Settler Welfare on Tropical Forest Frontiers in Latin America

http://www.jstor.org.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/stable/pdf/27503972.pdf

Settler Welfare on Tropical Forest Frontiers in Latin America by Catherine Mary Marquette

 Abstract Because of urgent concerns to protect tropical forests in Latin America,

 social science research on them has been generally 'forest-centred.' This forest

 centred approach considers the people who inhabit the frontier as agents of land use

 change and forest conversion focusing on how their actions affect forest cover.

 Welfare indicators for forest frontier populations (income, education, health, access

 to basic services) are addressed only incidentally in terms of how they influence land

 use. 'People' centred research, which asks questions from the perspective of human

 welfare such as, 'Are frontier settlers better off than they were before?' or 'What

 kind of socio-economic impacts does frontier life have on the people who live

 there?" and "How can their lives be improved?," has been less common. As a result,

 we know much about the impacts, especially adverse impacts, which settler activity

 on the frontier has on forest cover but little about the impacts settlement has on

 settlers, themselves. This paper attempts to shift discussion towards these kinds of

 questions and a more people centred approach by reviewing existing research that

 directly addresses the welfare of settlers in tropical forest frontiers in Latin America.

 We also review research that touches on settler welfare by considering the concept

 of 'sustainability' on the forest frontier and stakes out a comprise position between

 'forest' and 'people' centred questions or concerns. Settler welfare is defined pri

 marily in economic terms. Household income, wealth, and agricultural productivity

 are interpreted a proxies for welfare in most cases. We also consider welfare in terms

 of access to basic services (health and education) and living conditions. We partic

 ularly consider how settler welfare indicators may change over time on the frontier.

 Tropical forests, defined as tropical, moist, broadleaf forests, are the main ecological

 setting of interest. These forests are generally the largest unoccupied areas in many

 Latin American countries and are thus, also the main 'agricultural frontier' or areas

 of new settlement by small farmers.

 Keywords Latin America Tropical forests Agriculture Settlers

 Human welfare Household lifecycle effects Gender Sustainable development

 Introduction

 'Saving the rainforest' from the adverse impacts of human settlement and economic

 activity is now a global rallying cry for conservationists and a goal of environmental

 policy across Latin America and the world. But, while the tropical forests of Latin

 America encapsulate many of the worst fears of conservationists, they also embrace

 the best hopes of the small farmers and producers who come to the frontier looking

 for land and a better life. "Deforestaci?n en Costa Rica: La Pesadilla y la Espe

 ranza" (Deforestation in Costa Rica: the Nightmare and the Hope), the title of an

 article by Nunez (1993), tersely captures this paradox.

 Because of urgent concerns to protect tropical forests in Latin America, social

 science research has been generally 'forest-centered.' It asks questions from the

 perspective of forest welfare, like: 'Why are forests disappearing?' or 'What are the

 impacts and costs of this loss?' and "How can it be prevented?" This forest-centered

 approach considers the people who inhabit the frontier as agents of land use change

 and forest conversion and focuses on how their actions affect forest cover. Welfare

 indicators for frontier populations (for example, on income, education, health, or

 access to basic services) are addressed, but only incidentally, in terms of how they

 influence land use.

 'People' as opposed to forest-centered research has been less common. People

 centered research asks questions from the perspective of human welfare on the

 forest frontier, questions like: 'Are frontier settlers better off than they were

 before?' or 'What kind of socio-economic impacts does frontier life have on the

 people who live there?" and "How can their lives be improved?" People-centered

 research sees frontier populations as agents of change in their own lives as well as in

 the forest. It considers their socio-economic welfare, not only as a driver of land and

 forest use patterns, but also as an end in itself.

 We have learned much about the impacts, especially adverse impacts, which settler

 activity on the frontier has on forest cover. Because of limited people-centered re

 search, we know much less about the impacts this activity has on settlers, themselves.

 This is an important gap. Governments, actively and passively, see frontier settlement

 as a means of poverty alleviation. Yet, there is little welfare information for evaluating

 the validity of this approach. On a more human level, families who come to the frontier

 are aggressively trying to improve their standard of living and make their lives better.

 They make the unusual choice of migrating to the frontier rather than the more

 common one of going to another rural area, the city, or out of the country entirely.

 After decades of large-scale forest settlement across Latin America, we know some

 thing about the pay-off this extraordinary choice has for the forests. We know far less

 about the pay-off it has for frontier settlers, themselves.

 In response to this gap in information, this literature review adopts a 'people

 centered' approach. It focuses on recent studies that directly shed light on the welfare

 of settlers in tropical forest frontiers in Latin America. We also review recent research

 that touches on the issue of 'sustainable development' on forest frontiers and which

 thus, stakes out a middle ground between forest and people-centred concerns and

 questions. The studies considered come from social science research rooted in

 numerous disciplines including: geography; anthropology; economics; demography;

 geographic information systems (GIS) analyses, and development studies. We survey

 the literature in English and, too lesser extent, Spanish. Most of the studies discussed

 are from the period 1995-2004. Articles outside that period are included if they offer

 important and relevant insights.

 In this survey, we consider small agricultural producers or what some studies call,

 "forest peasant households" (Takasaki, Barham, & Coomes, 2001). Small farmers

 on the frontier are a compelling focus with regard to welfare since they are the

 largest as well as poorest landholding group on the frontier (Vosti, Witcover, &

 Oliveria, 1998, p. 200). Most small farmer households in tropical forest frontiers are

 migrant colonists, or descendants of recent colonists, who arrived on the frontier

 over the last several decades. These settler small farmers are the specific group of

 interest in this review.

 Several specific facets of migration dynamics are considered in this paper. First,

 settlers are defined by having a recent migration history. That is they are recent

 migrants or rather individuals or families who have recently come from longer set

 tled agricultural areas to forest margins. In this context, it is important to recognise

 that the majority of studies considered in the review below address the welfare of

 settler households that are permanent migrants to the frontier. Few existing studies

 have tracked the welfare of temporary migrant households on the frontier or settler

 households that may come to the frontier for a time but for one reason or another

 eventually leave or do not remain there. The welfare outcomes of these temporary

 settlers are thus, not addressed here. We do, however, consider below the welfare

 implications of individual out-migration from settler households or the migration of

 specific individuals from settler households that overall remain on the frontier. In

 particular, we consider sex differentials in this out-migration. We also discuss

 patterns of off-farm labor or temporary labor migration out of settler households for

 off-farm employment.

 The main issue of interest is settler welfare and the factors that determine settler

 welfare. Welfare is defined primarily in economic terms. Household income, wealth,

 and agricultural productivity are interpreted a proxies for welfare in most cases. We

 also consider welfare in terms of access to basic services (health and education) and

 living conditions. We particularly consider how settler welfare indicators may change

 over time on the frontier. Tropical forests, defined as tropical, moist, broadleaf

 forests, are the main ecological setting of interest. These forest areas are generally

 the largest unoccupied areas in many Latin American countries and are thus, also

 the main 'agricultural frontier' or area of new settlement by small farmers. We

 survey empirical research on settlers that has involved the collection or analysis of

 information at the community or household level.

 The geographic foci are both the Amazon and Central America. Table 1 indicates

 the distribution of studies considered in this review by region and country within

 Latin America. Table 2 gives information by country and region for Latin America

 on forest size, the importance of forests in terms of national territory, change in

 forest size, forest per capita, and per capita income. Tropical forests are much larger

 in the Amazon than in Central America and occupy a larger proportion of total area.

 Amazon countries also have more forest per capita. But, Central America reflects

 more rapid rates of forest loss. Because of these baseline differences, we also make

 an effort to track regional differences in settler welfare throughout the review.

 ments in English and Spanish. Generalised Internet searches were also used to

 identify information published electronically. We begin with an overview of settler

 production strategies, which lay the basis for their welfare outcomes. We then

 consider how changes over time among settlers, particularly at the household level,

 may affect their welfare outcomes. Education and health among settlers and women

 settlers are singled out for special attention. 'Sustainable development' in frontier

 areas and the possibilities for balancing settler and forest welfare are then discussed.

 We conclude by considering the limitations of the review and the major insights

 gained.

 Settler Production Strategies: The Foundations of Settler Welfare

 To understand the welfare of settler farm households on tropical forest frontiers in

 Latin America, one must first grasp the nature of their economic and land use

 strategies. Table 3 presents a generalized view of the main activities within settler

 production strategies, how many settlers engage in this activity, the characteristics of

 each activity, and regional differences. As noted above, settler land use strategies

 and their impact on forest cover have been an intense focus of much recent research

 in tropical forest areas of Latin America. (For general reviews of this research, see

 Angselsen and Kaimowitz (2001), Geist and Lambin (2001), or Wood (2002)).

 Agricultural production is at the center of settler economic strategies. Generally

 all grow some kind of annual food crop like maize, beans, or rice. Many also grow

 some kind of perennial tree crop such as coffee, cocoa, fruit trees, and in some cases,

 illegal crops like coca. Like other modern peasant households, settlers engage in

 agricultural production for both subsistence and sale, which may be more or less

 constrained by weak markets inherent to frontier settings, particularly at early stages

 of frontier development. Plot size among settlers, in regions such as the Amazon,

 may be from 20 to 100 ha, strikingly larger than those in long-settled agricultural

 regions (Murphy, Bilsborrow, & Pich?n, 1997, p. 37). This land abundance is what

 draws settlers to the frontier in the first place. Settlers can have several plots in

 different areas and may keep some of their plot(s) in crops, fallow or forest at any

 given time. They tend to use simple manual technologies, employ little modern

 agricultural inputs or machinery (with the exception of chainsaws) and receive little

 technical assistance (ibid). Land and labor are thus, the primary factors of produc

 tion that settler households have at their disposal. The main forest clearing methods

 used to create agricultural fields are slash and burn (cut vegetation is burned) or

 slash and mulch (fallen vegetation is left on ground as opposed to burned).

 Many settlers also undertake some animal husbandry or pastoral activities. This

 may include raising small livestock (pigs, chickens, guinea pigs) and, more signifi

 cantly, cattle. Cattle raising is attractive because it fulfils multiple needs for settlers

 serving as an investment, a way of storing wealth, a highly liquid asset, and a food

 source (of milk and meat). Settler household members may also work off-farm as

 day labor on other small farms or plantations, in frontier industries (petroleum,

 mining, timber), or in non-agricultural jobs in frontier urban areas. Adult men in

 settler households undertake most of the agricultural as well as off-farm labor.

 Women's involvement in agriculture is limited. But, women and children carry out

 most of the domestic activities such as childcare, fetching water, cooking, cleaning,

 which are necessary for the social reproduction of settler households.

 Forest frontiers present settlers with some unique production opportunities in terms

 of agroforestry; timber and non-timber (NTFP) forest product forest extraction (e.g.

 rubber tapping, nut collection), and ecotourism (handicrafts sale, as tour guides, hotel

 workers). The prevalence of these activities varies depending on local markets, prac

 tices, and opportunities. In Brazil for example, small-scale rubber and Brazil nut

 extraction has a long and established tradition in many Amazon settlement areas and

 markets for these products exist. Also, it has been suggested that some settlers may,

 like indigenous groups, look at forest products as a form of "natural insurance" when

 their agricultural activities fail to produce sufficient returns (Dunkhort, Denich, &

 Vielhauer, 2003; Godoy, Jacobson, & Wilkie, 1998; McSweeney, 2004; Paattanayak &

 Wills, 2001; Shriar, 2002; Takasaki, Barham, & Coomes, 2002). The natural insurance

 and quick cash-income NTFPs offer settler households may be important given the

 generally weak credit markets that characterize the frontier. The potential value of

 NTFP products, in this context, also point to the fact that they represent an incentive

 for many settler households to keep at least some of their plot in forest. More frequent

 interactions between extractivist indigenous groups and settlers around the protected

 areas in Central America may make extraction activities more common among settlers

 there. Ecotourism is an option if there is a nearby protected forest area that may be a

 tourist destination. Because of the greater prevalence of protected forest areas in

 Central America, this region may provide greater opportunities for settler participa

 tion in ecotourism as well.

 In some areas, NGOs as well as state-run programs have promoted agroforestry

 projects that have trained, subsidized, and provided technical assistance to encourage

 settlers to blend crop production with tree crops in recent years as a sustainable profit

 generating alternative to cattle raising (Becer & Le?n, 2000; Boege, 2001; Browder &

 Pedlowski, 2000; United Nations and FAO, 2000: Velazquez et al., 2003; Vosti et al,

 1998). The adoption of agroforestry has had mixed success partly because these sys

 tems remain less profitable than cattle-raising alternatives (Browder & Pedlowski,

 2000; United Nations and FAO, 2000; Velasquez et al., 2003; Vosti et al., 1998). In

 some regions, settlers have "endogenously" innovated and developed what amounts to

 'agroforestry' techniques, for example, intercropping fruit and annual crops (Pich?n,

 1997a, b; Pich?n, Marquette, Murphy, & Bilsborrow, 2001,2002). Agroforestry as well

 as extractive activities may also be more frequent among settlers in Central America

 because remaining primary forest is more limited and reforestation projects are more

 vigorous.

 A common overall characteristic of settlers strategies is that they tend to diversify

 their production over the activities listed in Table 3 rather than specialise in any

 single one. This diversification includes both on and off farm activity as well as the

 extraction of forest products. Diversification of economic activity among frontier

 settlers may be a way of managing the heightened risk of failure on the frontier

 (Deininger & Minten, 2002; Escobal & Aldana, 2003; Lanholz 1999; Paattanayak &

 Sills, 2001; Takasaki et al., 2001). It may also be a way if smoothing the fluctuations

 of seasonal production (McSweeney, 2004). Cattle raising may be a particularly

 important element of diversification by settlers because returns to labor are higher in

 it than in other activities (e.g. growing annual crops). Also, cattle represent a very

 flexible "liquid asset," which can quickly be converted to cash (Pich?n, 1997b). This

 is particularly important given the imperfect credit markets which characterize the

 frontier. Relatedly, cattle are also an attractive asset because they can often be used

 as collateral for private or state-sponsored loans or credit programmes (ibid).

 Temporary off-farm labor in frontier extraction industries or frontier urban areas

 may also play a role in settler household survival strategies (see for example,

 Murphy on the Ecuadorian Amazon and Browder & Godfrey on Brazil 1997).

 Remittances from these off-farm activities may play an important role as well in

 settler welfare. There is, however, little solid or comparative information on the

 relative role remittance or off and on-farm generated income plays in overall settler

 household economic strategies and welfare or how the interplay of these sources

 may change over time on the frontier. Still the potential importance of off-farm

 activity and income is important to recognize.

 Differences at the country and regional level inevitably exist in settler production

 patterns. For example, in Costa Rica where small-scale coffee production is prevalent,

 coffee as cash crop may be a more pivotal element of settler production strategies

 (Roebeling & Ruben, 2001; Schelhas, 1996; White, Holmann, Fujisaka, Reategui, &

 Lascano, 2001; Wylels, 2003). In Amazon countries such as Colombia and Bolivia,

 where the drug economy is significant, high-value illegal tree crops, such as coca, can

 form a part of settlers cropping strategies. Since the Brazilian Amazon has more

 expansive and developed urban areas, off-farm work outside of agriculture may be

 more prevalent in Brazil while in the Ecuadorian Amazon, settlers may work more

 frequently off-farm in the oil-extraction industries located there. Cattle raising, which

 is prevalent throughout tropical forest frontiers, may be even more so in Central

 America where it is associated with cultural ideals of success and wealth (Jones, 1990).

