Page - (000166) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

between the two groupsmay also bemuted because residentsmay have different perceptions about their claims to land they occupy according to their length of residence (see for exampleLanjouwandLevy (2002)). 8.7 OverallDiscussion Anecdotal evidence in Thailand shows that North Thailand witnessed a large increase in deforested area during the years 1986–1996. One ofmain reasons for this is claimed to be agricultural expansion. ASB (2004) reports that during the same period, area devoted to upland rice area grew rapidly aswell. To the extent that both these occurred concomitantly, and that upland rice cannot be grown on landdevotedtoothercrops, thestudysuggests that itmaybeimportant todoamore detailedanalysisof thefactorsaffectinguplandricecultivationespeciallysince it is seen as being detrimental to the environment. Upland rice is grown onmountain slopeswith thin soil and low fertility, i.e. on land that is otherwise agriculturally marginal and undisturbed. Upland rice also has a much larger effect on the surrounding ecosystem compared to paddy rice and soybean. On the other hand, paddyriceandsoybeancanbeintercroppedandareusuallygrownonagriculturally important landwhile upland rice is usually not grownwith other crops (in these contexts). Specifically speaking upland rice is grown on lands which is deserted after twoor three crops havebeenplanted andharvested. This study suggests that a reduction in travel time tomarket reduces the area devoted to upland rice. It also suggests that while not affecting forest cover, a reduction in travel time tomarket may also help to reduce the incentive to adopt and cultivate upland rice. One policy implication from this study is to encourage crops that allowmultiple rotation in the lowlands, and thus reduce pressures that push the agricultural frontier tomountain slopes that are prone to erosion.Under- standingthemagnitudesof impactsoncropadoptionandacreageofpopulationand roads can also help understand certain trade-offs. If for example, road building is beingconsideredas apolicyoption in a region, but there is evidence that it affects crop adoption and acreage, thenunderstandingwhich crops are affectedmost, can help tounderstandotherwise unintended repercussions of this policy. References Alix-Garcia, J., et al. (2011). The ecological footprint of poverty alleviation: Evidence from Mexico’sOportunidadesProgram. Alix-Garcia, J., Aronson,G., Radeloff, V., Ramirez-Reyes, C., Shapiro, E., Sims,K.,&Ya~nez- Pagans, P. (2014). Environmental and socioeconomic Impacts of Mexico’s payments for ecosystem services program. Andam,K. S., Ferraro, P. J., Pfaff,A. S. P.,&Sanchez-Azofeifa,G.A. (2007).Protected areas and avoided deforestation: A statistical evaluation (Final report). Washington, DC: Global EnvironmentFacilityEvaluationOffice. 150 J. Puri