IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uvicwp/37024.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Conservation Payments under Risk: A Stochastic Dominance Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Benitez, Pablo C.
  • Kuosmanen, Timo
  • Olschewski, Roland
  • van Kooten, G. Cornelis

Abstract

Conservation payments can be used to preserve forest and agroforest systems. To explain landowners’ land-use decisions and determine appropriate conservation payments, it is necessary to focus on revenue risk. Marginal conditional stochastic dominance rules are used to derive conditions for determining the conservation payments required to guarantee that the environmentally-preferred land use dominates. An empirical application to shaded-coffee protection in the biologically important Chocó region of West-Ecuador shows that conservation payments required for preserving shaded-coffee areas are much higher than those calculated under risk-neutral assumptions. Further, the extant distribution of land has strong impacts on the required payments.

Suggested Citation

  • Benitez, Pablo C. & Kuosmanen, Timo & Olschewski, Roland & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2005. "Conservation Payments under Risk: A Stochastic Dominance Approach," Working Papers 37024, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:uvicwp:37024
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.37024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/37024/files/WorkingPaper2005-14.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.37024?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. Thomas R. Harris & Harry P. Mapp, 1986. "A Stochastic Dominance Comparison of Water-Conserving Irrigation Strategies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(2), pages 298-305.
    2. G. Cornelis Kooten, 2000. "Economic Dynamics of Tree Planting for Carbon Uptake on Marginal Agricultural Lands," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 48(1), pages 51-65, March.
    3. Norman Myers & Russell A. Mittermeier & Cristina G. Mittermeier & Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca & Jennifer Kent, 2000. "Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities," Nature, Nature, vol. 403(6772), pages 853-858, February.
    4. Richard E. Just & Quinn Weninger, 1999. "Are Crop Yields Normally Distributed?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(2), pages 287-304.
    5. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Robert A. Schipper, 2002. "Forest Conservation in Costa Rica when Nonuse Benefits are Uncertain but Rising," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 150-160.
    6. Thierry Post, 2003. "Empirical Tests for Stochastic Dominance Efficiency," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(5), pages 1905-1932, October.
    7. Haim Levy, 1992. "Stochastic Dominance and Expected Utility: Survey and Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 555-593, April.
    8. Douglas J. Miller, 1999. "An Econometric Analysis of the Costs of Sequestering Carbon in Forests," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(4), pages 812-824.
    9. Meyer, Jack & Rasche, Robert H, 1992. "Sufficient Conditions for Expected Utility to Imply Mean-Standard Deviation Rankings: Empirical Evidence Concerning the Location and Scale Condition," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(410), pages 91-106, January.
    10. Richard M. Klemme, 1985. "A Stochastic Dominance Comparison of Reduced Tillage Systems in Corn and Soybean Production under Risk," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(3), pages 550-556.
    11. Sohngen, Brent & Mendelsohn, Robert, 1998. "Valuing the Impact of Large-Scale Ecological Change in a Market: The Effect of Climate Change on U.S. Timber," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 686-710, September.
    12. Mark J. Cochran & Lindon J. Robison & Weldon Lodwick, 1985. "Improving the Efficiency of Stochastic Dominance Techniques Using Convex Set Stochastic Dominance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(2), pages 289-295.
    13. Meyer, Jack, 1987. "Two-moment Decision Models and Expected Utility Maximization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 421-430, June.
    14. Thierry Post, 2003. "Empirical Tests for Stochastic Dominance Efficiency," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(5), pages 1905-1931, October.
    15. Moshe Leshno & Haim Levy, 2002. "Preferred by "All" and Preferred by "Most" Decision Makers: Almost Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1074-1085, August.
    16. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    17. Brent Sohngen & Robert Mendelsohn, 2003. "An Optimal Control Model of Forest Carbon Sequestration," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 448-457.
    18. J. Callaway & Bruce McCarl, 1996. "The economic consequences of substituting carbon payments for crop subsidies in U.S. agriculture," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 15-43, January.
    19. Levy, Haim & Kroll, Yoram, 1979. "Efficiency Analysis with Borrowing and Lending: Criteria and Their Effectiveness," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 61(1), pages 125-130, February.
    20. Bruce A. McCarl & Thomas O. Knight & James R. Wilson & James B. Hastie, 1987. "Stochastic Dominance over Potential Portfolios: Caution Regarding Covariance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 69(4), pages 804-812.
    21. Robert N. Collender & David Zilberman, 1985. "Land Allocation under Uncertainty for Alternative Specifications of Return Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(4), pages 779-786.