 There is a consensus in the recent literature that overall standards of living are

 probably lower in frontier areas than in settled agricultural regions in terms of access

 to basic services. Settlers may also experience hardships particular to the frontier

 such as geographic isolation, new health risks, and difficulties in transport. The range

 of conditions settlers may actually live in is, however, large. Some households do

 better and live in concrete block houses along a road and have a television and a

 truck. Others live in open wood structure with dirt floors, no electricity, no toilet,

 and no motorized transport.

 The process of frontier migration is likely one of selective migration and the

 settlers who come to the frontier may be 'self-selected' to have certain unique

 qualities that distinguish them from other small farmer producers. Although they

 may be risk averse when they get to the frontier, their decision to migrate demon

 strates an underlying capacity for a certain degree of risk and willingness to tackle

 the unknown. As Murphy et al. (1997) observes, "Frontier settlers are generally

 determined and hard-working people trying to make better living for themselves and

 their children under trying conditions" (p. 60). The generalized patterns described in

 Table 3 are an idealized snapshot of the evolving real strategies that may actually

 develop over time. As we discuss further below, significant differences in economic

 welfare may occur in the same household over time as well as between settler

 households on a frontier. We now turn to consider the evolution of the frontier and

 of settler households over time and the implications this has for settler welfare.

 Changes in Settler Welfare Over Time

 In the wake of large-scale settlement schemes as well increasing large-scale resource

 extraction in forest frontiers in Latin America (and elsewhere), social researchers

 have tried to define what exactly constitutes a "forest frontier' (see for example,

 Clark et al., 1990; Restrepo, Tamariz, & Bustamante, 1991; Ruiz, 1993; Schmink &

 Wood, 1984). In many cases, the forest frontier is defined in economic or "modes of

 production" terms as a contiguous physical area or 'front' of a country which is not

 yet 'developed' or integrated into the predominate national economic system but

 where those systems are nascent or taking root (Santos, 1991, p. 229). Defining the

 frontier in terms of economic development, is clearly only one approach. An array of

 other factors could also be considered for defining the frontier (e.g. growth and

 extension of predominant political and institutional structures). However, for the

 purposes of this analysis we accept the more prevalent economic definition of the

 frontier as sufficient.

 In any case, given the dynamic criteria inherent in their definition, 'forest fron

 tiers' in Latin America can be viewed, not so much as a geographic place but rather a

 process of socioeconomic and demographic development that plays out through time

 and expands through space (Almeida, 1992; D. Carr, submitted). Looking at settler

 welfare on the forest frontier thus, means looking at their changing welfare since

 physical, social, cultural, technological, and economic conditions are evolving, as is

 the settler household, itself. The existing literature considered below reflects a strong

 orientation towards looking at dynamics or stochastic changes on the frontier as well

 as within settler households. We thus, consider the findings these studies offer in

 relation to settler welfare and changing settler welfare more closely below. It if

 important to note, however, that the longitudinal insights on settler welfare offered

 in current research are in many cases actually based on cross-sectional rather than

 real longitudinal information and research. We consider the limitations of this use of

 cross-sectional information to make longitudinal inferences about changes in settler

 welfare at various points below as well as in detail in the conclusion.

 Settlement Phases, Economic Differentiation among Settlers,

 and the Determinants of Settler Welfare

 The ecological costs of rapid tropical forest settlement, which began in the 1950s and

 1960s, became evident throughout Latin America in 1970s. In response, several

 influential studies collected and analyzed empirical information on settlers at the

 community or 'frontier' level in order to assess sustainability and future prospects for

 frontier development (see for example, Little, Horowitz, & Nyerges, 1987; Moran,

 1981, 1983; Nelson, 1973; Schmink & Wood, 1987; Schumann & Partridge, 1989).

 These studies identified some broad common patterns or phases of adaptation to the

 frontier that many settlers may go through over time. Table 4 summarizes these

 phases of frontier settlement, their welfare implications, and determinants.

 During the first five years of settlement, settlers go through a 'pioneer' or adap

 tation phase. Risk aversion, adapting to the environment, and gaining a foothold in

 the region through subsistence production characterize the pioneer phase. The dis

 advantages of the frontier tend to outweigh the advantages in this phase making

 overall welfare low. After 5-10 years of settlement, settlers may enter an 'experi

 mentation phase.' At this point, settlers begin to take more risk, try new activities in

 addition to subsistence production, and to diversify. In the experimentation phase,

 the advantages of the frontier may begin to balance against the disadvantages. After

 10 years or more, settlers begin a 'consolidation phase' in which they continue to

 diversify, while also shifting more and more resources toward production activities

 that are particularly profit earning, such as cattle raising. Positive welfare outcomes

 at this stage may outweigh negative ones.

 Table 4 points to the fact that all settlers do not move smoothly through the

 pioneer, experimentation, and consolidation phases. As a group, settlers are heter

 ogeneous in terms of their success on the frontier. Some do well, some fail and in

 between most meet variable success. As a result, settler populations may be highly

 differentiated in terms of their economic welfare. Recent studies in both the

 Amazon and Central America document this economic differentiation and

 inequality among settlers households (see for example, Brondizio et al., 2002;

 McCracken, Siqueria, Moran, & Brondizio, 2002; Perz, 2001; Walker, Perz, Caldas,

 Silva, & Guilherme, 2002 on Brazil; Carr, 2002; D. Carr, submitted; Carr, 2004c on

 Guatemala; Deininger & Minton, 1999; Deininger & Min ten, 2002 on Mexico;

 Escobal & Aldana, 2003; Swinton & Quiroz, 2003; Takasaki et al., 2001 on Peru;

 Bilsborrow, Barbieri, & Pan, 2004; Marquette, 1998, Murphy et al., 1997; Murphy,

 2001; Pan, Bilsborrow, & Murphy, 2003; Pich?n, 1997a, b; Pich?n et al., 2001; 2002

 on Ecuador).

 Table 5 brings together some of main factors that may be driving this economic

 differentiation based on the recent studies cited above. These factors fall roughly

 into four categories: (1) structural socioeconomic, political, and organizational

 conditions on the frontier; (2) farm characteristics; (3) 'history' or significant period

 events; and (4) household socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Overlaps

 and interrelationships between these categories of factors clearly exist. For example,

 the farm characteristics of road access is connected to structural conditions shaping

 the development or road infrastructure. However, many of the above studies that

 provide insight on the determinants of settler welfare are statistical multivariate ones

 that try to estimate the comparative importance of these four groups of factors. In

 these analyses, structural factors (1) and farm characteristics (2) emerge consistently

 as the most important cause of settler land use, productivity, and by inference,

 welfare (see Walker et al., 2002 for a review of these studies).

 Structural factors (1) encompass the key elements of civil, political, infrastructure,

 and land tenure organization on the frontier in which the settler household is im

 mersed. The structural factor of most importance may be that of the legal system

 that shapes land tenure security. If land tenure is not secure, a household may, in

 extreme cases, lose its land and foothold on the frontier. Also, a household that does

 not have secure tenure has little incentive to invest in the land. Given lack of land

 tenure security, a farm household may fail to succeed no matter what. Farm char

 acteristics (2) include plot size, quality, and road access. If a plot is very small or has

 unproductive soils, it will have lower baseline productivity regardless of other fac

 tors. Also, if it has poor access to roads the marketability of its products will be

 highly restricted. In this way, structural factors and farm characteristics together act

 as a basic "straightjacket" (Pich?n, 1997a, b) on settler production and welfare.

 'History' or period events (3) may also have profound significance for settler

 welfare. These kinds of events can include commodity booms or busts that affect the

 price and demand for crops, economic or political policies that may also affect prices,

 and armed conflicts or violent events that threaten the lives and livelihoods of set

 tlers (e.g. the 'drug war' in Colombia). It may also include the wave of settlement

 that a settler came in and whether they participated in a planned settlement project.

 Early settlers generally have better choice in terms of getting better quality and

 better-located plots near roads. Also, settlers who participate in planned settlement

 schemes organized by the state or private enterprises may be more likely to procure

 better plots with more secure land tenure. Analysis of early, planned, settlement

 schemes in Brazil has suggested that settlers who participated in these programs did

 not seem to benefit especially from more organized settlement strategies (see for

 example, Nelson, 1973). More recent research from Brazil implies that planned

 settlers can have certain advantages in terms of initial capital, access to basic

 410 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444

 services, better land quality, and more secure land tenure (Almeida & Campari,

 1995). In any case, the majority of settlers that come to tropical forest regions do not

 come as part of planned settlement projects but, are 'spontaneous' settlers who come

 to the frontier on their own.

 The socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the farm households (4)

 include their initial wealth upon settlement, duration of residence, household

 structure and labor availability (lifecycle effects), and educational and previous

 farming experience of the household head. These impact these household level

 factors, in particular household lifecycle effects, may have on settler economic

 success, differentiation, and welfare have received an increasing amount of attention

 in recent research. We, therefore, look more closely below at the insights this recent

 research on settler households offers toward understanding their welfare outcomes.

 Changes in Welfare over the Lifecycle of Settlers Households

 A revisionist approach has emerged that has reevaluated the potential that house

 holds have to 'tighten' or 'loosen' the "straightjacket" of structural and farm level

 factors shaping settler production and welfare (see Perz, 2001 for a detailed review

 of this literature). In this context, several studies have considered variation in settler

 economic outcomes over the course of the household 'lifecycle.' The household

 lifecycle refers to the series of demographic and economic changes that households

 pass through over time with the birth of children and loss and gain of household

 members through death or migration. In a frontier context, where the use of hired

 labor on household farms is limited, family labor is generally the same as farm labor.

 Thus, household demographic changes over time have direct implications for the

 basic level of need in the household (consumption), its capacity to meet those needs

 (the size of the household labor force), and the relationships between household

 needs and capabilities (the dependency ratio or burden).

 Recent studies indicate that although farm level factors and structural constraints

 may be most important, household lifecycle dynamics are evident and can have a

 significant effect on settler production and welfare (see Walker et al., 2002 for a

 review of this literature and individual studies by Bilsborrow et al., 2004; Brondizio

 et al, 2002; D. Carr, submitted; Hall, 1997; Marquette, 1998; McCracken et al., 2002;

 Pan et al, 2003; Perz, 2001, 2003; Perz & Walker 2002; Pich?n et al., 2001, 2002;

 Walker & Homma, 1996; Walker, Moran, & Anselin, 2000; Walker et al, 2002).

 Table 6 gleans information from these studies on the lifecycles stages settler

 household pass through and the agricultural strategy, labor, consumption, and wel

 fare characteristics associated with these different stages. Table 6 implies that

 household lifecycle shapes land use, economic outcomes, and welfare among settlers

 by affecting three areas: (1) household subsistence needs or consumption; (2)

 available household labor; and (3) cropping patterns and overall agricultural and

 economic strategy.

 'Young' households may be particularly vulnerable to failure on the frontier due

 to their small size, limited labor, and high dependency burdens. Young frontier

 households with small children have less adult labor and proportionally more con

 sumers than laborers. Adult men in these young households may have to work

 harder, on either their own farm or another, to make ends meet. Off-farm work by

 men in young households has implications for women and children since they may

 need to add agricultural tasks to their domestic activities when men are away.

 'Maturing' or 'mature' households may be better off than young households. They

 benefit from the 'natural' mechanism in which the birth and aging of children into

 laborers relaxes labor and consumption burdens as it increases the number of

 household laborers. Demographic development thus, turns from an economic con

 straint to an engine of economic development in older households. Increased labor

 options and more balanced labor/consumption ratios stimulate not only higher

 production in agriculture but also allow expansion into more lucrative activities such

 as the production of cash crops, cattle raising, and off-farm employment. On the

 other hand, there may be other maturing or mature households in which their

 demography continues to works against them due to events such as deaths and out

 migration, which may suppress any increase in household labor over time. These

 kinds of adverse demographic events may keep even older households in the same

 precarious terrain as younger households.

 Household lifecycle dynamics provide some insight into why settler households

 are able to diversify their economic activity over time. Relaxed labor constraints due

 to later household lifecycle may facilitate diversification by allowing some house

 holds to position more labor in off-farm work or even higher paying non-agricultural

 work as they mature. Both cattle raising and perennial crop growing maybe more

 labor intensive than food crops, such that households can undertake them only at

 maturing and mature lifecycle stages when there is more labor available (McCracken

 et al., 2002. p.188). This may partly explain why cattle raising is associated with

 households only at later durations of settlement (ibid; Marquette, 1998; Murphy,

 2001). The household lifecycle also brings to the front the dynamic nature of settler

 welfare. When we look at welfare changes over the household lifecycle, we see it is

 not a static question of whether or not basic or other needs are met. Rather, it is a

 negotiated balance or 'welfare function,' which changes over time depending on

 what households need at a particular moment in time and how well they can meet

 those needs.

 The lifecycle affects that shape settler welfare can be more complex than Table 6

 implies. Household lifecycle and duration of frontier settlement may frequently par

 allel each other, that is, many settlers come to the frontier as young households and

 mature on the frontier (McCraken et al., 2002, p. 173 on Brazil; Meertens, 1993, p. 264

 on Colombia; Marquette, 1998 on Ecuador). But, households may also come to the

 frontier at different stages in their lifecycle not only at the initial stages. Some

 'households' may not even come to the frontier as a household but rather migrate

 gradually. Men may come first to establish a farm and the family may "reconstitute"

 itself progressively as it accrues the assets necessary to support a larger group (see

 Sydenstricker Neto & Vosti, 1993 on Brazil and Meertens, 1993, p. 262 on Colombia).

 In addition to intra-household lifecycle effects, there are also inter-household

 'cohort' effects that shape settler welfare over time. Frontiers are a "landscape"

 (Brondizio et al., 2002) that blends together older and newer settlement areas made

 up of "cohorts" or groups of households that settle at different times (McCracken

 et al., 2002). These different settlement cohorts may experience very different sets of

 temporal conditions and thus, can reflect very different farm, land use, and pro

 duction strategies, and ultimately, very different welfare outcomes. For example,

 one cohort effect is that settlers that come to the frontier in the early years of

 frontier development will as a group generally procure better quality land near

 roads. Cohort effects also intersect with the 'history or period events' discussed in

 Table 5. For example, certain cohorts of settlers will experience the same set of

 temporal conditions if they participate together in a planned settlement scheme, or

 are subject to a given set of economic or policy changes, commodity booms or busts,

 or violent events linked to the flare up of armed conflicts.

 It is also important to recognize the interactions that exist between household

 lifecycle effects, farm size, and plot quality over time particularly over generations of

 settlement. The quality and the size of settler plots play an important role in shaping

 overall economic differentiation between settlers households at the start. House

 holds with larger and higher quality plots clearly have greater flexibility in devel

 oping livelihood and farming strategies, greater and more diverse income, and

 ultimately better welfare outcomes (Pich?n, 1997a, b). In this context, farm size and

 land quality again act as a natural resource "straight jacket" which can tighten or

 loosen the effects of other structural and household level factors (assests brought to

 the frontier, demographic composition, credit and technical assistance availability)

 (Pich?n, 1997a, b).

