IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v72y1996i3p313-325.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating the Supply of Conservation Goods in Britain: A Comparison of the Financial Efficiency of Two Policy Instruments

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Whitby
  • Caroline Saunders

Abstract

Rapid uptake of agreements in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), compared with negotiated management agreements on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), has lead to renewed interest in obtaining public conservation goods through agreements in the U.K. Economic comparisons between these two instruments are made using a simple supply model. The paper reviews the legal/administrative basis for management agreements, states relevant theory, and compares these two means of securing conservation goods. Conclusions regarding the difference in public expenditure on these mechanisms are established and information on transactions costs presented. The conclusion is that SSSI are more cost-effective than ESAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Whitby & Caroline Saunders, 1996. "Estimating the Supply of Conservation Goods in Britain: A Comparison of the Financial Efficiency of Two Policy Instruments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 313-325.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:3:p:313-325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147199
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Theesfeld, Insa & Schleyer, Christian & Callois, Jean-Marc & Aznar, Olivier, 2008. "Ex-ante Policy Assessment from an Institutional Perspective. A Procedure for Institutional Compatibility Assessment (PICA)," Institutional Change in Agriculture and Natural Resources Discussion Papers 6112, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    2. Katherine Falconer & Pierre Dupraz & Martin Whitby, 2001. "An Investigation of Policy Administrative Costs Using Panel Data for the English Environmentally Sensitive Areas," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 83-103, January.
    3. Hodge, Ian & McNally, Sandra, 2000. "Wetland restoration, collective action and the role of water management institutions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 107-118, October.
    4. Atance Muniz, Ignacio & Bardaji, Isabel & Tio, Carlos, 2002. "Intervention in Agricultural Systems that Provide Positive Environmental Externalities: an Evaluation of Alternative Instruments," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24810, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. C. Choe & I. Fraser, 1998. "A Note on Imperfect Monitoring of Agri‐Environmental Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(2), pages 250-258, June.
    6. F. Bonnieux & P. Rainelli & D. Vermersch, 1998. "Estimating the Supply of Environmental Benefits by Agriculture: A French Case Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(2), pages 135-153, March.
    7. Sinden, Jack A., 2003. "Who Pays to Protect Native Vegetation? Costs to Farmers in Moree Plains Shire, New South Wales," Working Papers 12951, University of New England, School of Economics.
    8. Cullen, Ross & Fairburn, Geoffrey A. & Hughey, Kenneth F. D., 2001. "Measuring the productivity of threatened-species programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 53-66, October.
    9. Chongwoo Choe & Iain Fraser, 1999. "Compliance Monitoring and Agri‐Environmental Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 468-487, September.
    10. Mooney, Sian & Antle, John M. & Capalbo, Susan Marie & Paustian, Keith H., 2002. "Contracting For Soil Carbon Credits: Design And Costs Of Measurement And Monitoring," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19616, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. L. Harrison‐Mayfield & J. Dwyer & G. Brookes, 1998. "The Socio‐Economic Effects of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(2), pages 157-170, June.
    12. Andrew Moxey & Ben White & Adam Ozanne, 1999. "Efficient Contract Design for Agri‐Environment Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 187-202, May.
    13. Sauer, Johannes & Walsh, John, 2011. "ESS versus NVZ – The Cost-Effectiveness of Command-and-Control versus Agreement Based Policy Instruments," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108963, Agricultural Economics Society.
    14. Juutinen, Artti & Mönkkönen, Mikko & Ylisirniö, Anna-Liisa, 2009. "Does a voluntary conservation program result in a representative protected area network?: The case of Finnish privately owned forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2974-2984, October.
    15. Haddock, Janet & Tzanopoulos, Joseph & Mitchley, Jonathan & Fraser, Rob, 2007. "A method for evaluating alternative landscape management scenarios in relation to the biodiversity conservation of habitats," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 277-283, March.
    16. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2002. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 17-31, November.
    17. Juutinen, Artti & Mantymaa, Erkki & Monkkonen, Mikko & Svento, Rauli, 2008. "Voluntary agreements in protecting privately owned forests in Finland -- To buy or to lease," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 230-239, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:uwp:landec:v:72:y:1996:i:3:p:313-325. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.