexico. Am J Agric Econ 84:943–960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. DGPA (2011) Atlas sur la localisation des Peuples Autochtones (Atlas on the Location of Indigenous Peoples). http://www.dgpa.cd/index.html

  22. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2010) Global forest resources assessment 2010: main report. FAO of the United Nations, Rome

  23. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) (2011) The state of forests in the Amazon Basin, Congo Basin, and Southeast Asia: a report prepared for the Summit of the Three Rainforest Basin, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo. ISBN:978-92-5-106888-5. FAO of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2247e/i2247e00.pdf

  24. Fischer G, Shah M, van Velthuizen H, Nachtergaele F (2001) Global agro-ecological assessment for agriculture in the 21st century. IIASA research report 02-02. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

  25. Gaston G, Brown S, Lorenzini M, Singh K (1998) State and change in carbon pools in the forests of tropical Africa. Glob Change Biol 4(1):97–114

  26. Gockowski J, Sonwa D (2011) Cocoa intensification scenarios and their predicted impact on \(\text{ CO }_{2}\) emissions, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods in the Guinea rain forest of West Africa. Environ Manag 48:307–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hall P (ed) (1966) Von Thünen’s isolated state: an English edition of Der Isolierte Staat by Johann Heinrich Von Thünen, 1st edn. Pergamon Press, Oxford

  28. Hansen MC, Stehman SV, Potapov PV, Loveland TR, Townshend JRG, DeFries RS, Pittman KW, Arunarwati B, Stolle F, Steininger MK, Carroll M, DiMiceli C (2008) Humid tropical forest clearing from 2000 to 2005 quantified by using multitemporal and multiresolution remotely sensed data. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(27):9439–9444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hastings D, Dunbar P (1998) Development and assessment of the global land one-km base elevation model (GLOBE). Int Soc Photogramm Remote Sensi (ISPRS) Arch 32(4):218–221

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hiederer R, Köchy M (2012) Global soil organic carbon estimates and the harmonized world soil database. EUR Scientific and Technical Research series. ISSN:1831-9424 (online), ISSN:1018–5593 (print). ISBN:978-92-79-23108-7. doi:10.2788/13267

  31. Hijmans R, Cameron S, Parra J, Jones P, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25(15):1965–1978

  32. Houghton R (2005) Tropical deforestation as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Moutinho P, Schwartzman S (eds) Tropical deforestation and climate change. Environmental Defense, Washington DC

  33. Institut National des Statistiques (INS) (2010) Prix des produits agricoles. Ministère du Plan, Kinshasa

  34. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, Japan. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html

  35. Jackson R, Canadell J, Ehleringer J, Mooney H, Sala O, Schulze E (1996) A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia 108:389–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Joint Research Center (JRC), European Commission (2003) Global Land Cover 2000 Project. http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/glc2000/glc2000.php. Accessed 28 Sept 2010

  37. Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (2001) On the asymptotic distribution of the Moran \(I\) test statistic with applications. J Econom 104:219–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Laporte N, Stabach J, Grosch R, Lin T, Goetz S (2007) Expansion of industrial logging in Central Africa. Science 316(8):1451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lichtenberg E (1989) Land quality, irrigation development, and cropping patterns in the northern high plains. Am J Agric Econ 71:187–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lubowski RN, Plantinga AJ, Stavins RN (2006) Land-use change and carbon sinks: econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function. J Environ Econ Manag 51(2):135–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. McFadden DL (1977) Modelling the choice of residential location. 477, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University

  42. Miller DJ, Plantinga AJ (1999) Modeling land use decisions with aggregate data. Am J Agricu Econ 81:180–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Minten B, Kyle S (1999) The effect of distance and road quality on food collection, marketing margins, and traders’ wages: evidence from the former Zaire. J Dev Econ 60:467–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Munroe D, Southworth J, Tucker C (2004) Modeling spatially and temporally complex land cover change: the case of Western Honduras. Prof Geogr 56:544–559