 Evidence from the Ecuadorian Amazon suggests, however, that changes in

 household size and composition over successive generations of settler households

 alters the nature of this 'straight jacket.' In response to household lifecycle changes

 settlers may subdivide their original plot for children leading to subsequent reduc

 tions in farm size, overall land fragmentation and declines in individual plot quality

 which may have negative implications in welfare over successive generations (Bar

 bieri & Carr, 2005; Bilsborrow & Pan, 2004; Laurian, Bilsborrow, & Murphy, 1998;

 Murphy, 1998, 2001; Murphy et al., 1997; Pan et al., 2003, 2004). The division of

 settler plots over successive generations has also come to play an important role in

 driving out-migration among second and later generations settlers, particular among

 younger women in settler households (discussed further in Section Women's welfare

 on the frontier). This pattern of out-migration may have both positive (in terms of

 remittance-sending) or negative income and welfare outcomes for the later gener

 ations of settler households who both remain on as well as leave the frontier

 (Barbieri & Carr, 2005; Bilsborrow & Pan, 2004).

 The studies discussed above that have considered settler household lifecycle,

 focus almost exclusively on the Amazon, particularly in Brazil and Ecuador. Because

 of a lack of comparative research for Central America, it is difficult to know if these

 Amazon also prevail in Central America.

 Education, Health, and Welfare among Settlers

 So far, our consideration of settler welfare has focused mainly on economic welfare

 linked to their agricultural production strategies and economic activity. But, a

 recurring subtheme in many of the studies discussed above is that a lack of basic

 services in health and education (a structural factor reflected in Table 5) creates

 underlying challenges to settler production and their daily quality of life and welfare.

 We consider education and health conditions among settlers more closely below.

 Education

 Despite their importance, there appears to be little systematic or comparative recent

 information on education or health on tropical forest frontiers in Latin America.

 Information on formal education on the frontier, for example, on the availability of

 schools or levels of education, is basically anecdotal. Some household surveys

 looking at land use among settlers have asked about attendance at school for chil

 dren (see for example Pich?n, 1997a in Ecuador). In Ecuador, attendance by chil

 dren appears to be low and seasonal. Apparently, if children are old enough to go to

 school, they are old enough to work on the farm, which takes precedence. Studies of

 settlers, which do consider education, look generally at education of the household

 head in relation to land clearing (see Escobal & Aldana, 2003 on Peru; Godoy et al.,

 1998 for Honduras; D. Carr, submitted on Guatemala; Murphy, 2001 on Ecuador).

 These studies find, not surprisingly, that more educated heads have economically

 better-off households. But, education of the household head, among first generation

 settlers at least, tells more about their area of origin than the frontier. 'Continuing'

 education, such as training in agricultural methods or marketing is occurring through

 numerous projects (see for example, Wyels, 2003 on Costa Rica) and technological

 assistance programs. There appears to be little recent systematic analysis of these

 types of opportunities as well.

 Health

 Health conditions have particularly important implications for welfare because they

 affect not only daily quality of life but also household labor availability and pro

 ductivity. Limited information on settler health exists, is mainly on health outcomes

 as opposed to services, and covers, mainly, Brazil or Ecuador. Evidence from the

 Brazilian Amazon, suggests that settlers in tropical forest frontiers may be subject to

 disease vectors particular to moist forest habits including: malaria, river blindness,

 filiarisis, and schistosomiasis (Moran, 1981, p.183). Also rates of injuries, skin

 infections and the prevalence of childhood illnesses such as gastrointenstinal infec

 tions, parasites, and respiratory infections may be high (ibid). The diets of settlers

 may also be deficient with malnutrition common among children (ibid). Poor health

 directly contributes to settlers leaving the frontier since households with more days

 lost due to disease and fewer children attending school may abandon their plots

 more frequently than others (Moran, 1989).

 A cluster of studies has looked specifically at malaria on the frontier. Sawyer

 (1992) suggests that the movement of large populations into the Brazilian Amazon

 has created new conditions and patterns of malaria transmission on the frontier,

 which may be particularly difficult to control. Because settlers may come to the

 Amazon at older ages, they do not have natural immunity to malaria and are more

 susceptible to contracting it. Low immunity, temporary and often unsanitary con

 ditions of frontier settlement, high and intense exposure to bites, high-levels out

 door transmission rates, and drug-resistant strains create a particularly unstable

 pattern of "frontier malaria" (Sawyer, 1992, p. 11). He suggests that transmission

 may peak over time as progressively more areas of forest area cleared. Poorer

 settlers may be more likely to contract malaria since there is an association between

 higher economic status, knowledge of preventative measures such as insecticide, and

 lower incidence of illness (Sawyer, 1993).

 Sawyer (1992) notes that although malaria control was an important part of public

 health measures outside the Amazon, it has not been within it. Efforts at eradication

 and treatment similar to those in settled regions in Brazil, improvements in house

 hold dwellings and compounds, and reducing modifications of the environment can

 decrease disease transmission. Like Moran (1989), Sawyer also concludes that

 malaria has contributed to instability in settlement and high settler turnover on the

 frontier and imposes economic and social costs that extend far beyond those of the

 illness, itself (Sawyer, 1993). A more recent study in settlement areas in the Brazilian

 Amazon linking social and geographic data has shown that ecological changes due to

 patterns of forest clearing, land use, and community organizational factors may also

 affect rates of malaria transmission and infection (Singer & de Castro, 2001). Carr

 (submitted) confirms that malaria has similar negative impacts on settler welfare in

 the Peten in Guatemala.

 Ecuador has been the focus of several health studies with regard to pollution

 caused by oil extraction in the region. Settlers are exposed to water and solid waste

 pollution from oil activity due to pipeline spills and leaks. This exposure to crude oil

 and other industry contaminants, either directly or through drinking water, may

 contribute to higher levels of blood disorders and cancer among settler groups

 (Center for Economic and Social Rights, 1994). In the early 1990s there appears to

 have been no effective regulation of the petroleum industry or effective way of

 enforcing their compliance with environmental regulations (ibid).

 These conditions likely persist to date. A press release by the Pan American

 Health Organization (PAHO) in April 2004, titled "La explotaci?n del petr?leo en

 la cuenca amaz?nica del Ecuador produce una emergencia sanitaria" (Petroleum

 development in the Ecuadorian Amazon has produced a health emergency), pre

 sents data from a health analysis in the area. This report indicates that contamination

 of water sources used by frontier communities due to petroleum industry activity has

 created concentrations of hydrocarbons as much as 100 times the limits specified by

 the European Union. Health outcomes for women have been particularly adverse

 with increased incidence of debilitating illnesses and a doubling of spontaneous

 abortion rates in communities in the vicinity of petroleum activity. These studies

 suggest that measures to address the frontier health situation in Ecuador must also

 include industrial regulation and environmental cleanup in addition to better pro

 vision of services.

 Women's Welfare on the Frontier

 Recent analysis of welfare outcomes for subgroups of the settler population, such as

 women, is as sparse as data on health and education. Women's and health issues

 intersect with regard to reproductive health on the frontier. Despite excellent

 reproductive health information for women throughout Latin America, little direct

 data exist on this among frontier settlers. Surveys in both Brazil and Ecuador,

 suggest that rates of natural increase are higher in frontier areas because of higher

 birth rates. This is partly related to poorer access to health and thus, contraception

 services in frontier areas (Thapa, Bilsborrow, & Murphy, 1996a, b). Concurrently,

 perinatal as well as child mortality may also be higher because of higher numbers of

 unattended births and poor health service access on the frontier. No information

 could be located in this review on maternal mortality among settler women but it is

 also likely higher for the same reasons.

 In studies in frontier areas in Bolivia and Mexico, Townsend (1995, p. 32)

 observes that women settlers in Latin America may experience declines in their

 overall status and well being on the frontier. While they may have owned and

 managed assets in their areas of origin, for example, they generally have to relin

 quish these on the frontier. Women may also be less integrated into agricultural

 extension and training activities on the frontier, which are often open exclusively to

 men. Based on study in the Colombian frontier, Townsend concludes that women

 settlers undergo a process of "housewifisation" (ibid, p. 41) in which they give up

 any involvement in agricultural activity to undertake full-time work in childbearing,

 childcare, food preparation, and household chores such as washing and cleaning.

 Women may also have little separate economic power or control over income and

 may not be able to hold land titles (ibid). Studies in Guatemala also indicate that

 land tenure systems may formally exclude women from holding land titles and from

 participation in training activities (Monterroso, 2003).

 A study of women settlers in the tropical forest settlement areas in the Mexican

 lowlands reveals a glimpse into two other factors that may shape the quality of

 women's lives on the frontier: domestic violence and high labor burdens (Townsend,

 1995, p. 57). The life histories of women settlers in these frontier areas suggested

 alcoholism among spouses and domestic violence were main concerns. Women

 settlers who had no contact with kin were particularly vulnerable to physical abuse

 by their spouse. Study among the Mexican women settlers, however, also suggests

 that over time, if frontier services improve, so can women's lives, in terms of their

 economic participation and training opportunities. Many of the women interviewed

 successfully undertook their own agroforestry activities based in home gardens,

 which allowed them to remain close to their house. The productive potential of their

 garden activity, though, was limited by a lack of markets for their products. Eco

 tourism around protected areas in Guatemala, as well as in Mexico also presents new

 kinds of opportunities for women in handicraft production (Langholz, 1999; Vel

 azquez et al., 2003).

 There is some detailed information on women's labor participation among settlers

 in Colombia (Meertens, 1993) and Ecuador (Thapa et al., 1996a, b). On the

 Colombian frontier, women's labor burdens increase during early stages of settle

 ment when they coincide with early lifecycle stage. Women in this situation have the

 double burden of caring for young children and working on the farm (Meertens,

 1993). Contrary to a trend toward 'housewifization', in early stages of settlement

 women generally participated more in agricultural activities, as they had done in

 their area origin. They also maintained this level of participation afterwards,

 although the intensity of their work declined over the household lifecycle as children

 helped out. Frontier settlement in the Colombian case led to a greater flexibility in

 women's labor. The implications for women's welfare are that, over time on the

 frontier, their labor burdens may decrease. Yet, their repertoire of labor skills may

 expand providing greater economic flexibility for both themselves and their house

 holds.

 In Ecuador, there were less flexible women's labor patterns. Households tended

 to use hired labor instead of women's labor in agriculture. Households were also

 likely to resort to off-farm labor to earn income rather than intensify farming by

 increasing women's work on the farm. Younger women with younger children or in

 households with larger crop areas were more likely to work in agriculture confirming

 a lifecycle effect similar to that observed in Colombia. In the Ecuadorian Amazon,

 diversification into cattle raising meant that women were even less likely to be

 involved in agriculture probably because crop areas were reduced. Study in Ecuador

 indicates that creating opportunities for off-farm labor may be a positive way of

 maintaining household income and not increasing labor burdens on women (Thapa

 et al., 1996a, b).

 Information from the Ecuadorian Amazon (Thapa et al., 1996a, b) also provides

 some insight into the socio-economic background of women settlers. They were on

 average in their late 1930s and divided in terms of urban or rural background. Their

 educational level was low with most having less than a primary education. In the

 Ecuadorian Amazon, women settlers may leave the frontier more frequently than

 men by out-migrating to urban areas; where they take up jobs in non-agricultural

 occupations One of the effects of this is that second generation women settlers may

 achieve higher educational levels than their brothers (Laurien et al., 1998). But, the

 higher rates of out-migration among women may also be an indicator of their limited

 labour opportunities, high labor burdens, and overall lower quality of life on frontier

 farms.

 Evidence from the Ecuadorian Amazon suggests that limited labour opportu

 nities for women on the frontier, in turn, are part of a "vicious cycle" linked to

 resource degradation (Barbieri & Carr, 2005). A lack of economic opportunities

 linked to reductions in farm size, plot fragmentation, and increasing deforestation

 may create particular pressure on second and later generation female settlers to

 leave the frontier for urban areas either on or off the frontier. Their male coun

 terparts, in contrast, may migrate less or if they do tend to migrate to other

 agricultural areas on the frontier. This differential pattern of out-migration to

 urban areas by successive generations of female settlers has several potential

 implications for women's welfare on the frontier. It suggest clearly that economic

 opportunities and ultimately welfare may be lower for women than men on the

 frontier and that in order to improve their economic well being they may have no

 choice but to migrate. Existing research, however, does not provide any clear

 indication of whether women out-migrants from settler households actually do

 better in terms of income and welfare compared to those who do not leave the

 frontier household.

 Studies in the Peruvian Amazon and elsewhere also support the fact that adverse

 power structures and social hierarchical relationships, lack of land entitlement and

 asset ownership among women in settler households on the forest frontier may drive

 women more to out-migrate from settler households and away from agricultural

 frontier to nearby or more distant urban and other areas en (Lawson, 1998;

 Radcliffe, 1991,1992 in the Peruvian Amazon). Wider theory on sex differentials in

 migration in Latin America also supports the possibility that differentially greater

 out-migration by women from frontier households, especially to urban areas, may be

 traced to the interplay between remittance sending patterns, women's more

 submissive status in settler households, and their potentially lower welfare on the

 frontier. Women in settler households may undertake labor out-migration or be

 'pushed-out' more from frontier households because their lower status makes them

 more submissive to the household head and, in turn, more reliable as remittance

 senders (Bilsborrow, 1993; Guest, 1993).

 In the above discussion, we have tried to survey existing research on the key

 characteristics and determinants of settler welfare on tropical forest frontiers in the

 Amazon and Central America. We now turn to consider the link between settler

 welfare and sustainable development in these frontier regions.

 Integrating Settler and Forest Welfare: Sustainable Development on the Frontier

 Exploring the disconnect between settler and forest welfare in Latin America has

 been a major focus of study. The example par excellence of conflicts between settler

 and forest welfare is cattle raising. Cattle offer settlers a profitable and multifunc

 tional production option, which can provide cash, savings, liquid assets, food secu

 rity, and status better than other alternatives, including cash crop production. Most

 settlers aspire to own cattle and better-off settlers almost always do. The expansion

 of pasture areas for cattle is a main and unique driver of forest clearing in Latin

 America (Geist & Lambin, 2001, Table 1, p. 26). Conflicts between settler and forest

 welfare that revolve around cattle are a prime example of the "dilemma" (Moran,

 1983) of tropical forest development in Latin America. Sustainable development in

 these regions rests on the possibility that this dilemma can be resolved. We consider

 that possibility further below.

 Sustainable Development and Settler Welfare in the Amazon

 The Risks of Productive Deforestation

 Several recent studies wrestle with the concept of sustainable development in forest

 frontiers and what current socioeconomic and land use patterns bode for achieving it

 (Almeida & Campari, 1995; Hall, 1997; Perz, 2001; Walker & Homma, 1996; Pasos

 et al., 1994; Wyles, 2003). Table 7 summarizes some definitions, prospects, and policy

 implications found in these recent studies. Almeida and Campari (1995) define sus

 tainable development as a condition on the frontier where settlers farm a single area of

 land over time with little plot turnover. If settlers improve their welfare and income,

 they invest returns from agriculture in intensive rather than extensive agricultural

 expansion activities (e.g. intensifying output on their existing cleared area rather than

 clearing more of it for crops or pasture) (ibid, p. 49). They explore the extent to which

 these conditions of sustainable development exist in the Brazilian Amazon using a

 panel study from 1981 to 1991 of settlers in a planned settlement along the Transam

 azon highway in Para (Easter Brazil) and another in Mato Grosso (Western Brazil).

 The welfare of many settlers in the study areas clearly increased in the 10 years

 between 1981 and 1991. Returns to labor, land prices, and net wealth rose for all

 settlers during ten-year period (ibid, Table A.12, p. 101) while even those who had

 low absolute income levels could still earn twice the amount or more than do the rest

 of the labor force in Brazil (ibid, p. 51). However, their analysis emphasizes that

 increased settler welfare leads mainly to more rather than less clearing in two ways.

