Opportunity Costs as a Determinant of Participation in Payments for Ecosystem Service Schemes
Landholders are generally assumed to be willing to participate in payments for ecosystem service (PES) schemes if the offered payment exceeds the opportunity cost of participation. The calculation of opportunity costs is often based on historic financial data such as net returns of the formerly practiced land use. Reliable estimates of opportunity costs are required especially in flexible, cost-aligned payment schemes with differentiated payments at the farm scale. We question whether opportunity cost estimates that do not consider personal landholder characteristics such as risk considerations, information access and non-monetary personal preferences (e.g. for traditional land use practices) are sufficient to explain a landholder's decision to enrol land in PES. To test these assumptions, a PES adoption model was developed for hypothetical adoption decisions by 178 landholders in Costa Rica. The model explained up to 73.5% (Nagelkerkes pseudo R2) of adoption variance. The results confirm that adoption is not determined by financial costs alone. Trust in state institutions, for example, was highly significant. The results call for more integrated methods of opportunity cost estimation such as inverse auctions. Their strength lies, among others, in that all adoption determinants are potentially expressed in the landholder's bid.
|Date of creation:||2011|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.eaae.org|
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eaae11:115779. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.