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nelson A (2008) Global 1 km accessibility (CostDistance) model using publicly available data. World Bank, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  46. Nelson G, Hellerstein D (1997) Do roads cause deforestation? Using satellite images in econometric analysis of land use. Am J Agric Econ 79:80–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nelson G, Harris V, Stone S (2001) Deforestation, land use, and property rights: Empirical evidence from Darién, Panama. Land Econ 77(2):187–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pfaff A (1999) What drives deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon? J Environ Econ Manag 37:26–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Pfaff A, Robalino J, Walker R, Aldrich S, Caldas M, Reis E, Perz S, Bohrer C, Arima E, Laurance W, Kirby K (2007) Road investments, spatial spillovers, and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. J Reg Sci 47(1):109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ravallion M, Chen S, Sangraula P (2009) Dollar a day. World Bank Econ Rev 23(2):163–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rodrigues A, Ewers R, Parry L, Souza C Jr, Verissimo A, Balmford A (2009) Boom-and-bust development patterns across the Amazon deforestation frontier. Science 324:1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Service National de Statistiques Agricoles (SNSA) (2010) Superficies cultivées. Ministère de l’Agriculture, Kinshasa

  53. Seto K, Kaufmann R (2003) Modeling the drivers of urban land use change in the Pearl River Delta, China: integrating remote sensing with socioeconomic data. Land Econ 79:106–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Schatzki T (2003) Options, uncertainty, and sunk costs: an empirical analysis of land use change. J Environ Econ Manag 46:86–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shively GE (2001) Agricultural change, rural labor markets, and forest clearing: an illustrative case from the Philippines. Land Econ 77(2):268–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Steckel J, Vanhonacker W (1988) A heterogeneous conditional logit model of choice. J Bus Econ Stat 6:391–398

    Google Scholar 

  57. Train K (2003) Discret Choice Methods Simul. Cambirdge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ulimwegu J, Funes J, Headey D, Yong L (2009) Paving the way for development? Impact of transport infrastructure on agricultural production and poverty reduction in the Democratic Republic of Congo. IFPRI discussion paper 00944. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

  59. Van Wagtendonk JW, Benedict JM (1980) Travel time variation on backcountry trails. J Leis Res 12:99–106

    Google Scholar 

  60. Weinhold D, Reis E (2008) Transportation costs and the spatial distribution of land use in the Brazilian Amazon. Glob Environ Change 18:54–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. World Resources Institute, Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation, and Tourism of the Democratic Republic of Congo (2010) Interactive forestry atlas of the democratic Republic of Congo [CD-ROM 1.0]. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. ISBN:978-1-56973-758-3

  62. Wu J, Babcock BA (1998) The choice of tillage, rotation, and soil testing practices: economic and environmental implications. Am J Agric Econ 80:494–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Wu J, Adams RM, Kling CL, Tanaka K (2004) From microlevel decisions to landscape changes: an assessment of agricultural conservation policies. Am J Agric Econ 86:26–41

  64. Yohe GW, Lasco RD, Ahmad QK, Arnell NW, Cohen SJ, Hope C, Janetos AC, Perez RT (2007) Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. In: Parry ML Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, CE Hanson (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 811–841. Retrieved 2011-10-12

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to Heidi J. Albers and three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous funding from the United Stated Agency for International Development in support of this research. This project was conducted under the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Man Li.

Appendix

Appendix

See Figs. 3, 4 and Tables 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.

Fig. 3
figure3

Above ground woody biomass in the DRC. Source: Baccini et al. (2008)

Fig. 4
figure4

Soil organic carbon density in the DRC. Source: Hiederer and Köchy (2012)

Table 14 Assessment of the predictive power of the upper-level model by province
Table 15 Assessment of the predictive power of the lower-level model by province
Table 16 Ratio of belowground biomass to aboveground biomass
Table 17 Average crop prices by province (US$/Mg), 2006–2010
Table 18 Changes in crop production (1,000 Mg) induced by road construction

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, M., De Pinto, A., Ulimwengu, J.M. et al. Impacts of Road Expansion on Deforestation and Biological Carbon Loss in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Environ Resource Econ 60, 433–469 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-014-9775-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Land use
  • Deforestation
  • Crop allocation
  • Road construction
  • Greenhouse gas emissions

JEL Classification

  • Q15
  • Q24
  • Q54