IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dlw/wpaper/10-08..html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Maximizing Conservation and In-Kind Cost Share: Applying Goal Programming to Forest Protection

Author

Listed:
  • Jacob R. Fooks

    () (Graduate Student, University of Delaware)

  • Kent D. Messer

    () (Department of Food & Resource Economics, University of Delaware)

Abstract

This research evaluates the potential gains in benefits from using Goal Programming to preserve forestland. Two- and three-dimensional Goal Programming models are developed and applied to data from applicants to the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program, the largest forest protection program in the United States. Results suggest that not only do these model yield substantial increases in benefits, but by being able to account for both environmental benefits and in-kind partner cost share, Goal Programming may be flexible enough to facilitate adoption by program managers needing to account for both ecological and political factors.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacob R. Fooks & Kent D. Messer, 2010. "Maximizing Conservation and In-Kind Cost Share: Applying Goal Programming to Forest Protection," Working Papers 10-08, University of Delaware, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:dlw:wpaper:10-08.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://graduate.lerner.udel.edu/sites/default/files/ECON/PDFs/RePEc/dlw/WorkingPapers/2010/UDWP2010-08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kotani, Koji & Messer, Kent D. & Schulze, William D., 2010. "Matching Grants and Charitable Giving: Why People Sometimes Provide a Helping Hand to Fund Environmental Goods," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(2), April.
    2. Kotani, Koji & Messer, Kent D. & Schulze, William D., 2010. "Matching Grants and Charitable Giving: Why People Sometimes Provide a Helping Hand to Fund Environmental Goods," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(2), April.
    3. Baker, Michael & Payne, A. Abigail & Smart, Michael, 1999. "An empirical study of matching grants: the 'cap on CAP'," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 269-288, May.
    4. Messer, Kent D. & Allen, William L., III, 2010. "Applying Optimization and the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Enhance Agricultural Preservation Strategies in the State of Delaware," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 39(3), October.
    5. Messer, Kent D. & Allen, William L., 2010. "Applying Optimization and the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Enhance Agricultural Preservation Strategies in the State of Delaware," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(03), pages 442-456, October.
    6. Hayri Önal, 1997. "Trade-off between Structural Diversity and Economic Objectives in Forest Management," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(3), pages 1001-1012.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Duke, Joshua M. & Dundas, Steven J. & Johnston, Robert J. & Messer, Kent D., 2014. "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 319-329.
    2. Messer, Kent D. & Borchers, Allison M., 2015. "Choice for goods under threat of destruction," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 137-140.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Goal programming; multi-objective programming; conservation optimization; forest conservation; environmental services; in-kind cost sharing; matching grants;

    JEL classification:

    • C6 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation

    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:dlw:wpaper:10-08.. 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: (Saul Hoffman). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deudeus.html .

    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 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.

    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.