 First, although land prices rose in the region, actual returns to land for small farmers

 did not since the price of their food and cash crops were stagnant during the 1980s.

 The combination of low returns to land, yet high returns to labor and rising land

 values created high potential capital gains from selling land. This made it worthwhile

 for less well-off and lower productivity farmers to continue to farm but also to sell

 their plot and move on to a new one. As a result, many farmers sold their land,

 reaped the capital gains, and moved on to clear land elsewhere and start the same

 process again. Although this process of "itinerant accumulation" was salient in the

 1980s, Almeida and Campari imply that it had probably been going on for some time

 (ibid, .47).

 Another path to more forest clearing linked to improved economic welfare was

 that of "productive deforestation" (ibid, p. 41). In this situation, higher productivity

 farms have more incentive to remain on their plots due to greater returns to land but

 they may use their higher agricultural returns to invest in increased land extensive

 activities (expanding crop areas or areas of pasture for cattle) rather than for inputs

 that would allow them to use existing land more intensely and thus, clear less forest.

 Rising welfare indicators among the settlers studied in Brazil were, however, asso

 ciated with a trend towards increased diversification out of agriculture. This decrease

 in dependence on agriculture might contribute to less clearing in the long term.

 Based on these findings for Brazil, policies for promoting sustainable develop

 ment on the frontier may need to include locally directed and enforceable efforts

 (such as collecting capital gains taxes) that encourage settlers to stay on rather than

 sell their plots, disseminating agricultural technologies (options such as agroforestry)

 that increase the intensive use of land and enhance forest cover, and exploring the

 potential for diversification of economic activity (ibid, p.63ff). In all these activities,

 local NGO's can play an important role as brokers between farmers, government

 agencies, and international organizations.

 The Possibility for Productive Conservation

 Almedia and Campari's study, defines sustainable development on the frontier in

 terms of processes such as "productive deforestation" or "itinerant accumulation,"

 which stand it its way. This contrasts with more recent discussions on sustainable

 development within the revisionist approach discussed above in the section on

 changes in settler welfare over time. They proactively search out examples of sus

 tainable development rather than only conditions that prevent it (Perz, 2001, p. 93ff).

 These recent studies also pay more attention to the human side of the welfare

 equation and try to "articulate a concept that more concretely captures both the

 social and environmental dimensions of sustainability." (Perz, 2001, p. 93). Inter

 estingly, although many of these revisionist studies look at the same geographic area

 in Brazil as Almeida and Campari (1995), they arrive at quite different insights.

 The idea of "productive conservation" (Hall 1997) is a key concept emerging

 from this recent revisionist literature. Productive conservation can be seen as a more

 concrete term for sustainable development which means that small farmers and

 other groups generate acceptable incomes while sustaining the forest resource base

 (Hall, 1997; Perz 2001, p. 93). Productive conservation occurs when the conditions

 creating 'improved' welfare (see Table 5; for example, secure land tenure, later

 lifecycle stage, more assets on settlement, better community organization, etc.) occur

 alongside more sustainable farming techniques involving more intensive use of

 pasture and agricultural land, active rotation and fallow management on multiple

 plots, and the investment of proceeds in agroforestry activities (as opposed to in

 creased number of cattle, for example). Empirical evidence suggests that connec

 tions between increased settler economic welfare, intensive production, and less

 forest clearing do occur among some settler households (Perz, 2001).

 The question is what determines whether or not settler households, particularly

 better off settler households, will follow the path of productive conservation? Hall

 (1997) suggests that the key is knowledge and opportunity. Most settlers are not

 aware of or do not have access to the technologies needed for adopting profitable

 sustainable alternatives to cattle raising like agroforestry. He suggests that given

 other equally profitable options settlers would opt for less environmentally

 destructive practices since they ultimately value the resource base upon which they

 depend. He also notes that sustainable production strategies may have the best

 chance of success in older frontiers because these areas have more developed

 markets, are better integrated into expanding urban economies and have more

 developed extension support via NGOs and other groups (ibid, p. 204). Local

 mobilization around conservation strategies including, community management of

 forests and community participation in plans for resource management, may be key

 in getting households to actively weigh the short-term needs of households, the risk

 of resource degradation, the long-term interests of communities, and forest con

 servation together. NGOs may have an important role to play in encouraging this.

 Walker and Homma (1996) extend the range of human welfare issues that may

 interact with environmental ones to create sustainability on tropical forest frontiers

 beyond consideration of economic welfare alone. (Their observations are based

 again on roughly the same study area in Brazil considered by Perz, 2001; Hall, 1997

 and Almeida & Campari, 1995 discussed above). They offer what they call a "largely

 intuitive" definition of sustainability for farming systems as "the reproducibility of

 the farm household social unit through adequate economic performance." Although

 this definition lacks a conservation component, they imply that agroforestry systems

 may be the most sustainable option available to households in terms of farming

 systems.

 Walker and Homma (1996) conclude that in older longer settled frontier areas

 such as the Brazilian Amazon, where land concentration processes have been in

 motion for some time, additional social welfare issues beyond merely income may

 shape possibilities for sustainable development. They particularly single out land

 reform and rural violence, two factors which indicate that "sustainable relations with

 the environment necessarily involve positive relationships between individuals and

 social groups" (p. 77). Policies that address poverty (extension activity and devel

 opment of public services) are thus, automatically policies that promote conserva

 tion. Because of the importance of wider social factors, such as land distribution and

 violence, they conclude it is important to "resist temptations to view sustainability in

 the Brazilian Amazon as an environmental problem requiring only a technical

 solution." (p.77).

 Sustainable Development and Settler Welfare in Central America

 The question arises, whether the concept of and prospects for sustainable develop

 ment in the Brazilian Amazon, and specifically the Transamazon area, are similar in

 Central America? Costa Rica, for example, presents a contrasting picture to the

 Brazilian Amazon in terms of the much smaller quantity of forest areas available to

 settlers (see Table 2). Also in Costa Rica, small-farmers reflect a stronger depen

 dence on coffee, a cash crop that is tied directly to global export markets. At the

 same time, remaining forest areas are largely absorbed into protected areas, which

 occupy a quarter of the country's land. Because of these conditions, Costa Rica is

 often used as an example of a 'closed' frontier where there is little land or oppor

 tunity for small-farmer settlement remaining (Schelas, 1996).

 Other countries in Central America share similar characteristics with Costa Rica

 in terms of much smaller size forests and smaller proportions of remaining forests

 relative to their national area (see Table 2). These smaller areas contribute to higher

 overall rates of forest change in Central America than the Amazon. Not suprisingly,

 Central American countries generally have higher portions of their remaining forest

 in protected areas (see Table 2). In Central American countries like Costa Rica,

 frontier settlement may more concentrated in the buffer zones around protected

 areas than it is in the Amazon. The margins or buffer areas around protected areas in

 Central America also bring settler-farming populations together with more long

 settled and often indigenous groups that traditionally depend more on often more

 sustainable forest extractive activities. Central America thus, presents some unique

 challenges and options with regard to sustainable development.

 Pasos et al. (1994) carried out a multi-country study in Central America (Mexico,

 Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama) of sus

 tainable forest use in areas around protected areas a decade ago, which still provides

 some of the only substantial, empirical, and comparative insight on the issue for

 Central America. Sustainable development on the expanding agricultural frontier is

 viewed as a process where with common pool resources, such as forests, individual

 needs and interests need to be integrated with the imperatives of economic devel

 opment and conservation. However, the interests of all groups may not be given

 equal weight in this process and the state may need to play a mediating role.

 Communities linked to conservation projects in protected areas considered in the

 study include: Quintana Roo, Mexico; Bosque Latifoliado, Honduras; Rio San Juan,

 Nicaragua; the Llanuras de Tortuguero, and the Peninsula de Osa in Costa Rica.

 Projects in these communities involved efforts to encourage small farmers around

 the protected areas to diversify into different food crops, and agroforestry as well as

 to expand into ecotourism. They also encouraged experimentation and exchange

 between farmers and technical training in environmental practices and education.

 Support was also given to meet labor requirements at harvest time as well as the

 processing and marketing of crops grown. Also alternative sources of credit were

 opened up to allow farmers to increase their income in the short term for farm

 activities.

 An analysis of the results of these efforts reflect several successes with regard to

 increasing both human and forest welfare for settlers (and indigenous groups)

 around the parks. These include: increasing community control over extractive re

 sources; increased links to markets for selling these resources; the effective dis

 semination of experimental or innovative intensive agricultural practices (e.g. use of

 green manure, "frijol abono," or mulch plants on fallow fields) as well as other

 intensive technologies; the creation of successful incentives for undertaking con

 servation measures in farming and extractive activities; and the establishment of a

 germplasm bank (ibid, Table (Cuadro) No. 15, pp. 94-95). Challenges encountered,

 included: the need to regulate extractive activities and define what sustainable levels

 of extraction are; encouraging more diverse economic strategies; developing weak

 market structures; and increasing community articulation with protected areas.

 The study identifies several key elements that are necessary for advancing human

 and forest welfare together in the protected areas considered. The Costa Rican and

 Guatemalan areas suggest that there is very good potential for diversification

 through agroforestry activities. The Peten in Guatemala, and Dari?n area in Panama

 suggest that ecotourism also represents an important and ecologically sustainable

 area for households to diversify into including the production of artisanal crafts. The

 Guatemala, Costa Rica and Nicaragua study areas, in which coffee growing is

 important, suggest that the promotion and marketing of organic coffee may increase

 both income and conservation outcomes among small farmers in buffer zones.

 The buffer zones also raise the need for special attention to interactions between

 settlers and indigenous groups. As the authors observe, "En Centroam?rica

 virtualmente todo el escenario de la frontiera agr?cola, corresponde a zonas de

 poblaci?n ind?gena." (In Central America almost the entire agricultural frontier is

 an area of indigenous population) (Ibid, p. 101 and Map (Mapa) No.3, p. 20).

 Decentralization of forest and protected area management activities to local com

 munities would also facilitate better outcomes in terms of human welfare, conser

 vation and community participation by allowing more grassroots local-level

 assessments and policy responses.

 Secondary Succession, Cattle, and Settler Welfare

 We look briefly at two special areas of interest in the current research relevant to

 sustainable development and settler welfare on forest frontiers: secondary succession

 of forest cover and cattle raising. Patterns of secondary succession of forest cover or

 the regrowth of vegetation in cleared areas on settler plots have important con

 nections to settler welfare as well as conservation outcomes. In recent years longi

 tudinal analysis of satellite imagery for frontier areas has revealed the development

 of secondary succession areas in settlement areas on forest frontiers in both the

 Amazon and Central America (see Alvarez & Naughton-Treves, 2003; Coomes,

 Grimard, & Burt, 2000; Smith et al, 1998 on Peru; Brondizio et al., 2002; Dunkhorst

 et al., 2003; McCracken et al., 2002; Moran, Packer, Brondizio, & Tucker, 1996;

 Moran, Brondizio, & McCracken, 2002; Perz, 2002; Uhl & Nepstad, 2000; Walker,

 1999 on Brazil; and Velasquez et al., 2003 on M?xico). This regrowth is generally

 seen as a positive outcome in terms of forest welfare in that it reestablishes some

 degree of the original cover.

 Secondary succession also appears to be associated with higher household welfare

 and later lifecycle stages, which in turn lead to the greater maintenance of fallows

 leading to secondary succession. However, these trends occur alongside expansion

 into other activities such as cattle raising making the conservation implications

 mixed. The prevalence of secondary succession and pasture management has also

 been linked to the age of the frontier. In a country, like Costa Rica, where the

 frontier is old or 'closed' and primary forest is scarce, increased secondary succession

 linked to management of secondary fallow and active reforestation may be more

 common (Coomes et al., 2000; Schelhas, 1996).

 An important question raised by secondary succession with regard to settler

 welfare is whether it occurs as the result of active fallow management, active

 reforestation, or land abandonment. If succession results from fallow management

 or reforestation it implies some degree of active participation by settlers in con

 servation practices that have potential positive implications for forest cover. How

 ever, if it occurs because of plot abandonment, secondary succession is the positive

 outcome, from the forest perspective, of a negative process from the human welfare

 perspective or the failure of settler households on the frontier. Current research has

 yet to fully explore the comparative prevalence of each of these causes of secondary

 succession.

 Cattle ranching is of particular concern in the context of sustainable development

 and human welfare on the frontier since, as noted above, it brings conflicts between

 settler and forest welfare into clear outline. It is also a major common driver of

 deforestation across the Amazon and Central America. Most studies confirm that

 cattle raising in the short-term is positively associated with welfare. It is better off

 households that undertake cattle raising or expand this activity and those who

 ?) Springer

 undertake it become better off (see McCracken et al., 2002; Moran et al., 2002;

 Pacheco, 2004; Porro, 2002; Vosti, Carpentier, Witcover, & Valentim, 2001; Vosti,

 Witcover, & Carpentier, 2002; Walker & Homma, 1996; Walker et al, 2000, 2002 on

 Brazil; Humphries, 1998; Pineda, 2002 on Honduras; Pich?n et al., 2002; Sierra, 1999;

 on Ecuador; Roebeling & Ruben, 2001; Schelhas, 1996 on Costa Rica; Swinton &

 Quiroz, 2003; Yanggen & Reardon, 2001 on Peru). Given the economic benefits of

 cattle, several studies do point to the possibility of making cattle raising more sus

 tainable among frontier farmers through better pasture management and more

 intensive use of pasture areas (Faminow, 1998 on the Amazon in general; Fearnside

 on Brazil 2002; White et al., 2001 on Colombia, Peru, and Costa Rica).

 As discussed in Section Changes in settler welfare over time, changes in labor

 over the household lifecycle that increase household labor and welfare also work to

 facilitate cattle production (McCracken et al., 2002). At the same time, the dynamics

 linking settler welfare and cattle raising may extend beyond the constraints of

 household labor. A main determinant of cattle raising may be not household labor,

 in the end, but hired labor. Settlers frequently use hired labor in their cattle raising

 rather than agricultural activities (Walker et al., 2000). Most of the above studies

 also indicate that the expansion of cattle raising on the frontier parallels, over the

 long term, processes of land concentration and growing inequities in land distribu

 tion as larger, better off household or commercial ranching operations accumulate

 the land of failed farms.

 Evidence from Brazil also suggests that off-farm labor and remittances may have

 an impact on the degree to which households are involved in cattle-raising (Browder

 & Godfrey, 1997). Off-farm remittances may be channeled more exclusively into

 land-extensive activities such as cattle-raising. Remittances may be thus, among

 settler households both a driver of forest clearing and the higher income generating

 and welfare benefits associated with greater involvement in cattle-raising over time.

 The types of conflicts that may exist between settler and forest welfare are thereby

 brought into clear focus through the lens of cattle-raising activity.