    22. Haim Shalit & Shlomo Yitzhaki, 1994. "Marginal Conditional Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(5), pages 670-684, May.
    23. Johnson, A. K. L. & Cramb, R. A., 1996. "Integrated land evaluation to generate risk-efficient land-use options in a coastal catchment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 287-305.
    24. Ray D. Nelson & Rulon D. Pope, 1991. "Bootstrapped Insights into Empirical Applications of Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(9), pages 1182-1194, September.
    25. Williams, J. R. & DeLano, D. R. & Heiniger, R. W. & Vanderlip, R. L. & Llewelyn, R. V., 1999. "Replanting strategies for grain sorghum under risk," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 137-155, May.
    26. Robert N. Stavins, 1999. "The Costs of Carbon Sequestration: A Revealed-Preference Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 994-1009, September.
    27. Timo Kuosmanen, 2004. "Efficient Diversification According to Stochastic Dominance Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1390-1406, October.
    28. Klaus Deininger & Bart Minten, 2002. "Determinants of Deforestation and the Economics of Protection: An Application to Mexico," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 943-960.
    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. Kallio, Markku & Dehghan Hardoroudi, Nasim, 2018. "Second-order stochastic dominance constrained portfolio optimization: Theory and computational tests," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 675-685.
    2. Post, Thierry & Kopa, Miloš, 2013. "General linear formulations of stochastic dominance criteria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 230(2), pages 321-332.
    3. Thierry Post & Valerio Potì, 2017. "Portfolio Analysis Using Stochastic Dominance, Relative Entropy, and Empirical Likelihood," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 153-165, January.
    4. Rudolf F. Klein & K. Victor Chow, 2010. "Sentiment Effect and Market Portfolio Inefficiency," Working Papers 10-08, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
    5. Zhang, Duo, 2009. "A demonstration of the non-necessity of marginal conditional stochastic dominance for portfolio inefficiency," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 417-423, May.
    6. Hildebrandt, Patrick & Knoke, Thomas, 2011. "Investment decisions under uncertainty--A methodological review on forest science studies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, January.
    7. Thierry Post & Yi Fang & Miloš Kopa, 2015. "Linear Tests for Decreasing Absolute Risk Aversion Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1615-1629, July.
    8. Thierry Post & Miloš Kopa, 2017. "Portfolio Choice Based on Third-Degree Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3381-3392, October.
    9. Andrey Lizyayev, 2012. "Stochastic dominance efficiency analysis of diversified portfolios: classification, comparison and refinements," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 391-410, July.
    10. Christodoulakis, George & Mohamed, Abdulkadir & Topaloglou, Nikolas, 2018. "Optimal privatization portfolios in the presence of arbitrary risk aversion," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(3), pages 1172-1191.
    11. Fang, Yi & Post, Thierry, 2017. "Higher-degree stochastic dominance optimality and efficiency," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(3), pages 984-993.
    12. Lizyayev, Andrey & Ruszczyński, Andrzej, 2012. "Tractable Almost Stochastic Dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 448-455.
    13. Arvanitis, Stelios & Scaillet, Olivier & Topaloglou, Nikolas, 2020. "Spanning tests for Markowitz stochastic dominance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 217(2), pages 291-311.
    14. Iñaki R. Longarela, 2016. "A Characterization of the SSD-Efficient Frontier of Portfolio Weights by Means of a Set of Mixed-Integer Linear Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3549-3554, December.
    15. van Kooten, G. Cornelis & Sohngen, Brent, 2007. "Economics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Sinks: A Review," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 237-269, September.
    16. Pinar, Mehmet & Stengos, Thanasis & Topaloglou, Nikolas, 2020. "On the construction of a feasible range of multidimensional poverty under benchmark weight uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(2), pages 415-427.
    17. Michel Denuit & Rachel Huang & Larry Tzeng, 2014. "Bivariate almost stochastic dominance," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 57(2), pages 377-405, October.
    18. Guo, Xu & Post, Thierry & Wong, Wing-Keung & Zhu, Lixing, 2014. "Moment conditions for Almost Stochastic Dominance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 163-167.
    19. Wang, Ming-Hui & Ke, Mei-Chu & Liang Liao, Tung & Chiang, Yi-Chein & Hsu, Chuan-Hao, 2020. "Alternative estimation method of earnings growth rate for PEGR strategy," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    20. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Susanna Laaksonen-Craig & Yichuan Wang, 2007. "Costs of Creating Carbon Offset Credits via Forestry Activities: A Meta-Regression Analysis," Working Papers 2007-03, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • O54 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Latin America; Caribbean
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns

    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:uvicwp:37024. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://web.uvic.ca/econ/ .

    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: http://web.uvic.ca/econ/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.