IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v93y2017i3p459-480.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creating Voluntary Payment Programs: Effective Program Design and Ranchers’ Willingness to Conserve Florida Panther Habitat

Author

Listed:
  • Melissa M. Kreye
  • Elizabeth F. Pienaar
  • José R. Soto
  • Damian C. Adams

Abstract

Landowner resistance to Endangered Species Act regulations is a key conservation challenge. In 2014 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed that a mix of payments for ecosystem services and regulatory assurances be implemented to encourage cattle ranchers’ participation in Florida panther recovery efforts. To identify cattle ranchers’ preferences for the proposed programs, we implemented a best-worst scaling choice experiment. Our results suggest that voluntary conservation programs are most likely to enroll politically conservative landowners if these programs provide per acre payments or tax reductions, are of shorter duration, and do not require overly intrusive or restrictive levels of monitoring to ensure compliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Melissa M. Kreye & Elizabeth F. Pienaar & José R. Soto & Damian C. Adams, 2017. "Creating Voluntary Payment Programs: Effective Program Design and Ranchers’ Willingness to Conserve Florida Panther Habitat," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 93(3), pages 459-480.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:93:y:2017:i:3:p:459-480
    Note: DOI: 10.3368/le.93.3.459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/93/3/459
    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. Estifanos, Tafesse Kefyalew & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2020. "Managing conflicts between local land use and the protection of the Ethiopian wolf: Residents’ preferences for conservation program design features," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    2. Nunez Godoy, Cristina C. & Pienaar, Elizabeth F. & Branch, Lyn C., 2022. "Willingness of private landowners to participate in forest conservation in the Chaco region of Argentina," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. Aizaki, Hideo & Fogarty, James, 2019. "An R package and tutorial for case 2 best–worst scaling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    5. Regmi, Arun & Kreye, Melissa M. & Kreye, Jesse K., 2023. "Forest landowner demand for prescribed fire as an ecological management tool in Pennsylvania, USA," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    6. Kreye, Melissa M. & Adams, Damian C. & Ober, Holly K., 2018. "Protecting Imperiled Wildlife Species on Private Lands: Forest Owner Values and Response to Government Interventions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 254-264.
    7. Khanal, Puskar N. & Grebner, Donald L. & Straka, Thomas J. & Adams, Damian C., 2019. "Obstacles to participation in carbon sequestration for nonindustrial private forest landowners in the southern United States: A diffusion of innovations perspective," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 95-101.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:93:y:2017:i:3:p:459-480. 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.