 Conclusions

 Because of the breadth of potential issues that 'settler welfare' may encompass, it is

 important to note the limitations of this review. The majority of studies reviewed

 come from published articles and books. The 'gray' literature (dissertations, thesis,

 presented papers), which often captures the most cutting edge or emergent research

 may not have been extensively covered. In particular, the gray literature in Spanish

 was probably insufficiently reviewed. The literature in Portuguese was also not

 covered at all which may result in the omission of important recent studies on the

 Brazilian Amazon. As in any study looking at frontier settlement, the literature on

 the Amazon and particularly the Brazilian Amazon dominates findings. An effort

 has been made to introduce studies from other Amazon countries, as well as Central

 America, but research and coverage is, for better or worse, proportional to forest

 size. It is difficult to escape the biases that may arise from the fact that most

 information on frontier settlers has come from Brazil. Also, only literature from the

 most obvious and direct social science disciplines involved in settler studies were

 surveyed. This may have limited the identification of studies on settler health,

 ? Springer

 426 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444

 education, and women. If the medical literature, women's studies, and education

 literatures were surveyed, particularly in Spanish and Portuguese, additional infor

 mation on these topics could be uncovered.

 It is important to note that there many more types of migration dynamics

 occurring on settler frontier (e.g. labor migration into frontier extraction industries

 such as with oil companies) than those considered here which also merit consider

 ation with regard to settler welfare. Of particular importance may be the more

 detailed consideration of temporary off-farm labor activity from settler households.

 Greater consideration of this type of economic mobility and role of remittances on

 the frontier are important for gaining more insight into to the ways in which com

 binations and interactions between on and off-farm income may affect settlers

 welfare. In this context, there is need for greater information on the off-farm activity

 and migration patterns of women from settler households.

 The potential role of off-farm activities and remittances is also an indicator of the

 continual penetration of the larger economic landscape into that of the frontier and

 the increasing articulation between the agricultural frontier, urban areas there, and

 urban and rural areas outside it. At the household level, articulations between the

 frontier, urban areas on he frontier, and areas beyond it have important implications

 for considering changes in settler household welfare over time. At the macro level,

 these articulations also merit attention from a welfare perspective in terms of their

 impact on the overall level of development of frontier and its integration into the

 larger physical, economic, welfare landscape of a country

 Much of the existing more detailed research on frontier settlers discussed in this

 review has been carried out at the household level. The implications of this are that

 this review strongly focuses on considering only household level income and welfare

 issues. However, settler welfare outcomes are ultimately the product of the inter

 action of conditions at not only the household but also community, regional, national

 and international levels (with respect to natural resource availability, human capital,

 credit markets, social services, physical infrastructure, extractive industry develop

 ment, and commodity and labor markets, etc..) (Pich?n, 1997a, b). The current

 predominance of largely household level information on settlers does not allow a

 complete exploration of these interactions.

 Greater consideration of these multilevel interactions are important since welfare

 implications may vary by level or even conflict. For example, although overall in

 come levels in a particular settlement community may be high there may be geo

 graphic pockets or clusters of poorer households due to variation in the quality of

 natural resource base at the household or subcommunity level, the variable insertion

 of households into nationally driven credit markets and internationally driven

 technical assistance programmes, and the spatial variation in the availability of these

 credit or technical assistance opportunities. Similarly, welfare measured in terms of

 educational level may vary by level of analysis. Completed educational levels at the

 individual level among household heads measured at a given time for example, may

 be very different from the educational levels actually being generated at the com

 munity level among children on the frontier where the availability of educational

 services (the prevalence of primary, secondary education) can be evolving or stag

 nant. It is important to take these kinds of multilevel interactions and potential

 multilevel conflicts in welfare outcomes into better account in the future.

 The limitations of the lack of solid longitudinal information on changes in settler

 household welfare overtime must also be recognized. Much of the existing research

 4y Springer

 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444 427

 discussed above that provides insight into settler welfare is cross-sectional investi

 gation (carried out at a given point in time) from which longitudinal inferences (what

 happens over time) are made. Even though an attempt has been made here to

 consider longitudinal changes in welfare among settlers over time this is limited by

 the lack of real longitudinal information. One area where this may be important is in

 terms of considering lagged effects on welfare, for example, the impacts over time

 which changing educational levels and economic aspirations may have on welfare on

 the frontier.

 In some sense, assessing these kinds of lagged impacts are at the core of assessing

 settler welfare. These is because settlers are above all economic migrants who make

 a present decision and take a present risk to come to the frontier mainly to improve

 their future economic status and welfare. Morevoer, they attempt to realize their

 future aspirations in a dynamically evolving environment where educational and

 economic opportunities may be changing quickly over time. The question is do their

 present decisions and risk taking (coming to the frontier) eventually pay off in future

 improvements in welfare? In short, what are the lagged effects of their present

 migration decision in terms of their future welfare? Only real longitudinal infor

 mation on settlers over time can adequately answer this question.

 Some important specific areas affecting settler welfare that were not addressed by

 this report bear highlighting. These include factors affecting peace and security on

 the frontier. The military has a strong presence in most frontier regions in Latin

 America and is often the most salient face of government authority there. In regions

 such as Colombia, the drug war leads to continual confrontations between the

 military, paramilitary agents and guerilla groups, which have important implications

 for setter welfare (see for example Cortez, 2004; Gonzalez Posso, 2004 on this for

 Colombia; United Nations and FAO, 2000 on Bolivia). This issue remains to be

 more fully explored in relation to settler welfare. Violence linked to conflicts over

 land is also an important area to consider further given the importance of land

 tenure in shaping settler welfare. Interactions between settler welfare and other

 important actors on the frontier such as frontier industries (oil industry activity in

 Ecuador, gold-mining in Brazil, and timber industry activity throughout) are also

 important to consider further.

 Another important political trend that merits consideration is the current shift

 towards decentralization of forest management in Latin America (Andersson, 2003,

 2004; Andersson, Clarke, Gibson, & Lehoucq, 2004; Larson, 2004; Pacheco, 2004;

 and Silvel & Sittman, 2004). This trend has important potential for improving settler

 welfare through the empowerment of local groups and decision-making structures. A

 related area that merits additional attention in relation to settler welfare is that of

 land tenure type or communally managed versus privately held land areas on the

 frontier. As noted frequently above, land tenure is a key structural factor shaping

 settler welfare outcomes. Several recent studies suggest that not only security of

 tenure but also tenure type may also be important. Settlers that are part of settle

 ment areas with communal access to land and forest resources, for example in

 frontier areas in the Mexican lowlands where "ejido" systems exist, may in some

 instances have better welfare outcomes and more sustainable forest use than settlers

 that depend on privately held plots (Barbier, 2002; Boege, 2001; Bray, Merino-Per?z

 & Barry, in press; Deininger & Minton, 1999; Deininger & Minten, 2002). This

 outcome is linked partly to the fact that communal arrangements may provide

 greater land tenure security and greater access to agricultural assistance. There is

 ^ Springer

 428 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444

 limited evidence from the Peten that suggests the same positive links between

 communal land ownership, welfare, and forest use outcomes (D. Carr, submitted).

 Settler welfare and sustainable development on the frontier, needs to be considered

 further in the context of current general debates on common property resource

 management (see, for example, Burger, Ostrom, Norgaard, Policansky, & Goldstein,

 2001; Gibson, McKean, & Ostrom, 2000; or Ellsworth, 2004).

 Within these limitations, this review has tried to examine factors shaping the

 welfare of settlers. The aim has been to look at current research in a 'people' as

 opposed to forest-centered way. Table 8 summarizes some of the main insights

 gained regarding settler welfare and their productive activity, changes in the frontier

 and households over time, health and education, women's welfare, and prospects for

 sustainable development.

 Although agricultural activity (especially subsistence production) is the center

 piece of most settler strategies, diversification into other activities (cash crops, cattle

 raising, off farm work) is an important part as well. Structural factors and conditions

 of the frontier may or may not evolve over time. If they do, settlers will be better off.

 If they do not, the welfare implications are significant. If the frontier fails to develop,

 settler welfare will not either. The structural conditions of the frontier, particularly

 with regard to land tenure, and farm-level characteristics are the most important

 determinants of settler welfare and act like a "straightjacket" on it (Pich?n, 1997a,

 b). The changing social and demographic characteristics of households over time, in

 particular changes linked to the household lifecycle and evolving labor supply and

 consumption needs in he household, may tighten or loosen the straightjacket of

 frontier conditions and farm characteristics. Overtime some households will improve

 their labor and productive capacity, and thus, chances for diversification, and eco

 nomic welfare. Other households, particularly at early or late lifecycle stages, will

 have the constraints of their own demography (few workers, many dependents)

 added to those of frontier conditions and farm limitations (e.g. less productive soils).

 At the extreme, these households may fail, abandon their plots, and leave the

 frontier. In between, "Most settlers are neither destitute nor particularly affluent but

 are making a difficult living" (Murphy, 2001, p. 74).

 Education and health services, are an example of other structural conditions on

 the frontier that significantly determine settler welfare. However, there is little

 information on them. The limited information that does exist suggests that settlers

 may be subject to numerous unique health threats and particular patterns of disease.

 In any case, weak health services make illness on the frontier both a health and

 development problem. Illness reduces daily quality of life but also labor productivity

 and ultimately settler success on the frontier. Women's welfare on the frontier ap

 pears to be mixed. In some cases their range of economic activities and empower

 ment narrows into the domestic sphere (e.g. in Bolivia, Mexico, Ecuador). In other

 settings, they may expand their activity and potential contributions to the household

 (e.g. in Colombia and in agroforestry activities). In either case, they likely have high

 labor burdens, particularly in young recently settled households, poorer reproduc

 tive health outcomes, and possibly experience high levels of domestic violence.

 Some specific policy findings emerge. In terms of the determinants of settler

 welfare (Table 5), investments in improving the basic infrastructure of frontier areas

 is key. These include strengthening legal systems that regulate land titling, providing

 credit and incentives for intensifying production, fair pricing, encouraging the

 growth of locally geared NGO and community based organization activity, and

 ? Springer

 improving infrastructure and access to basic services in health and education. Farm

 characteristics are not easily changed but measures can be taken to ameliorate the

 situation of households that do not have a good resource base in terms of soil quality

 and location. These include zoning of land quality, providing opportunities for

 diversification in terms of production and off-farm work, and improving road

 infrastructure.

 The constraints imposed by the sociodemographic characteristics of settler

 households as they change over the household lifecycle may be addressed by offering

 support to young households at early duration of settlement (in terms of start up

 capital and extension support) and encouraging diversification in their income

 sources. All the above measures would help households absorb the shocks or,

 alternatively, take advantage of the benefits offered by period events or 'history'

 such as commodity booms and busts, short-term economic and political changes, and

 violence on the frontier. Vulnerable subgroups such as women and children merit

 particular measures and consideration in any policy activity. Numerous studies and

 differential patterns of out-migration for women point to the potentially lower status

 and economic opportunity that women may experience on the frontier. At least one

 report notes that welfare outcomes for women in tropical frontier areas like Ecuador

 may be improved by the activity of international agencies and NGOs in frontier

 regions, which frequently place an emphasis on women and development (Mont

 erroso, 2003).

 The conflicts between human versus natural resource welfare that emerge around

 cattle-raising on the frontier make it a continuing challenge in defining sustainable

 production there. The potential for sustainable development on forest frontiers,

 which reconciles human and forest welfare clearly exists. However, a lack of

 awareness of alternatives to cattle raising is a significant barrier. Policy measures

 highlighted in Table 7, which can support sustainable development, include mea

 sures reinforcing more sustainable land use and agricultural options. This can in

 volve making agroforestry more profitable or subsidizing timber planting and the use

 of intensive farm inputs (e.g. fertilizer). Also, although conflicting evidence exists

 regarding the connections between cattle and higher welfare, any measures that

 reduce poverty among settlers are likely to improve conservation outcomes over the

 long-term. But, the challenge is significant. The importance of cattle raising in

 shaping settler welfare and conflicts between settler and forest welfare on the

 frontier needs to be seen in the context of cattle-raising's overall dominance within

 the agrarian sector in Latin America (Walker et al., 2000, p. 696). Altering current

 patterns of cattle raising on tropical forest frontiers may mean addressing "the

 underpinnings of the cattle economy itself" while continuing "the search for viable

 agricultural alternatives" (Walker et al., 2000, p. 696).

 The above review suggests that frontiers are a process, not a place. Similarly

 settler welfare is a dynamic function, not a static state. What settlers do may change

 significantly over time as they adapt or not to the frontier and as their households

 develop or not demographically and strategically. Time is important on the frontier

 and the recent literature emphasizes that longitudinal analysis of settler households

 is essential. This kind of longitudinal study reveals that neither frontiers nor

 households develop along any set or progressive trajectory. Some settlers do better

 over time, others do not, and most struggle. On the community-level varying

 household and frontier processes may drive economic differentiation on the frontier

 ?} Springer

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444 433

 and the possible replication or permutation of inequalities, land concentration, and

 poverty from areas of origin.

 Important regional similarities as well as differences exist between settlers in the

 Amazon and Central America. Some similarities are: the importance of subsistence

 agriculture in settler production, diversification of production to mitigate risk, and

 the common "straightjacket" effects that structural conditions and farm character

 istics have on shaping settler welfare. Even though all frontier settlers experience

 unique conditions of land abundance, they meet with differential economic success

 on the frontier. This economic differentiation is a feature of tropical forest frontiers

 in both regions.

 In the Amazon, forest areas are larger and take up a more significant part of

 national areas and are given more important priority in overall national planning

 and development. For this reason, the Brazilian Amazon may have received longer

 term investments by the government and may present settlers with more developed

 markets and greater chances for success. Cattle raising, although a common feature

 of settler production strategies overall, may be even more important in Central

 America. In Central America, however, smaller remaining forest cover has led to a

 situation where more remaining forest is in protected areas. This has important

 implications for settler production in terms of diversification. Options for diversifi

 cation into ecotourism, and possibly extractive activities may be greater in Central

 America due to the prevalence of protected areas and more interactions with

 indigenous groups involved in extractive activities. Proximity to large developed

 country markets in the United States, for example, may also mean that the pro

 duction strategies of settlers in Central America articulate more with international

 markets and cash crops such as organic coffee, which can be a profitable component

 within more sustainable agroforestry systems.

 The people-centered findings on settler welfare discussed in this review offer a

 start at balancing our increasingly extensive understanding of the environmental

 costs and benefits of forest conversion processes with a greater knowledge of the

 human ones. Greater insight into the welfare of people on forest frontiers, as we

 have attempted to undertake above, can provide a more complete definition of what

 sustainable development means on the frontier, in terms of both human and forest

 welfare. Existing forest-centered research on the causes of deforestation suggests

 that, in many cases, it is precisely the disconnect between human and forest welfare

 which drives continued forest clearing. Current research on the determinants of

 forest loss has afforded us detailed insight into these kinds of conflicts. A lack of

 equally detailed information on the welfare of frontier populations, though, may

 have prevented a better comparative sense of alternative scenarios or cases where

 rising standards of living on the frontier coincide with more sustainable forest use,

 forest conservation, and even forest regeneration.

 This review finds that studies of both the Amazon and Central American forest

 frontiers indicate that some settlers improve their standard of living and welfare on

 the frontier while conserving forest resources. Also, improved human welfare indi

 cators like greater income and education can engender less forest clearing indicating

 a positive feedback loop between human and forest welfare is possible. Further

 insight in the future into these kinds of positive outcomes may redress any negative

 bias regarding the connections between forest and human welfare in the existing

 literature. In any case, it will allow a more holistic assessment of the human and

 environmental costs and benefits of forest conversion processes in Latin America.

 ?} Springer

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 434 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-^44

 From a policy perspective, information on settler welfare and the ways in which

 human and forest welfare may positively interact will, undoubtedly, improve the

 lives of settlers. As indicated in the policy conclusions in Table 7, it also points to

 specific paths of sustainable development in tropical forest regions in Latin America.

