IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v81y2019icp632-643.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating in situ conservation costs of Zambian crop wild relatives under alternative conservation goals

Author

Listed:
  • Wainwright, Warwick
  • Drucker, Adam G.
  • Maxted, Nigel
  • Brehm, Joana Magos
  • Ng’uni, Dickson
  • Moran, Dominic

Abstract

Crop wild relatives (CWR) are a globally threatened group of plants, harbouring valuable genes that are sometimes used to enhance commercial crop varieties and landraces. A lack of recognition in national planning for biodiversity conservation has resulted in inadequate CWR conservation strategies, particularly in situ. There is little information on in situ conservation costs, and this paper uses a payment for agrobiodiversity conservation services (PACS) approach to estimate the in situ costs of conserving CWR in Zambia, where 30 CWR have been prioritised for conservation (of which nine are present in our sample). Competitive tender bid offers were elicited from farmers willing to accept compensation for providing a CWR conservation service. Using data from 26 communities we determined the on-farm cost of conserving CWR, specifically in field margins/borders. Heterogeneity was evident in farmer bid offers, suggesting discriminatory price mechanisms can potentially deliver cost savings over uniform payment rules. Selection of bid offers under four different conservation goals using a binary linear programming (BLP) model reveals conservation costs ranging from US$ 23 to 91/ha per year. An untargeted area goal provided a least-cost procurement of conservation services ($ 2.3 k per year), followed by a targeted area goal ($ 5.9 k per year). The cost of selecting conservation sites increased when other constraints were added to the BLP model, including those concerning social equity ($ 6.4 k per year), and diversity ($ 9.2 k per year) goals. Overall, the findings suggest the use of competitive tenders, coupled with CWR data and BLP modelling, can potentially add much to improve the efficiency of in situ CWR conservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Wainwright, Warwick & Drucker, Adam G. & Maxted, Nigel & Brehm, Joana Magos & Ng’uni, Dickson & Moran, Dominic, 2019. "Estimating in situ conservation costs of Zambian crop wild relatives under alternative conservation goals," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 632-643.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:632-643
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718309062
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.033?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stoneham, Gary & Chaudhri, Vivek & Ha, Arthur & Strappazzon, Loris, 2003. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1-24.
    2. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    3. Andrew J Mason, 2012. "OpenSolver - An Open Source Add-in to Solve Linear and Integer Progammes in Excel," Operations Research Proceedings, in: Diethard Klatte & Hans-Jakob Lüthi & Karl Schmedders (ed.), Operations Research Proceedings 2011, edition 127, pages 401-406, Springer.
    4. Gary Stoneham & Vivek Chaudhri & Arthur Ha & Loris Strappazzon, 2003. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria's BushTender trial," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 477-500, December.
    5. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    6. Brooks, Karen & Zorya, Sergiy & Gautam, Amy & Goyal, Aparajita, 2013. "Agriculture as a sector of opportunity for young people in Africa," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6473, The World Bank.
    7. Engel, Stefanie, 2016. "The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 9(1-2), pages 131-177, July.
    8. Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela & Raney, Terri L. & Croppenstedt, André & Behrman, Julia A. & Peterman, Amber, 2014. "Synopsis of Gender in agriculture: Closing the knowledge gap:," Issue briefs 84, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Stefano Pagiola & Ana Rios & Agustin Arcenas, 2010. "Poor Household Participation in Payments for Environmental Services: Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Quindío, Colombia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 371-394, November.
    10. Beyer, Hawthorne L. & Dujardin, Yann & Watts, Matthew E. & Possingham, Hugh P., 2016. "Solving conservation planning problems with integer linear programming," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 328(C), pages 14-22.
    11. Krishna, Vijesh V. & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai & Raghu, Prabhakaran T. & King, E.D. Israel Oliver, 2013. "Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 110-123.
    12. S. T. Buckland & D. L. Borchers & A. Johnston & P. A. Henrys & T. A. Marques, 2007. "Line Transect Methods for Plant Surveys," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 989-998, December.
    13. World Bank, 2007. "Zambia : Economic and Poverty Impact of Nature-based Tourism," World Bank Publications - Reports 7553, The World Bank Group.
