IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/31373.html

Using Sciences to Improve the Economic Efficiency of Conservation Policies

Author

Listed:
  • Wu, JunJie

Abstract

In the last 20 years, both public and private expenditures on resource conservation and environmental protection have increased dramatically. However, there are numerous technical and political barriers to the efficient use of conservation funds. This paper discusses some of these barriers and approaches to overcoming them. It argues that ecosystem complexities such as threshold effects, ecosystem linkages, and spatial connections often mitigate against politically palatable criteria for resource allocation. Ignoring these complexities is likely to result in substantial efficiency losses. While challenges are daunting for the efficient management of conservation investments, payoff is potentially high for the use of sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • Wu, JunJie, 2004. "Using Sciences to Improve the Economic Efficiency of Conservation Policies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(01), pages 1-6, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:31373
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.31373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/31373/files/33010018.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.31373?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katherine Reichelderfer & William G. Boggess, 1988. "Government Decision Making and Program Performance: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 1-11.
    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. Dupraz, Pierre & Latouche, Karine & Turpin, Nadine, 2007. "Programmes agri-environnementaux en présence d’effets de seuil," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 82.
    2. Messer, Kent D. & Borchers, Allison M., 2015. "Choice for goods under threat of destruction," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 137-140.
    3. Stone, Edward A. & Wu, JunJie, 2008. "Optimal Design of Government Hierarchy for Ecosystem Service Provision," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6253, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Duke, Joshua M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Johnston, Robert J. & Messer, Kent D., 2014. "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 319-329.
    5. Strauss, Peter & Leone, Antonio & Ripa, Maria & Turpin, Nadine & Lescot, Jean-Marie & Laplana, Ramon, 2006. "Using critical source areas for targeting cost-effective best management practices to mitigate phosphorus and sediment transfer at the watershed scale," MPRA Paper 66256, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Pierre Dupraz & Karine Latouche & Francois Bonnieux, 2004. "Economic implications of scale and threshold effects in agri-environmental processes," Post-Print hal-01931556, HAL.
    7. N. Turpin & P. Bordenave & F. Oehler & T. Bioteau, 2007. "Coût-efficacité de pratiques respectueuses de l'environnement : une modélisation couplée pour représenter les conséquences, sur un territoire, de l'adoption de pratiques visant à limiter les pollutions par l'azote," Post-Print hal-00601925, HAL.
    8. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.

    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. Valle, Haydn & Capon, Timothy & Harris, Michael & Reeson, Andrew, 2012. "Coordination and Strategic Behaviour in Landscape Auctions," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124466, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Markus Groth, 2005. "Auctions in an outcome-based payment scheme to reward ecological services in agriculture – Conception, implementation and results," ERSA conference papers ersa05p180, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Schilizzi, S., . "Quantifying the Benefits of Conservation Auctions: Evidence from an Economic Experiment," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43.
    4. Hongli Feng & Catherine L. Kling & Lyubov A. Kurkalova & Silvia Secchi & Philip W. Gassman, 2005. "The Conservation Reserve Program in the Presence of a Working Land Alternative: Implications for Environmental Quality, Program Participation, and Income Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1231-1238.
    5. Vukina, Tomislav & Zheng, Xiaoyong & Marra, Michele & Levy, Armando, 2008. "Do farmers value the environment? Evidence from a conservation reserve program auction," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1323-1332, November.
    6. Erik Lichtenberg, 2019. "Conservation and the Environment in US Farm Legislation," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(1), pages 49-55, April.
    7. Lundberg, Liv & Persson, U. Martin & Alpizar, Francisco & Lindgren, Kristian, 2018. "Context Matters: Exploring the Cost-effectiveness of Fixed Payments and Procurement Auctions for PES," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 347-358.
    8. B Kelsey Jack, 2009. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts in Indonesia - Participant Learning in Multiple Trial Rounds," CID Working Papers 35, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    9. 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.
    10. Plantinga, Andrew J. & Ahn, Soeun, 2002. "Efficient Policies For Environmental Protection: An Econometric Analysis Of Incentives For Land Conversion And Retention," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(01), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Kean Siang Ch’Ng & Suet Leng Khoo, 2015. "Market Mechanisms To Allocate Heritage Conservation Fund: An Experimental Study," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-19, December.
    12. Glebe, Thilo W., 2011. "Tendering conservation contracts: Should information on environmental benefits be disclosed or concealed?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114625, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Wu, JunJie & Zilberman, David & Babcock, Bruce A., 2001. "Environmental and Distributional Impacts of Conservation Targeting Strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 333-350, May.
    14. Ogg, Clayton W. & Aillery, Marcel P. & Ribaudo, Marc O., 1989. "Implementing the Conservation Reserve Program: Analysis of Environmental Options," Agricultural Economic Reports 308077, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    15. 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.
    16. Mengba Liu & Anlu Zhang & Xiong Zhang & Yanfei Xiong, 2022. "Research on the Game Mechanism of Cultivated Land Ecological Compensation Standards Determination: Based on the Empirical Analysis of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-29, September.
    17. Feng, Hongli & Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Gassman, Philip W., 2006. "Environmental conservation in agriculture: Land retirement vs. changing practices on working land," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 600-614, September.
    18. Feng, Hongli & Kling, Catherine L. & Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Secchi, Silvia, 2007. "Cac Versus Incentive-Based Instruments in Agriculture: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10796, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    19. Guilherme S. Bastos & Erik Lichtenberg, 2001. "Priorities in Cost Sharing for Soil and Water Conservation: A Revealed Preference Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 533-547.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:arerjl:31373. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nareaea.html .

    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.