 These are the paths that the small farmers, who make the extraordinary choice of

 coming to the frontier, must find if they are to realize their hope of a better life and

 preserve the forest resource base on which it all depends.

 References

 General Bibliography

 Almeida A. L. O. de (1992). The colonization of the Amazon. Austin, Texas: University of Texas

 Press.

 Almeida, A. L. O. de, & Campari, J.-o S. (1995). Sustainable settlement in the Brazilian Amazon.

 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and The World Bank.

 Alvarez, N., & Naughton-Treves, L. (2003). Linking national agrarian policy to deforestation in the

 Peruvian Amazon: A case study of Tambopata, 1986-1997. Ambio, 52(4), 269-274.

 Andersson, K. (2003). What motivates municipal government? Uncovering the institutional incen

 tives for municipal governance of forest resources in Bolivia. Journal of Environment and

 Development, 72(X), 1-23.

 Andersson, K. (2004). Who talks with whom? The role of repeated interactions in decentralized

 forest governance. World Development, 52(2), 233-349.

 Andersson, K. P., Gibson, C. C, & Lehoucq, F. (2004). The politics of decentralizing natural

 resource policy. Unpublished paper.

 Angelsen, A., & Kaimowitz, D. (2001). Introduction: The role of agricultural technologies in tropical

 deforestation. Agricultural technologies and deforestation.

 Barbier, E. B. (2002). Institutional constraints and deforestation: An application to Mexico. Eco

 nomic Inquiry, 40(3), 508-519.

 Becker, C, & Le?n, R. (2000). Indigenous forest management in the Bolivian Amazon. In C.

 Gibson, M. McKean, & E. Ostrom (Eds.), People and forests: Communities, institutions, and

 governance. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

 Bilsborrow, R. (1993). Internal female migration and development: An overview. In United Nations.

 Internal migration of women in developing countries. Proceedings of the United Nations Expert

 Meeting on the Feminization of Internal Migration. Aguas Calientes, M?xico, 22-25, October

 1991. United Nations: New York, pp. 1-22.

 Bilsborrow, R., Alisson Barbieri, F., & Pan, W. (2004). Changes in population and land use over time

 in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

 Boege, E. (2001). Protegiendo lo Nuestro. M?xico, D.F.: CONABIO-UNAM.

 Bray, B. D., Merino-Per?z, L., & Barry, D. (in press) The community managed forests of Mexico: The

 struggle for sustainability and equity. Florida: University of Florida Press.

 Bray, D. B. Adaptive management organizations and common property management: Perspectives

 from the community forests of Quintana Roo, Mexico. Paper prepared for the panel "Com

 munity Forestry in Mexico: Concordance and Contradiction between Institutions, Polices and

 Economies. Eighth Biennial Conference International Association for the Study of Common

 Property, Bloomington, Indiana, 31 May^ June.

 Brondizio, E. S., McCracken, S. D., Moran, E. F., Siqueria, A. D., Nelson, D. R., & Rodriguez

 Pedraza, C. (2002). The Colonist footprint: Toward a conceptual framework of land use and

 deforestation trajectories among small farmers in the Amazonian Frontier. In C. H. Wood, R.

 Porro (Eds.), Deforestation and land use in the Amazon (pp. 133-161). Gainsville: University

 Press of Florida.

 Browder, J., & Pedlowski, M. A. (2000). Agroforestry performance on small farms in Amazonia:

 Findings from the Rond?nia Agroforestry Pilot Project. Agroforestry Systems, 49, 63-83.

 Burger J., Ostrom, E., Norgaard, R. B., Policansky, D., Goldstein, B. D. (Eds.) (2001). Protecting the

 commons: A framework for resource management in the Americas. Washington, DC: Island

 Ptps?:

 4y Springer

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444 435

 Cabrera, J., Girot, P., & Rogriguez, J. (2003). Conservaci?n y Aprovechamiento Sustentable de los

 Bosques Tropicales H?medos de Am?rica Latina y el Caribe. Analysis de Situaci?n de la Region

 de Mesoamerica, Cuba y Rep?blica Dominicana., Union Mundial para la Naturaleza Oficina

 Regional para Mesoamerica UICN/ORMA.

 Carr, D. (2002). The event ecology of deforestation on the agricultural frontier: The Sierra de

 Lacand?n National Park, Guatemala. Paper presented at the Association of American Geog

 raphers Annual Conference, Los Angeles 23 March 2002.

 Carr, D. (2004c). Ladino and Q'eqchi Maya land use and land clearing in the Sierra de Lacand?n

 National park, Peten, Guatemala.

 Center for Economic and Social Rights (1994). Rights violations in the Ecuadorian Amazon: The

 human consequences of oil development. New York, NY: Center for Economic and Social

 Rights.

 Coomes, O. T., Burt, G. J. (2001). Peasant charcoal production in the Peruvian Amazon: Rainforest

 use and economic reliance. Forest Ecolology Management, 140(1), 39-50.

 Coomes, O. T., Grimard, F., & Burt, G. J. (2000). Tropical forests and shifting cultivation: Secondary

 forest fallow dynamics among traditional farmers of the Peruvian Amazon. Ecological Eco

 nomics, 32, 109-124.

 Cortez, Hern?n? Restrepo, Eduardo. Article. 2004. Deforestaci?n y Degradaci?n de los Bosques en

 el Territorio-regi?n de las Communidades Negrad del Pac?cifo Colombiano. Spanish. Http://

 www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/LAmerica/Colombia.html: World Rainforest Movement.

 Deininger, K., & Minten, B. (2002). Determinants of deforestation and the economics of protection:

 An application to Mexico. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(4), 943-960.

 Deininger, K., & Minton, B. (1999). Poverty, policies, and deforestation: The case of Mexico.

 Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47(2), 313-344.

 Dunkhorst, B. H., Denich, M., & Vielhauer, K. et al. (2003). Forest based fallow systems: A saftey

 net for smallholders in the Eastern Amazon. Paper presented at Centre for International For

 estry Research (CIFOR) Conference on Rural Livelihoods, 19-23 May 2003, Bonn Germany.

 Ellsworth, L. (2004). A place in the world: A review of the global debate on tenure security. New York

 NY: Ford Foundation.

 Emch, M. (2003). The human ecology of Mayan Cacao farming in Belize. Human Ecology, 31(1),

 111-131

 Escobal, J., & Aldana, U. (2003). Are nontimber forest products the antidotes to rainforest degra

 dation? Brazil nut extraction in Madre De Dios, Peru. World Development, 57(11), 1873-1887.

 Faminow, M. D. (1998). Cattle, deforestation and development in the Amazon: An economic, agro

 nomic and environmental perspective. New York: CAB International.

 Fearnside, P. M. (2002). Can pasture intensification discourage deforestation in the Amazon and

 Pantanal regions of Brazil?. In: C. H. Wood, & R. Porro (Eds.), Deforestation and land use in the

 Amazon. Gainsville: University Press of Florida, p. 299.

 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (1997). State of the World's

 Forests 1997. Oxford, UK: Words and Publications and FAO.

 Geist, H. J., & Lambin, E. (2001). What drives tropical deforestation? A metaanalysis of proximate

 and underlying causes of deforestation based on sub-national case study data. LUC Report

 Series, 4.

 Geist, H. J., Lambin, E. (2003). Regional differences in tropical deforestation. Environment, 45(6),

 22-36.

 Gibson, C, McKean, M., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.) (2000). People and forests: Communities, institutions,

 and governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 Godoy, R., Jacobson, M., & Wilkie, D. (1998). Strategies of rain-forest dwellers against misfortunes:

 The Tsimane' Indians of Bolivia. Ethnology, 57(1), 55-69.

 Gonz?lex Posso, D. (2004). La Coca, la Deforestaci?n y la Seguiridad Alimentaria en la Amazonia

 Colombiana. Spanish. Www.sica.gov.ee/agronegocios/biblioteca/Ing%20Rizzo/ forestaci?n/

 coca_deforestacion.pdf:

 Guest, P. (1993). The determinants of female migration from a multilevel perspective. In United

 Nations. Internal migration of women in developing countries. Proceedings of the United Nations

 Expert Meeting on the Feminization of Internal Migration. Aguas Calientes, M?xico, 22-25,

 October 1991. United Nations: New York, pp. 223-243.

 Hall, A. (1997). Sustaining Amazonia: Grassroots action for productive conservation. Manchester:

 Manchester University Press.

 Hall, A. (Ed.) (2000). Amazonia at the crossroads: The challenge of sustainable development. Lon

 don: Institute of Latin American Studies.

 4y Springer

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 436 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397^44

 Humphries, S. (1998). Milk cows, migrants, and land markets: Unravelling the complexities of forest

 to-pasture conversion in Northern Honduras. Economic Development and Cultural Change

 nomic Development and Cultural Change, 47(1), 95-124.

 Jim?nez Juli?, E. (1998). Una Revisi?n Cr?tica de las Teor?as Migratorias Desde la Perspectiva de

 G?nero. Papers de Demograf?a, 139. Centre d'Estudis Demogr?fics. Barcelona: Universit?t

 Aut?noma de Barcelona.

 Jones, J. R. (1990). Colonization and environment: Land settlement projects in Central America. New

 York, NY: United National University.

 Langholz, J. (1999). Exploring the effects of alternative income opportunities on rainforest use:

 Insights from Guatemala's Maya biosphere reserve. Society and Natural Resources, 12,139-149.

 Larson, A. (2004). Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Conference on Decen

 tralization in Forestry, 27-30 April Interlacken, Switzerland. Democratic Decentralisation in the

 Forestry Sector: Lessons Learned from Africa, Asia and Latin America.

 Laurian, L. R, Bilsborrow, R., & Murphy, L. (1998). Migration decisions among migrant settlers

 families in Teh Ecuadorian Amazon: The second generation. In H. Schwarzweller, & B. Mullan

 (Eds.), Research in rural sociology and development: Focus on migration (pp. 169-195).

 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

 Lawson, V. A. (1998). hierarchical households and gendered migration in Latin America. Feminist

 extensions to migration research. Progress Human Geography, 22(1), 39-53.

 Little, P. D., Horowitz Michael, M., & Nyerges, A. (Eds.) (1987). Lands at risk in the third world:

 Local-level perspectives. Boulder and London: Westview Press.

 Marquette, C. (1998). Land use patterns among small farmer settlers in the Northeastern Ecuadorian

 Amazon. Human Ecology, 26, 573-593.

 McCracken, S. D., Siqueria, A. D., Moran, E., & Brondizio, E. S. (2002). Land use patterns on an

 agricultural frontier in Brazil. In C. H. Wood, & R. Porro (Eds.), Deforestation and land use in

 the Amazon (pp. 162-192). Gainsville: University Press of Florida.

 McSweeney, K. (2004). Forest product sale as natural insurance: The effects of household charac

 teristics and the nature of shock in Eastern Honduras. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 39-56.

 Meertens, D. 1993. Women's roles in Colonization: A Colombian case study. In J. H. Momsen, &

 V. Kinnaird (Eds.), Different places, different voices: Gender and development in Africa, Asia

 and Latin America (pp. 256-269). London: Routeledge.

 Monterroso, L. (2003). Women and forest resources: Two cases from Central America. World

 Rainforest Movement Bulletin 63.

 Moran, E. (1981). Developing the Amazon. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.

 Moran, E. (Ed.). (1983). The dilemma of Amazon development. Boulder and London: Westview

 Press.

 Moran, E. (1989). Adaptation and maladaptation in newly settled areas. In D. Schumann, & W.

 Partridge (Eds.), The human ecology of tropical land settlement in Latin America (p. 20). Boulder

 and London: Westview Press

 Moran, E. F., Packer A., Brondizio, E., & Tucker, J. (1996). Restoration of vegetation cover in the

 Eastern Amazon. Ecological Economics, 18, 41-54.

 Moran, E., Brondizio, E. S., & McCracken, S. (2002). Trajectories of land use. In C. H. Wood, & R.

 Porro (Eds.), Deforestation and land use in the Amazon (pp. 193-217). Gainsville: University

 Press of Florida.

 Murphy, L. L. (2001). Colonist farm income, off-farm work, cattle, and differentiation in Ecuador's

 Northern Amazon. Human Organization 60(1), 67-79.

 Murphy, L. (1998). Making a living in the rainforest: Factors affecting economic status of settlers in

 the Ecuadorian Amazon. Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

 Murphy, L., Bilsborrow, R., & Pich?n, F. (1997). Poverty and prosperity among migrant settlers in

 the Amazon rainforest frontier of Ecuador. The Journal of Development Studies 34(20), 35-66.

 Nelson, M. (1973). The development of tropical lands: Policy issues in Latin America. Baltimore and

 London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 Nunez, O. O. (1993). Deforestaci?n en Costa Rica: la Pesadilla y la Esperanza. Esta Semana, 11-12

 avril.

 Paattanayak, S. K., & Sills, E. O. (2001). Do tropical forests provide natural insurance: The

 microeconmics of non-timber forest product collection in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Eco

 nomics, 77(4), 595-612.

 Pacheco, P. (2004). Decentralization of forest management in Bolivia: Who benefits and why?

 Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Conference on Decentralization in For

 estry, 27-30 April 2004, Interlacken, Switzerland.

 ?) Springer

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-^44 437

 Pacheco, P. (2004). Ph.D. Dissertation Summary. Regional Development, Cattle and Deforestation:

 A comparative study in Para, Brazil. Http://blackntan.clarku.edu/ -vppacheco/:.

 Pan, W., & Bilsborrow, R. (2003). Change in Ecuadorian farm composition over time?population

 pressures, migration, and changes in land use.

 Pan, W., Bilsborrow, R., & Murphy, L. (2003). Household socio-demographic and ecological factors

 affecting land use in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon.

 Pan, W., Walsh, S., Bilsborrow, R., Frizzelle, B., Erlien, C, & Baquero, F. (2004). Farm-level models

 of spatial patterns of land use and land cover dynamics in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Agricultural

 Ecosystems and Environment, 101, 117-134.

 Pasos, R., Girot, P., Laforge, M., Torrealba, P., & Kaimowitz, D. (1994). El Ultimo Dispale: La

 Frontera Agr?cola Centroamericana. Chap. in.

 Perz, S. (2001). From sustainable development to "Productive conservation:" Forest conservation

 options and agricultural income and assets in the Brazilian Amazon. Rural Sociology, 66(1), 93

 112.

 Perz, S. G., & Walker, R. T. (2002). Household life cycles and secondary forest cover among small

 farm colonists in the Amazon. World Development, 30(6), 10009-10027.

 Perz, S. G. (2003). Social determinants and land use correlates of agricultural technology adoption in

 a forest frontier: A case study in the Brazilian Amazon. Human Ecology 31(1), 133-160.

 Pich?n, F. (1997a). Settler households and land use patterns in the Amazon Frontier: Farm-level

 evidence from Ecuador. World Development, 25(1), 67-91.

 Pich?n, F. (1997b) Colonists land allocation decisions, land use and deforestation in the Ecudorian

 Amazon Frontier. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 45(4), 707-744

 Pich?n, F. (2004). Personal Communication.

 Pich?n, F., Marquette, C, Murphy, L., & Bilsborrow, R. (2001). Land use, agricultural technology,

 and deforestation among settlers in the Ecuadorian Amazon. In A. Angelsen, & D. Kaimowitz

 (Eds.). Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation (pp. 153-166). Wallingford, UK:

 CAI International.

