IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae08/44453.html

Enforcement Aspects of Conservation Policies: Compensation Payments versus Reserves

Author

Listed:
  • Rousseau, Sandra

Abstract

This model explicitly incorporates the dynamic aspects of conservation programs with incomplete compliance and it allows landholders’ behaviour to change over time. We find that incomplete and instrument-specific enforcement can have a significant impact on the choice between subsidy schemes and reserves for conservation policies. The results suggest that it is useless to design a conservation scheme for landholders if the regulator is not prepared to explicitly back the program with a monitoring and enforcement policy. In general, the regulator will prefer to use compensation payments, if the cost of using government revenues is sufficiently low, the environmental benefits are equal, and the cost efficiency benefits exceed the (possible) increase in inspection costs. If the use of government funds is too costly, the reserve-type instruments will be socially beneficial.

Suggested Citation

  • Rousseau, Sandra, 2008. "Enforcement Aspects of Conservation Policies: Compensation Payments versus Reserves," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44453, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae08:44453
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.44453
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/44453/files/412.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.44453?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. Gibson, Clark C. & Williams, John T. & Ostrom, Elinor, 2005. "Local Enforcement and Better Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 273-284, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Chongwoo Choe & Iain Fraser, 1999. "Compliance Monitoring and Agri‐Environmental Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 468-487, September.
    4. Konstantinos Giannakas & Jonathan D. Kaplan, 2005. "Policy Design and Conservation Compliance on Highly Erodible Lands," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
    5. Ellefson, Paul V. & Kilgore, Michael A. & Granskog, James E., 2007. "Government regulation of forestry practices on private forest land in the United States: An assessment of state government responsibilities and program performance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 620-632, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yano, Yuki & Blandford, David, "undated". "Use of Penalties and Rewards in Agri-Environmental Policy," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36873, Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Bazzani, Guido Maria & Viaggi, Davide, 2004. "Improving the design of agri-environmental policies: a case study in Italy," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 5(2), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Bartolini, Fabio & Gallerani, Vittorio & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2005. "Contract Design and Targeting for the Production of Public Goods in Agriculture: The Impact of the 2003 Cap Reform," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24559, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Rob Fraser, 2002. "Moral Hazard and Risk Management in Agri‐environmental Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 475-487, November.
    5. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    6. Lankoski, Jussi E. & Lichtenberg, Erik & Ollikainen, Markku, 2008. "Agri-environmental program compliance under heterogeneous conditions," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44381, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Claassen, Roger & Cattaneo, Andrea & Johansson, Robert, 2008. "Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 737-752, May.
    8. Kentaro Kawasaki & Takeshi Fujie & Kentaro Koito & Norikazu Inoue & Hiroki Sasaki, 2012. "Conservation Auctions and Compliance: Theory and Evidence from Laboratory Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(2), pages 157-179, June.
    9. Adam Ozanne & Ben White, 2008. "Hidden action, risk aversion and variable fines in agri-environmental schemes ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 203-212, June.
    10. Bartolini, Fabio & Gallerani, Vittorio & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2008. "Modelling The Effectiveness Of Cross-Compliance Under Asymmetric Information," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6670, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Yuki Yano & David Blandford, 2009. "Use of Compliance Rewards in Agri‐environmental Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 530-545, September.
    12. Sackey, Ransford & Brobbey, Lawrence Kwabena & Kumeh, Eric Mensah & Ameyaw, Joana Akua Serwaa, 2025. "Environmentality and the making of compliant subjects: Insights from collaborative forest management innovations in Southwestern Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    13. L. Jamila Haider & Benjamin Neusel & Garry D. Peterson & Maja Schlüter, 2019. "Past management affects success of current joint forestry management institutions in Tajikistan," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2183-2224, October.
    14. Maja Schl�ter & Alessandro Tavoni & Simon Levin, 2014. "Robustness of norm-driven cooperation in the commons to environmental variability," GRI Working Papers 146, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    15. Schnegg, Michael & Linke, Theresa, 2015. "Living Institutions: Sharing and Sanctioning Water among Pastoralists in Namibia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 205-214.
    16. Noel Perceval Assogba & Daowei Zhang, 2020. "An Economic Analysis of Tropical Forest Resource Conservation in a Protected Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-12, July.
    17. Kwabena A. Owusu & Micaela M. Kulesz & Agostino Merico, 2019. "Extraction Behaviour and Income Inequalities Resulting from a Common Pool Resource Exploitation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, January.
    18. Michael K McCall & Noah Chutz & Margaret Skutsch, 2016. "Moving from Measuring, Reporting, Verification (MRV) of Forest Carbon to Community Mapping, Measuring, Monitoring (MMM): Perspectives from Mexico," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, June.
    19. Wade, Tara & Kurkalova, Lyubov & Secchi, Silvia, 2016. "Modeling Field-Level Conservation Tillage Adoption with Aggregate Choice Data," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    20. Cross, Robin M. & Buccola, Steven T. & Thomann, Enrique A., 2006. "Cooperation and Cheating," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21158, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:eaae08:44453. 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/eaaeeea.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.