    14. Narloch, Ulf & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai, 2011. "Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1837-1845, September.
    15. Sommerville, Matthew & Jones, Julia P.G. & Rahajaharison, Michael & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1262-1271, April.
    16. Midler, Estelle & Pascual, Unai & Drucker, Adam G. & Narloch, Ulf & Soto, José Luis, 2015. "Unraveling the effects of payments for ecosystem services on motivations for collective action," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 394-405.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Oliveira Fiorini, Ana Carolina & Mullally, Conner & Swisher, Marilyn & Putz, Francis E., 2020. "Forest cover effects of payments for ecosystem services: Evidence from an impact evaluation in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    2. Drucker, Adam G & Ramirez, Marleni, 2020. "Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services: An overview of Latin American experiences, lessons learned and upscaling challenges," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Moros, Lina & Vélez, María Alejandra & Corbera, Esteve, 2019. "Payments for Ecosystem Services and Motivational Crowding in Colombia's Amazon Piedmont," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 468-488.
    2. Jones, Kelly W. & Powlen, Kathryn & Roberts, Ryan & Shinbrot, Xoco, 2020. "Participation in payments for ecosystem services programs in the Global South: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    3. Chan, Kai M.A. & Anderson, Emily & Chapman, Mollie & Jespersen, Kristjan & Olmsted, Paige, 2017. "Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 110-122.
    4. Ito, Junichi, 2022. "Program design and heterogeneous treatment effects of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Drucker, Adam G & Ramirez, Marleni, 2020. "Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services: An overview of Latin American experiences, lessons learned and upscaling challenges," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    7. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    8. Granado-Díaz, Rubén & Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Gómez-Limón, José A., 2022. "Willingness to accept for rewilding farmland in environmentally sensitive areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Corbera, Esteve & Lapeyre, Renaud, 2019. "Payments for Environmental Services and Motivation Crowding: Towards a Conceptual Framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 434-443.
    10. Zanella, Matheus A. & Schleyer, Christian & Speelman, Stijn, 2014. "Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 166-176.
    11. Keenan, Rodney J. & Pozza, Greg & Fitzsimons, James A., 2019. "Ecosystem services in environmental policy: Barriers and opportunities for increased adoption," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Liu, Zhaoyang & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2018. "Meta-Analysis of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services Programmes in Developing Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 48-61.
    13. Izquierdo-Tort, Santiago & Jayachandran, Seema & Saavedra, Santiago, 2024. "Redesigning payments for ecosystem services to increase cost-effectiveness," Documentos de Trabajo 21022, Universidad del Rosario.
    14. Pallante, Giacomo & Drucker, Adam G. & Sthapit, Sajal, 2016. "Assessing the potential for niche market development to contribute to farmers' livelihoods and agrobiodiversity conservation: Insights from the finger millet case study in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 92-105.
    15. Bauchet, Jonathan & Asquith, Nigel & Ma, Zhao & Radel, Claudia & Godoy, Ricardo & Zanotti, Laura & Steele, Diana & Gramig, Benjamin M. & Chong, Andrea Estrella, 2020. "The practice of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the Tropical Andes: Evidence from program administrators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    16. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.
    17. Benra, F. & Nahuelhual, L. & Felipe-Lucia, M. & Jaramillo, A. & Jullian, C. & Bonn, A., 2022. "Balancing ecological and social goals in PES design – Single objective strategies are not sufficient," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    18. Lliso, Bosco & Pascual, Unai & Engel, Stefanie & Mariel, Petr, 2020. "Payments for ecosystem services or collective stewardship of Mother Earth? Applying deliberative valuation in an indigenous community in Colombia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    19. Benra, Felipe & Nahuelhual, Laura, 2019. "A trilogy of inequalities: Land ownership, forest cover and ecosystem services distribution," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 247-257.
    20. Pham, Van Truong & Roongtawanreongsri, Saowalak & Ho, Thong Quoc & Tran, Phuong Hanh Niekdam, 2021. "Can payments for forest environmental services help improve income and attitudes toward forest conservation? Household-level evaluation in the Central Highlands of Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:632-643. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.