Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 25–44 | Cite as

Econometric Evidence on Forest Ecosystem Services: Deforestation and Flooding in Malaysia

  • Jie-Sheng Tan-Soo
  • Norliyana Adnan
  • Ismariah Ahmad
  • Subhrendu K. Pattanayak
  • Jeffrey R. Vincent


Governments around the world are increasingly invoking hydrological services, such as flood mitigation and water purification, as a justification for forest conservation programs in upstream areas. Yet, rigorous empirical evidence that these programs are actually delivering the intended services remains scant. We investigate the effect of deforestation on flood-mitigation services in Peninsular Malaysia during 1984–2000, a period when detailed data on both flood events and land-use change are available for 31 river basins. Floods are the most common natural disaster in tropical regions, but the ability of tropical forests to mitigate large-scale floods associated with heavy rainfall events remains disputed. We find that the conversion of inland tropical forests to oil palm and rubber plantations significantly increased the number of days flooded during the wettest months of the year. Our results demonstrate the importance of using disaggregated land-use data, controlling for potentially confounding factors, and applying appropriate estimators in econometric studies on forest ecosystem services.


Ecosystem service Tropical forests Floods Oil palm Rubber Malaysia 



This study was funded by the Global Environment Facility through the United Nations Development Programme (MAL/04/G31). Additional support was provided by the Government of Malaysia, through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and the Forest Research Institute Malaysia, and by the Center for International Forestry Research. The cooperation of the Departments of Agriculture, Drainage and Irrigation, and Statistics of the Government of Malaysia is gratefully acknowledged as are helpful comments by M Jeuland, D Richter, and E Sills.


  1. Alila Y et al (2009) Forests and floods: A new paradigm sheds light on age-old controversies. Water Resour Res 45: doi: 10.1029/2008WR007207
  2. Angrist JD, Pischke JS (2009) Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett G et al (2013) Charting new waters. Forest Trends, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradshaw CJA et al (2007) Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Glob Change Biol 13:2379–2395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brauman KA et al (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:67–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruijnzeel LA (2004) Hydrological functions of tropical forests. Agric Ecosyst Environ 104:185–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron CA, Trivedi PK (2013) Regression analysis of count data, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson KM et al (2012) Committed carbon emissions deforestation and community land conversion from oil palm plantation expansion in West Kalimantan Indonesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:7559–7564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Department of Statistics (1981) General report of the population and housing census 1980. Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  10. Department of Statistics (1992) General report of the population and housing census 1991. Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Department of Statistics (2001) General report of the population and housing census 2000. Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Drainage and Irrigation Department (2010) National hydrological networks. http://h2o.water.gov.my/v2/fail/Invstations/Inventory.html
  13. Energy Commission Malaysia (2013) Electricity supply industry in Malaysia: performance and statistical information 2011. Putra Jaya, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO (2010) Global forest resources assessment 2010: main report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO and CIFOR (2005) Forests and floods. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome and Center for International Forestry Research Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferraro PJ et al (2012) Forest figures. Rev Environ Econ Policy 6:20–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferreira S, Ghimire R (2012) Forest cover socioeconomics and reported flood frequency in developing countries. Water Resour Res 48: doi: 10.1029/2011WR011701
  18. Ferreira S et al (2013) Does development reduce fatalities from natural disasters? New evidence for floods. Environ Dev Econ 18:649–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gutiérrez-Vélez RH, DeFries R (2013) Annual multi-resolution detection of land cover conversion to oil palm in the Peruvian Amazon. Remote Sens Environ 129:154–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilbe JM (2011) Negative binomial regression, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huber PJ (1967) The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In: Neyman LM (ed) Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, vol 1. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 221–233Google Scholar
  22. Jonkman SN (2005) Global perspectives on loss of human life caused by floods. Nat Hazards 34:151–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahn ME (2005) The death toll from natural disasters: the role of income, geography, and institutions. Rev Econ Stat 87:271–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kennedy P (2008) A guide to econometrics, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Malden, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  25. Kiersch B (2000) Land use impacts on water resources: a literature review. In: Calder IR (ed) Land-water linkages in rural watersheds. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  26. Kinzig AP et al (2011) Paying for ecosystem services–promise and peril. Science 334:603–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koh LP, Ghazoul J (2010) Spatially explicit scenario analysis for reconciling agricultural expansion forest protection and carbon conservation in Indonesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:11140–11144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koh LP et al (2011) Remotely sensed evidence of tropical peatland conversion to oil palm. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:5127–5132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kramer RA et al (1997) Ecological and economic analysis of watershed protection in Eastern Madagascar. J Environ Manage 49:277–295Google Scholar
  30. KTA Tenaga (2003) Updating of condition of flooding in Malaysia–main report. Drainage and Irrigation Department, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  31. Lambert D (1992) Zero-inflated Poisson regression with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics 34:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li H et al (2007) Demand for rubber is causing the loss of high diversity rain forest in SW China. Biodivers Conserv 16:1731–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. Moulton BR (1986) Random group effects and the precision of regression estimates. J Econom 32:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mullahy J (1986) Specification and testing of some modified count data models. J Econom 33:341–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ogden FL et al (2013) Effect of land cover and use on dry season river runoff runoff efficiency and peak storm runoff in the seasonal tropics of Central Panama. Water Resour Res 49: doi: 10.1002/2013WR013956
  37. Pattanayak SK, Kramer RA (2001) Worth of watersheds. Environ Dev Econ 6:123–146Google Scholar
  38. Pattanayak SK, Wendland KJ (2007) Nature’s care: diarrhea, watershed protection and biodiversity conservation in Flores, Indonesia. Biodivers Conserv 16:2801–2819Google Scholar
  39. Pattanayak SK et al (2010) Show me the money. Rev Environ Econ Policy 4:254–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ritschl A (2009) Spurious significance of treatment effects in overfitted fixed effect models. London School of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Dijk AJM et al (2009) Forest-flood relation still tenuous. Glob Change Biol 15:110–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vincent JR, Hadi Y (1993) Malaysia. In: National Research Council (ed) Sustainable agriculture and the environment in the humid tropics. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. Vincent JR, Mohamed Ali R (2005) Managing natural wealth: environment and development in Malaysia. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  44. White HL (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48:817–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wong IFT (1971) The present land use of West Malaysia 1966. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Kuala LumpurGoogle Scholar
  46. Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Zeger SL, Liang KY (1986) Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 42:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ziegler AD, Fox JM, Xu J (2009) The rubber juggernaut. Science 324:1024–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zulkifli Y et al (2004) Runoff estimate from the North Selangor Peat Swamp Forest. In: Abdul Rahim N (ed) Water: forestry and land use perspectives, Technical Documents in Hydrology No. 70, International Hydrological Programme. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jie-Sheng Tan-Soo
    • 1
  • Norliyana Adnan
    • 3
  • Ismariah Ahmad
    • 3
  • Subhrendu K. Pattanayak
    • 2
  • Jeffrey R. Vincent
    • 2
  1. 1.Duke Global Health Institute, Nicholas School of the Environment and Sanford School of Public PolicyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Nicholas School of the Environment and Sanford School of Public PolicyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Forest Research Institute MalaysiaKepongMalaysia

Personalised recommendations