The three essays in this dissertation examine how land conservation policies have affected environmental and economic development outcomes. The first and second essays investigate the case of protected forest areas in North and Northeast Thailand. The first essay asks how these national parks and wildlife sanctuaries have impacted socioeconomic outcomes at the community level. The second essay considers whether and how protected areas have slowed forest fragmentation. Both the first and second essays use plausibly exogenous variation in the location and timing of protected area designation to estimate impacts. The first essay finds that protected areas, by increasing forest cover, have imposed a significant constraint on local agricultural land use. However, protection has not led to adverse wealth impacts. On average, communities with land in national parks actually have significantly higher consumption and lower poverty rates than similarly remote and rugged communities, suggesting that the gains from protection have been high enough to offset the cost of land use constraints. The second essay finds that national parks and wildlife sanctuaries have significantly reduced forest fragmentation, as measured by forest patch metrics. Patterns of clearing and fragmentation are consistent with a model of spatially differentiated enforcement: protected areas have been effective at slowing fragmentation due to clearing near rivers and streams, but less effective at slowing fragmentation at higher elevations, on steeper slopes, and at intermediate distances from roads. The third essay considers the case of local land conservation regulations in Massachusetts, asking how wetlands bylaws have impacted rates of land use change and housing development. Estimates of impacts rely on variation in the timing of adoption of wetlands protection measures. The third essay finds that wetlands bylaws have reduced the expansion of land used for residential development, but have not had significant effects on housing stock, housing prices, or housing density. The adoption of bylaws by neighboring communities, however, does significantly increase housing prices, suggesting possible regional supply constraints driven by the regulations.