 Pich?n, F., Marquette, C, Murphy, L., & Bilsborrow, R. (2002). Endogenous patterns and processes

 of settler land use and forest change in the Ecuadorian Amazon. In C. H. Wood, & R. Porro

 (Eds.), Deforestation and land use in the Amazon (pp. 241-282). Gainsville: University Press of

 Florida.

 Pineda, R. (2002). El Recurso Forestal Como Factor de Desarrollo Humano Sostenible en Hon

 duras. Doctoral diss., Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de Honduras.

 Population Action International. Article. Linking Family Planning and Conservation in the Maya

 Forest of Guatemala. English. Www.familyplanet.org/print/2347/

 Population Action International. (2004). Community-based population and environment programs:

 Integrating resource conservation and reproductive health. PAI Fact Sheet.

 Population Reference Bureau (2003). Population Data Sheet 2003. http://www.prb.org

 Porro, R. (2002). Land use, cattle ranching, and the concentration of land ownership in Maranha-o,

 Brazil. In C. H. Wood, & R. Porro (Eds.), Deforestation and land use in the Amazon (pp. 315

 337). Gainsville: University Press of Florida.

 Restrepo, M., Tamariz, M. D., & Bustamante, T. (1991). Frontera Amaz?nica: Historia de una

 Problema. Quito, Ecuador: CEDIME-CCE. N.P.

 Roebeling, P., & Ruben, R. (2001). Technological progress versus economic policy as tools to control

 deforestation: The Atlantic Zone of Costa Rica. In A. Angelsen, & D. Kaimowitz (Eds.).

 Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation (pp. 125-152). Wallingford, UK: CAI

 International.

 Rosendo, S. Working with. Paper prepared for the panel "Community Forestry in Mexico: Con

 cordance and Contradiction between Institutions, Polices and Economies. Eighth Biennial

 Conference International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bloomington, Indi

 ana, 31 May^l June.

 Rudel, T. (2001). Did a green revolution restore the forests of the American South. In A. Angelsen,

 & D. Kaimowitz (Eds.), Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation (pp. 53-68). Wasl

 lingford, UK: CAI International.

 Ruiz, L. (1993). Amazonia: Escenarios y Conflicts Quito, Ecuador: CEDIME.

 Sain, G. E., & Barreto, J. (1996). The adoption of soil conservation technology in El Salvador:

 Linking productivity and conservation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 51, 4.

 Santos, F. (1991). Frentes Econ?micos, Espacios Regionales, y Fronteras Capitalisticas en la

 Amazonia. In Amazonia 1940-1990. El Extrav?o de una Ilusi?n. Lima, Per?-: CISEPA-PUCP.

 ?}Sp] ?ringer

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 438 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444

 Sawyer, D. R. (1992). Malaria and the environment. Interregional Meeting on Malaria, Pan

 American Health Organization, Brasilia, April 26 to May 1, 1992, Also published as SPN

 Working Paper No.13.

 Sawyer, D. (1993). Economic and social consequences of malaria in new colonization projects in

 Brazil. Social Science Medicine, 57(9), 1131-1136.

 Schemas, J. (1996). Land use choice and change: Intensification and diversification in the lowland

 tropics of Costa Rica. Human Organization, 55, 298-306.

 Schmidt, R. J., Berry K, & Gordon J. C. , (Eds.) (1999). Forests to fight poverty: Creating national

 strategies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

 Schmink, M., & Wood, C. (Eds.). (1984). Frontier expansion in Amazonia. Gainsville, FL: University

 of Florida Press.

 Schmink, M., & Wood, C. (1987). The "political ecology" of Amazonia. In D. Little, & M. Horowitz.

 (Eds.). Lands at risk in the third world (pp. 38-57). Boulder and London: Westview Press.

 Schumann D., Partridge, A., & William, L. (Eds.). (1989). The human ecology of tropical land

 settlement in Latin America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

 Shriar, A. (2002). Food security and land use deforestation in Northern Guatemala. Food Policy, 27,

 395-414.

 Sierra, R. (1999). Traditional resource-use systems and tropical deforestation in a multi-ethnic region

 in Northwest Ecuador. Environmental Conservation, 26(2), 136-145.

 Silvel, E., & Sittman, H. (2004). State, forest, and community: Power reconfigurations and challenges

 for the decentralisation of forest administration in Guatemala., Centre for International Forestry

 Research (CIFOR) Conference on Decentralization in Forestry, 27-30 April 2004, Interlacken,

 Switzerland.

 Singer, B. H., & de Castro, M. C. (2001). Agricultural colonization and malaria on the Amazon

 Frontier. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 954, 184-222.

 Smith, J., van de Kip, P., Reategui, K., Lombardi, I., Sabogal, C, & Dias, A. (1998). Dynamics of

 secondary forests in slash-and-burn farming: Interactions among land use types in the Peruvian

 Amazon. Proyecto Manejo de Bostques Secundarios en America Tropical, Convenio, CIFOR/

 CATIE//BII, Pucallpa, Peru.

 Swinton, S., & Quiroz, R. (2003). Is poverty to blame for soil, pasture and forest degradation in

 Peru's Antiplano. World Development, 31(11), 1903-1919.

 Sydenstricker Neto, J., & Vosti, S. A. (1993). Household size, sex composition, and land use in the

 tropical moist forests: Evidence from Machadinho Colonization Project, Rond?nia, Brazil.,

 Unpublished Manuscript.

 Takasaki, Y., Barham, B. L., & Coomes, O. T. (2001). Amazonian peasants, rain forest use, and

 income generation: The role of wealth and geographical factors. Society for Natural Resources,

 14, 291-308.

 Takasaki, Y., Barham, B. L., & Coomes, O. T. (2002). Risk coping strategies in tropical forests:

 Floods, illness, asset poverty, and natural resource extraction. Paper presented at 2nd World

 Congress of Environmental and Resrouce Economists, 23-27 June, Monterrey, CA.

 Thapa, K., Bilsborrow, R. E., & Murphy, L. (1996a). Deforestation, land use, and women's agri

 cultural activities in the Ecuadorian Amazon. World Development, 24, 1317-1332.

 Thapa, K. K., Bilsborrow, R. E., & Murphy, L (1996b). Deforestation, land use, and women's

 agricultural activities in the Ecuadorian Amazon. World Development, 24(8), 1317-1332.

 Townsend, J. G. (1995). Women's voices from the rainforest. London: Routledge.

 Turner, B. L., et al. (2001). Deforestation in the Sourthern Yucat?n Peninsular Region: An inte

 grative approach. Forest Ecology and Management, 54, 353-370.

 Uhl, C, & Nepstad, D. (2000). Amazon at the millennium. Interciencia, 25(3), 159-164.

 United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). (2000). FAO helps Bolivia in fight

 against cocaine trade. Http://www.fao.org/News/2000/000307-e.htm: FAO.

 Velazquez, A., Duran, E., Ramirez, I., Mas, J.-F., Boceo, G., Ram?rez, G., & Palacio, J.-L. (2003).

 Land use-cover change processes in highly biodiverse areas: The case of Oaxaca, Mexico. Global

 Environmental Change, 13, 175-184.

 Vosti, S. A., Witcover, J., & Oliveira, M. (1998). Policy issues in agroforestry: Technology adoption

 and regional integration in the Western Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Systems, 38, 195-222.

 Vosti, S. A., Carpentier, C. L., Witcover, J., & Valentim, J. F. (2001). Intensified small-scale livestock

 systems in the Western Brazilian Amazon. In A. Angelsen, & D. Kaimowitz (Eds.), Agricultural

 technologies and tropical deforestation (pp. 113-133). Wasllingford, UK: CAI International.

 ?Spri inger

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444 439

 Vosti, S. A., Witcover, J., & Carpentier, C. L. (2002). Agricultural intensification by smallholders in

 the Western Brazilian Amazon. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFRI) Research

 Report. Washington, DC 130.

 Walker, R. T. (1999). The structure of uncultivated wilderness: Land use beyond the extensive

 margin. Journal of Regional Science, 39(2), 387-410.

 Walker, R. T., Moran, E. F., & Anselin, L. (2000). Deforestation and cattle ranching in the Brazilian

 Amazon: External capital and household process. World Development, 28(4), 683-699.

 Walker, R., & Homma, A. K. O. (1996). Land use and land cover dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon:

 An overview. Ecological Economics, 18(1), 67-80.

 White, D., Holmann, F., Fujisaka, S., Reategui, K., & Lascano, C. (2001). Will intensifying pasture

 management in Latin America protect forests?or is it the other way around? In A. Angelsen, &

 D. Kaimowitz (Eds.), Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation (pp. 91-111). Wal

 lingford, UK: CAI International.

 Wood, C. H., & Porro, R. (Eds.). (2002). Deforestation and land use in the Amazon. Gainsville, FL:

 University of Florida Press.

 Wood, C. H. (2002). Introduction. In C. H. Wood, & R. Porro (Eds.), Deforesation and land use in

 the Amazon. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.

 World Rainforest Movement. Article. Women and Forest Resources: Two Cases from Central

 America.

 World Resources Institute (WRI) (2004). Earthtrends environmental information portal, http://

 www.wri.org

 Wyels, J. G. (2003). Common ground for farms and forests. Americas, 55(2), 22.

 Yanggen, D., & Reardon, T. (2001). Kudzu-improved fallows in the Peruvian Amazon. In A. An

 gelsen, & D. Kaimowitz (Eds.), Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation (pp. 213

 229). Wallingford, UK: CAI International.

 Regional and country list for the amazon

 General

 Almeida, A. L. O. de, & Campari, J.-o S. (1995). Sustainable settlement in the Brazilian Amazon.

 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and The World Bank.

 Faminow, M. D. (1998). Cattle, deforestation and development in the Amazon: An economic, agro

 nomic and environmental perspective. New York: CAB International.

 Hall, A. (1997). Sustaining Amazonia: Grassroots action for productive conservation. Manchester:

 Manchester University Press.

 Hall, A. (Ed.). (2000). Amazonia at the crossroads: The challenge of sustainable development.

 London: Institute of Latin American Studies.

 Moran, E. (1981). Developing the Amazon. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.

 Moran, E. (Ed.). (1983). The dilemma of Amazon development. Boulder and London: Westview

 Press.

 Schmink, M., & Wood, C. (1987). The "political ecology" of Amazonia. In D. Little, & M. Horowitz

 (Eds.), Lands at risk in the third world (pp. 38-57). Boulder and London: Westview Press.

 Uhl, C, & Nepstad, D. (2000). Amazon at the millennium. Interciencia, 25(3), 159-164.

 Wood, C. H., & Porro, R. (Eds.). (2002). Deforestation and land use in the Amazon. Gainsville, FL:

 University of Florida Press.

 Wood, C. H. (2002). Introduction. In Wood, C. H., & Porro, R. (Eds.). Deforestation and land use in

 the Amazon. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.

 Bolivia

 Andersson, K. (2003). What motivates municipal government? Uncovering the Institutional

 Incentives for Municipal Governance of Forest Resources in Bolivia. Journal of Environment

 and Development, 12(X), 1-23.

 Andersson, K. (2004). Who talks with whom? The role of repeated interactions in decentralized

 forest governance. World Development, 32(2), 233-349.

 ? Springer

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 440 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444

 Andersson, K. P., Gibson, C. C, & Lehoucq, F. (2004). The politics of decentralizing natural re

 source policy. Unpublished paper.

 Becker, C, & Le?n, R. (2000). Indigenous forest management in the Bolivian Amazon. In C.

 Gibson, M. McKean, & E. Ostrom. (Eds.), People and forests: Communities, institutions, and

 governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 Clark, W. C, Turner, B. L, Kates, R. W., Richards, J. F., Mathews, J. T., & Meyer, W. (Eds.). (1990).

 The earth as transformed by human action: Global and regional changes in the biosphere over the

 past 300 years. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

 Godoy, R., Jacobson, M., & Wilkie, D. (1998). Strategies of rain-forest dwellers against misfortunes:

 The Tsimane' Indians of Bolivia. Ethnology, 37(1), 55-69.

 Pacheco, P. (2004). Decentralization of forest management in Bolivia: Who benefits and why?

 Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Conference on Decentralization in For

 estry, 27-30 April 2004, Interlacken, Switzerland.

 Schumann, D., Partridge, A., & William, L. (Eds.), (1989). The human ecology of tropical land

 settlement in Latin America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

 United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 2000. FAO helps Bolivia in fight against

 cocaine trade. Http://www.fao.org/News/2000/000307-e.htm: FAO.

 Brazil

 Almeida, A. L. O. de, & Campari, J. S. (1995). Sustainable settlement in the Brazilian Amazon.

 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and The World Bank.

 Brondizio, E. S., McCracken, S. D., Moran, E. F., Siqueria, A. D., Nelson, D. R., & Rodriguez

 Pedraza, C. (2002). The colonist footprint: Toward a conceptual framework of land use and

 deforestation trajectories among small farmers in the Amazonian Frontier. In C. H. Wood, & R.

 Porro. (Eds.), Deforestation and land use in the Amazon (pp. 133-161). Gainsville: University

 Press of Florida.

 Browder, J., & Godfrey, B. (1997). Rainforest cities: Urbanization, development and globalization of

 the Brazilian Amazon. New York: Columbia University Press.

 Browder, J. O., & Pedlowski, M. A. (2000). Agroforestry performance on small farms in Amazonia:

 Findings from the Rond?nia Agroforestry Pilot Project. Agroforestry Systems, 49, 63-83.

 Dunkhorst, B. H., Denich, M., et al. Vielhauer, K. (2003). Forest based fallow systems: A safety net

 for smallholders in the Eastern Amazon. Paper presented at Centre for International Forestry

 Research (CIFOR) Conference on Rural Livelihoods, 19-23 May 2003, Bonn Germany.

 Fearnside, P. M. (2002). Can pasture intensification discourage deforestation in the Amazon and

 Pantanal regions of Brazil?. In C. H. Wood, & R. Porro (Eds.), Deforestation and land use in the

 Amazon (p. 299) Gainsville: University Press of Florida.

 McCracken, S. D., Siqueria, A. D., Moran, E., & Brondizio, E. S. (2002). Land use patterns on an

 agricultural frontier in Brazil. In C. H. Wood, & R. Porro (Eds.).Deforestation and land use in

 the Amazon (pp. 162-192). Gainsville: University Press of Florida.

 Moran, E. (1981).Developing the Amazon. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.

 Moran, E. (Ed.) (1983). The dilemma of Amazon development. Boulder and London: Westview

 Press

 Moran, E., Brondizio, E. S., & McCracken, S. D. (2002). Trajectories of land use. In C. H. Wood, &

 R. Porro (Eds.). Deforestation and land use in the Amazon (pp. 193-217). Gainsville: University

 Press of Florida.

 Paattanayak, S. K., & Sills, E. O. (2001). Do tropical forests provide natural insurance: The mi

 croeconmics of non-timber forest product collection in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Economics,

 77(4), 595-612.

 Pacheco, P. Ph.D. Dissertation Summary. (2004). Regional development, cattle and deforestation: A

 comparative study in Para, Brazil. Http://blackntan.clarku.edu/ -ippacheco/:

 Perz, S. G., Walker Robert, T. (2002). Household life cycles and secondary forest cover among small

 farm colonists in the Amazon. World Development, 30(6), 10009-10027.

 Perz, S. G. (2003). Social determinants and land use correlates of agricultural technology adoption in

 a forest frontier: A case study in the Brazilian Amazon. Human Ecology, 31(1), 133-160.

