IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae11/115774.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Practical Alternatives to Estimate Opportunity Costs of Forest Conservation

Author

Listed:
  • Wunscher, Tobias
  • Engel, Stefanie
  • Wunder, Sven

Abstract

Numerous studies have shown the merits of targeting the costs of conservation besides environmental benefits and aligning payments for ecosystem services with incurred costs. However, cost-effective and precise estimation of site specific opportunity costs is a major challenge. In this paper we test two approaches to estimate opportunity costs of conservation: One approach derives opportunity costs from annual land rents, and the other models regresses opportunity costs on easily obtainable and difficult to manipulate spatial and socio-economic independent variables such as soil quality. None of these approaches appeared to estimate opportunity costs sufficiently well. But since this judgment is based on how well the estimates compare to the reference opportunity costs, which were computed from farm budgets, we also considered potential flaws in the reference data and tested their plausibility. The tests confirmed the plausibility of data. Based on the results presented in this paper none of the two cost estimation approaches can be recommended for practical application in conservation programs. Yet, further research is necessary to confirm these findings giving special attention to the techniques that are applied to deliver reference point data on opportunity costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Wunscher, Tobias & Engel, Stefanie & Wunder, Sven, 2011. "Practical Alternatives to Estimate Opportunity Costs of Forest Conservation," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115774, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae11:115774
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.115774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/115774/files/Wuenscher_Tobias_389.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.115774?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lazarus, Bill & Taff, Steven J, 2000. "Minnesota Agricultural Economist 699," Minnesota Applied Economist\Minnesota Agricultural Economist 13198, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    2. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel, 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications (II): Applications of the Theory of Production," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 2, number fuss1978a.
    3. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel (ed.), 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780444850133.
    4. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel & Mundlak, Yair, 1978. "A Survey of Functional Forms in the Economic Analysis of Production," Histoy of Economic Thought Chapters, in: Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel (ed.),Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications, volume 1, chapter 4, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought.
    5. Wünscher, Tobias & Engel, Stefanie & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 822-833, May.
    6. Ferraro, Paul J., 2003. "Conservation Contracting in Heterogeneous Landscapes: An Application to Watershed Protection and Threshold Constraints," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-12, April.
    7. Ferraro, Paul J., 2003. "Conservation Contracting in Heterogeneous Landscapes: An Application to Watershed Protection with Threshold Constraints," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 53-64, April.
    8. Fuss, Melvyn & McFadden, Daniel, 1978. "Production Economics: A Dual Approach to Theory and Applications (I): The Theory of Production," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, volume 1, number fuss1978.
    9. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    10. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer & De Janvry, Alain & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 2008. "The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 375-394, June.
    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. V. Vandenberghe, 2018. "The Contribution of Educated Workers to Firms’ Efficiency Gains: The Key Role of Proximity to the ‘Local’ Frontier," De Economist, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 259-283, September.
    2. Huiban, Jean-Pierre & Mastromarco, Camille & Musolesi, Antonio & Simioni, Michel, 2016. "The impact of pollution abatement investments on production technology: new insights from frontier analysis," Working Papers MOISA 235162, Institut National de la recherché Agronomique (INRA), UMR MOISA : Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs : CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France.
    3. Sauer, J., 2007. "Monotonicity and Curvature – A Bootstrapping Approach," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 42, March.
    4. Andreas Reinstaller & Werner Hölzl, 2004. "Complementarity constraints and induced innovation: some evidence from the first IT regime," Chapters, in: John Foster & Werner Hölzl (ed.), Applied Evolutionary Economics and Complex Systems, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Sperlich, Stefan & Tjøstheim, Dag & Yang, Lijian, 2002. "Nonparametric Estimation And Testing Of Interaction In Additive Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 197-251, April.
    6. Carter, Michael R., 1986. "Peasant Productivity And Differentiation: A Microeconometric Analysis Of The Impact Of Small Farm Credit In Nicaragua," 1986 Annual Meeting, July 27-30, Reno, Nevada 278458, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Walter Briec & Kristiaan Kerstens & Ignace Van de Woestyne, 2016. "Congestion in production correspondences," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 119(1), pages 65-90, September.
    8. Andrea Mantovi, 2016. "Smooth preferences, symmetries and expansion vector fields," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 147-169, October.
    9. van Groenendaal, Willem J. H., 1995. "Assessing demand when introducing a new fuel : Natural gas on Java," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 147-161, April.
    10. Mazzocco, Michael A. & Eales, James S., 1987. "Estimating Factor Demands for Iltinois Cash Grain Farms: Differences Between Profitable and Unprofitable Farms," 1987 Annual Meeting, August 2-5, East Lansing, Michigan 269945, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. McDonald, John & Snooks, G. D., 1986. "Domesday Economy: A New Approach to Anglo-Norman History," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198285243.
    12. Emili GRIFELL‐TATJÉ & Kristiaan KERSTENS, 2008. "Incentive Regulation And The Role Of Convexity In Benchmarking Electricity Distribution: Economists Versus Engineers," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 79(2), pages 227-248, June.
    13. LeBlanc, Michael & Hrubovcak, James, 1984. "An Analytical Framework For Examining Investment In Agriculture," Staff Reports 277581, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. T. A. Bhavani & Suresh Tendulkar, 2001. "Determinants of firm-level export performance: a case study of Indian textile garments and apparel industry," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 65-92.
    15. Brown, Bryan W. & Walker, Mary Beth, 1995. "Stochastic specification in random production models of cost-minimizing firms," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1-2), pages 175-205.
    16. Bruno De Borger & Kristiaan Kerstens & Diego Prior & Ignace Van de Woestyne, 2013. "Static efficiency decompositions and capacity utilization: integrating economic and technical capacity notions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(24), pages 3529-3529, August.
    17. Stéphane Blancard & Jean-Philippe Boussemart & Walter Briec & Kristiaan Kerstens, 2006. "Short- and Long-Run Credit Constraints in French Agriculture: A Directional Distance Function Framework Using Expenditure-Constrained Profit Functions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 351-364.
    18. Boris Lokshin & René Belderbos & Martin Carree, 2008. "The Productivity Effects of Internal and External R&D: Evidence from a Dynamic Panel Data Model," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 70(3), pages 399-413, June.
    19. Ryu, Hang Keun, 2011. "Subjective model selection rules versus passive model selection rules," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(1-2), pages 459-472, January.
    20. Tocco,Barbara & Bailey, Alastair & Davidova, Sophia, 2013. "The Theoretical Framework and Methodology to Estimate the Farm Labour and Other Factor-Derived Demand and Output Supply Systems," Factor Markets Working Papers 156, Centre for European Policy Studies.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    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:eaae11:115774. 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.