 Porro, R. (2002). Land use, cattle ranching, and the concentration of land ownership in Maranha-o,

 Brazil. In C. H. Wood, & R. Porro (Eds.), Deforestation and land use in the Amazon (pp. 315

 337). Gainsville: University Press of Florida.

 <? Springer

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444 441

 Sawyer, D. R. (1992). Malaria and the environment. Interregional Meeting on Malaria, Pan American

 Health Organization, Brasilia, April 26 to May 1, 1992, Also published as SPN Working Paper

 No.13.

 Sawyer, D. (1993). Economic and social consequences of malaria in new colonization projects in

 Brazil. Social Science Medicine, 57(9), 1131-1136.

 Singer, B. H., & de Castro, M. C. (2001). Agricultural colonization and malaria on the Amazon

 frontier. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 954, 184-222.

 Vosti, S. A., Witcover, J., Faminow, S., & Oliveira, M. (1998). Policy issues in agroforestry: Tech

 nology adoption and regional integration in the Western Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Sys

 tems, 38, 195-222.

 Vosti, S. A., Carpentier, C. L., Witcover, J., & Valentim, J. F. (2001). Intensified small-scale livestock

 systems in the Western Brazilian Amazon. In A. Angelsen, & D. Kaimowitz (Eds.), Agricultural

 technologies and tropical deforestation (pp. 113-133). Wallingford, UK: CAI International.

 Vosti, S. A., Witcover, J., & Carpentier, C. L. (2002). Agricultural intensification by smallholders in

 the Western Brazilian Amazon. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFRI) Research

 Report, Washington, DC, 130.

 Walker, R. T., Moran, E. F., & Anselin, L. (2000). Deforestation and cattle ranching in the Brazilian

 Amazon: External capital and household process. World Development, 28, 683-699.

 Walker, R. (1999). The structure of uncultivated wilderness: Land use beyond the extensive margin.

 Journal of Regional Science, 39(2), 387-410.

 Walker, R., & Homma, A. K. O. (1996). Land use and land cover dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon:

 An overview. Ecological Economics, 18, 67-80.

 Walker, R., Perz, S., Caldas, M., Silva, T., & Guilherme, L. (2002). Land use and land cover change

 in forest frontiers: The role of household life cycles. International Regional Science Review,

 25(2), 169-199.

 Colombia

 Cortez, H. R., Eduardo. Article. (2004). Deforestaci?n y Degradaci?n de los Bosques en el Terri

 torio-regi?n de las Communidades Negrad del Pac?cifo Colombiano. Spanish. Http://

 www.wrm.org.uy/deforestation/LAmerica/Colombia.html: World Rainforest Movement.

 Gonz?lex Posso, D. (2004). La Coca, la Deforestaci?n y la Seguiridad Alimentaria en la Amazonia

 Colombiana. Spanish. Www.sica.gov.ee/agronegocios/biblioteca/Ing%20Rizzo/ forestaci?n/

 coca_deforestacion.pdf:.

 Meertens, D. (1993). Women's roles in colonization: A Colombian case study. In J. H. Momsen, & V.

 Kinnaird (Eds.), Different places, different voices: Gender and development in Africa, Asia and

 Latin America (pp. 256-269). London: Routeledge.

 Townsend, J. (1993). Housewifization and colonization in the Colombian rainforest. In J. H.

 Momsen, & V. Kinnaird (Eds.), Different places, different voices: Gender and development in

 Africa, Asia and Latin America (pp. 270-287). London: Routeledge.

 Townsend, J. (1993). Gender and life course on the frontiers of settlement in Colombia. In C. Katz,

 & J. Monk (Eds.), Full circles-geographies of women over the life course (pp. 138-155). London:

 Routledge.

 Townsend, J. G. (1995) Women's voices from the rainforest. London: Routledge.

 White, D., Holmann, F., Fujisaka, S., Reategui, K., & Lascano, C. (2001). Will intensifying pasture

 management in Latin America protect forests?or is it the other way around? In A. Angelsen, &

 D. Kaimowitz (Eds.), Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation (pp. 91-111). Wal

 lingford, UK: CAI International.

 Ecuador

 Barbieri, A. F., & Carr, D. L. (2005). Gender-specific out-migration, deforestation, and urbanization

 in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Global and Planetary Change, 47, 99-110.

 Bilsborrow, R., Alisson Barbieri, F., & Pan, W. (2004). Changes in population and land use over time

 in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

 Center for Economic and Social Rights (1994). Rights violations in the Ecuadorian Amazon: The

 human consequences of oil development. New York, NY: Center for Economic and Social

 Rights.

 ? Springer

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 442 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444

 Laurian, L. R, Bilsborrow, R., & Murphy, L. (1998). Migration decisions among migrant settlers

 families in teh Ecuadorian Amazon: The second generation. In H. Schwarzweiler, & B. Mullan

 (Eds.), Research in rural sociology and development: Focus on migration (pp. 169-195).

 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

 Marquette, C. (1998). Land use patterns among small farmer settlers in the Northeastern Ecuadorian

 Amazon. Human Ecology, 26, 573-593.

 Murphy, L. L. (2001). Colonist farm income, off-farm work, cattle, and differentiation in Ecuador's

 Northern Amazon. Human Organization, 60(1), 67-79.

 Murphy, L. (1998). Making a living in the rainforest: Factors affecting economic status of settlers in

 the Ecuadorian Amazon. Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

 Murphy L., Bilsborrow, R., & Pich?n, F. (1997). Poverty and prosperity among migrant settlers in

 the Amazon rainforest frontier of Ecuador. The Journal of Development Studies, 34(2), 35-66.

 Pan, W., & Bilsborrow, R. (2003). Change in Ecuadorian farm composition over time?population

 pressures, migration, and changes in land use.

 Pan, W., Bilsborrow, R., & Murphy, L. (2003). Household socio-demographic and ecological factors

 affecting land use in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon.

 Pan, W., Walsh, S., Bilsborrow, R., Frizzelle, B., Erlien, C, & Baquero, F. (2004). Farm-level models

 of spatial patterns of land use and land cover dynamics in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Agricultural

 Ecosystems and Environment, 101, 117-134.

 Pich?n, F. (1997a) Settler households and land use patterns in the Amazon Frontier: Farm-level

 evidence from Ecuador. World Development, 25(1), 67-91.

 Pich?n, F. (1997b). Colonists land allocation decisions, land use and deforestation in the Ecudorian

 Amazon Frontier. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 45(4), 707-744.

 Pich?n, F., Marquette, C, Murphy, L., & Bilsborrow, R. (2001). Land use, agricultural technology,

 and deforestation among settlers in the Ecuadorian Amazon. In A. Angelsen, & D. Kaimowitz

 (Eds.). Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation (pp. 153-166). Wasllingford, UK:

 CAI International.

 Pich?n, F., Marquette, C, Murphy, L.,& Bilsborrow, R. (2002). Endogenous patterns and processes

 of settler land use and forest change in the Ecuadorian Amazon. In C. H. Wood, & R. Porro

 (Eds.), Deforestation and land use in the Amazon (pp. 241-282). Gainsville: University Press of

 Florida.

 Sierra, R. (1999). Traditional resource-use systems and tropical deforestation in a multi-ethnic region

 in Norther-west Ecuador. Environmental Conservation, 26(2), 136-145.

 Thapa, K. K., Bilsborrow, R. E., & Murphy, L. (1996). Deforestation, land use, and women's agri

 cultural activities in the Ecuadorian Amazon. World Development, 24(8), 1317-1332.

 Peru

 Alvarez, N., & Naughton-Treves, L. (2003). Linking national agrarian policy to deforestation in the

 Peruvian Amazon: A case study of Tambopata, 1986-1997. Ambio, 32(4), 269-274.

 Coomes, O. T., & Burt, G.J. (2001). Peasant Charcoal Production in the Peruvian Amazon: Rain

 forest Use and Economic Reliance. Forest Ecolology Management, 140(1), 39-50.

 Coomes, O. T., Grimard, F., & Burt, G. J. (2000). Tropical forests and shifting cultivation: Secondary

 forest fallow dynamics among traditional farmers of the Peruvian Amazon. Ecological Eco

 nomics, 32, 109-124.

 Escobal, J., & Aldana, U. (2003). Are nontimber forest products the antidotes to rainforest degra

 dation? Brazil nut extraction in Madre De Dios, Peru. World Development, 57(11), 1873-1887.

 Radcliffe, S. A. (1991). The role of gender in peasant migration: Conceptual issues from the Peruvian

 Andes. Review of Radical Political Economics, 25(3^), 129-147.

 Radcliffe, S. A. (1992). Mountains, maidens, and migration: Gender and mobility in Peru. In S.

 Chant (Ed.), Gender and migration in developing countries (pp. 30^43). London: Belhaven Press.

 Smith, J., van de Kip, P., Reategui, K., Lombardi, L, Sabogal, C, & Dias, A. (1998). Dynamics of

 secondary forests in slash-and-burn farming: Interactions among land use types in the Peruvian

 Amazon. Proyecto Manejo de Bostques Secundarios en America Tropical, Convenio, CIFOR/

 CATIE//BII, Pucallpa, Peru.

 Swinton, S., & Quiroz, R. (2003). Is poverty to blame for soil, pasture and forest degradation in

 Peru's Antiplano. World Development, 31(11), 1903-1919.

 4? Springer

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444 443

 Takasaki, Y., Barham, B. L., & Coomes, O. T. (2001). Amazonian peasants, rain forest use, and

 income generation: The role of wealth and geographical factors. Society for Nat Resources, 14,

 291-308.

 Takasaki, Y., Barham, B. L., & Coomes, O. T. (2002). Risk coping strategies in tropical forests:

 Floods, illness, asset poverty, and natural resource extraction. Paper presented at 2nd World

 Congress of Environmental and Resrouce Economists, 23-27 June, Monterey, CA.

 White, D., Holmann, F., Fujisaka, S., Reategui, K., & Lascano, C. (2001). Will intensifying pasture

 management in Latin America protect forests?or is it the other way around?. In A. Angelsen,

 & D. Kaimowitz (Eds.). Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation (pp. 91-111). Wal

 lingford, UK: CAI International.

 Yanggen, D., & Reardon, T. (2001). Kudzu-improved fallows in the Peruvian Amazon. In A. An

 gelsen, & D. Kaimowitz (Eds.), Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation (pp. 213

 229). Wallingford, UK: CAI International.

 Regional and country List for central america

 General

 Cabrera, J., Girot, P., & Rogriguez, J. (2003). Conservaci?n y Aprovechamiento Sustentable de los

 Bosques Tropicales H?medos de Am?rica Latina y el Caribe. Analysis de Situaci?n de la Region

 de Mesoamerica, Cuba y Rep?blica Dominicana., Union Mundial para la Naturaleza Ofiina

 Regional para Mesoamerica UICN/ORMA.

 Jones, J. R. (1990). Colonization and environment: Land settlement projects in Central America. New

 York, NY: United National University.

 Pasos, Rub?n, Pascal Girot, Michel Laforge, Pablo Torrealba, & David Kaimowitz. (1994). El

 Ultimo Dispale: La Frontera Agr?cola Centroamericana. Costa Rica: FUNDESCA

 Schelhas, J. (1996). Land use choice and change: Intensification and diversification in the lowland

 tropics of Costa Rica. Human Organization, 55, 298-306.

 Belize

 Emch, M. (2003). The human ecology of Mayan Cacao farming in Belize. Human Ecology, 31(1),

 111-131.

 Costa Rica

 Nu?ez, O. O. (1993). Deforestaci?n en Costa Rica: la Pesadilla y la Esperanza. Esta Semana, 11-12

 avril.

 Roebeling, P., & Ruben, R. (2001). Technological progress versus economic policy as tools to control

 deforestation: The Atlantic Zone of Costa Rica. In A. Angelsen, & D. Kaimowitz. (Eds.),

 Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation (pp. 125-152). Wallingsford, UK: CAI

 International.

 Schelhas, J. (1996). Land use choice and change: Intensification and diversification in the lowland

 tropics of Costa Rica. Human Organization, 55, 298-306.

 White, D., Holmann, F., Fujisaka, S., Reategui, K., & Lascano, C. (2001). Will intensifying pasture

 management in Latin America protect forests?or is it the other way around? In A. Angelsen, &

 D. Kaimowitz (Eds.), Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation (pp. 91-111). Wall

 ingsford, UK: CAI International.

 Wyels, J. G. (2003). Common ground for farms and forests. Americas, 55(2), 22.

 Guatemala

 Andersson, K. P., Gibson, C. C, & Lehoucq, F. (2004). The politics of decentralizing natural re

 source policy. Unpublished paper.

 ? Springer

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

 444 Popul Environ (2006) 27:397-444

 Carr, D. (2002). The event ecology of deforestation on the agricultural frontier: The Sierra de

 Lacand?n National Park, Guatemala. Paper presented at the Association of American Geog

 raphers Annual Conference, Los Angeles 23 March 2002.

 Carr, D. (2004a). A tale of two roads: Population, poverty, and politics on the Guatemalan Frontier.

 Paper submitted to Geoforum.

 Langholz, J. (1999). Exploring the effects of alternative income opportunities on rainforest use:

 Insights from Guatemala's maya biosphere reserve. Society and Natural Resources, 12,139-149.

 Monterroso, L. L. (2003). Women and forest resources: Two cases from Central America. World

 Rainforest Movement Bulletin 63.

 Population Action International. Article. Linking Family Planning and Conservation in the Maya

 Forest of Guatemala. English, http://www.familyplanet.org/print/2347/:.

 Shriar, A. (2002). Food security and land use deforestation in Northern Guatemala. Food Policy, 27,

 395-414.

 Silvel, E., & Sittman, H. (2004). State, forest, and community: Power reconfigurations and challenges

 for the decentralization of forest administration in Guatemala., Centre for International Forestry

 Research (CIFOR) Conference on Decentralization in Forestry, 27-30 April 2004, Interlacken,

 Switzerland.

 Honduras

 Humphries, S. (1998). Milk cows, migrants, and land markets: Unravelling the complexities of forest

 to-pasture conversion in Northern Honduras. Economic Development and Cultural Change,

 47(1), 95-124.

 McSweeney, K. (2004). Forest product sale as natural insurance: The effects of household charac

 teristics and the nature of shock in Eastern Honduras. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 39-56.

 Pineda, R. (2002). El Recurso Forestal Como Factor de Desarrollo Humano Sostenible en Hon

 duras. Doctoral diss., Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de Honduras.

 Mexico

 Boege, E. (2001). Protegiendo lo Nuestro. M?xico, D.F.: CONABIO-UNAM.

 Bray, B. D., Merino-Per?z, L., & Barry, D. (in press) The community managed forests of Mexico: The

 struggle for sustainability and Equity. Florida: University of Florida Press

 Bray, D. B. Adaptive management organizations and common property management: Perspectives

 from the community forests of Quintana Roo, Mexico. Paper prepared for the panel "com

 munity Forestry in Mexico: Concordance and contradiction between institutions, polices and

 economies. Eighth Biennial Conference International Association for the Study of Common

 Property, Bloomington, Indiana, 31 May-4 June.

 Deininger, K., & Minten, B. (2002). Determinants of deforestation and the economics of protection:

 An application to Mexico. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(4), 943-960.

 Deininger, K., & Minton, B. (1999). Poverty, policies, and deforestation: The case of Mexico.

 Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47(2), 313-344.

 Townsend, J. G. (1995). Women's voices from the rainforest. London: Routledge.

 ?} Springer

This content downloaded from 165.193.178.76 on Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:29:17 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms