IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-06-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Incentive Payment Programs for Biological Conservation

Author

Listed:
  • Siikamäki, Juha

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Layton, David F.

Abstract

This study assesses the potential cost-effectiveness of incentive payment programs relative to traditional top-down regulatory programs for biological conservation. We develop site-level estimates of the opportunity cost and the nonmonetized biological benefits of protecting biodiversity hotspots in Finnish nonindustrial private forests. We then use these estimates to compare and contrast the cost-effectiveness of alternative conservation programs. Our results suggest that incentive payment programs, which tacitly capitalize on landowners’ private knowledge about the opportunity costs of conservation, may be considerably more cost-effective than traditional top-down regulatory programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Siikamäki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Incentive Payment Programs for Biological Conservation," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-27, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-06-27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-06-27.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lori Lynch & Sabrina J. Lovell, 2003. "Combining Spatial and Survey Data to Explain Participation in Agricultural Land reservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 259-276.
    2. Joseph C. Cooper, 2003. "A Joint Framework for Analysis of Agri-Environmental Payment Programs," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 976-987.
    3. Joseph C. Cooper & C. Tim Osborn, 1998. "The Effect of Rental Rates on the Extension of Conservation Reserve Program Contracts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 184-194.
    4. Joseph C. Cooper & Russ W. Keim, 1996. "Incentive Payments to Encourage Farmer Adoption of Water Quality Protection Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(1), pages 54-64.
    5. JunJie Wu & Bruce A. Babcock, 1998. "The Choice of Tillage, Rotation, and Soil Testing Practices: Economic and Environmental Implications," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 494-511.
    6. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    7. Christian Langpap, 2004. "Conservation Incentives Programs for Endangered Species: An Analysis of Landowner Participation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(3), pages 375-388.
    8. Gardner M. Brown & Jason F. Shogren, 1998. "Economics of the Endangered Species Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 3-20, Summer.
    9. Costello, Christopher & Polasky, Stephen, 2004. "Dynamic reserve site selection," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 157-174, June.
    10. C. R. Margules & R. L. Pressey, 2000. "Systematic conservation planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 243-253, May.
    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. Zhou, Mo, 2017. "Valuing environmental amenities through inverse optimization: Theory and case study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 217-230.
    2. Engel, Stefanie & Palmer, Charles, 2008. "Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: The case of Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 799-809, May.

    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. David Layton & Juha Siikamäki, 2009. "Payments for Ecosystem Services Programs: Predicting Landowner Enrollment and Opportunity Cost Using a Beta-Binomial Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 415-439, November.
    2. Seon-Ae Kim & Jeffrey M. Gillespie & Krishna P. Paudel, 2008. "Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost-share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 235-252, September.
    3. Juha Siikamäki & David F. Layton, 2007. "Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Incentive Payment Programs for the Protection of Non-Industrial Private Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 539-560.
    4. Wang, Haoluan, 2017. "Land Conservation for Open Space: The Impact of Neighbors and the Natural Environment," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258125, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Joseph Cooper & Giovanni Signorello, 2008. "Farmer Premiums for the Voluntary Adoption of Conservation Plans," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14.
    6. Kim, Seon-Ae & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Paudel, Krishna P., 2004. "The Effect Of Economic Factors On The Apoption Of Best Management Practices In Beef Cattle Production," 2004 Annual Meeting, February 14-18, 2004, Tulsa, Oklahoma 34670, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Kim, Seon-Ae & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Paudel, Krishna P., 2004. "The Effect Of Contingent Valuation Format On Producers' Rotational Grazing Adoption Responses," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20055, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Hua Zhong & Ping Qing & Wuyang Hu, 2016. "Farmers' willingness to participate in best management practices in Kentucky," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 1015-1039, June.
    9. Hand, Michael S. & Nickerson, Cynthia J., 2009. "The Role of Cost-Share Rates and Prices on the Size of Conservation Investments in EQIP," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49257, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Siikamäki, Juha & Layton, David, 2005. "Incentive Payment Programs for Environmental Protection: A Framework for Eliciting and Estimating Landowners' Willingness to Participate," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-57, Resources for the Future.
    11. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    12. KURKALOVA, Lyubov A. & WADE, Tara R., 2013. "Aggregated Choice Data And Logit Models: Application To Environmental Benign Practices Of Conservation Tillage By Farmers In The State Of Iowa," Applied Econometrics and International Development, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 13(2), pages 119-128.
    13. Chad Lawley & Erik Lichtenberg & Doug Parker, 2009. "Biases in Nutrient Management Planning," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 186-200.
    14. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    15. Plastina, Alejandro & Liu, Fangge & Sawadgo, Wendiam, 2018. "Additionality in cover-crop cost-share programs in Iowa: a matching assessment," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274454, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Boyer, Christopher N. & Lambert, Dayton M. & Velandia, Margarita & English, Burton C. & Robert, Roland K. & Larson, James A. & Larkin, Sherry L. & Paudel, Krishna P. & Reeves, Jeanne M., 2016. "Cotton Producer Awareness and Participation in Cost-Sharing Programs for Precision Nutrient-Management Technology," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(1), pages 1-16, January.
    17. Poe, Gregory L. & Bills, Nelson L. & Bellows, Barbara & Crosscombe, Patricia & Koelsch, Rick & Kreher, Michael & Wright, Peter, 1999. "Documenting the Status of Dairy Manure Management in New York: Current Practices and Willingness to Participate in Voluntary Programs," Staff Papers 121154, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    18. Melstrom, Richard T. & Lee, Kangil & Byl, Jacob P., 2016. "The effect of endangered species regulations on local employment: Evidence from the listing of the lesser prairie chicken," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236254, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Melstrom, Richard T., 2017. "The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258281, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Lewis, David J. & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Nelson, Erik & Polasky, Stephen, 2011. "The efficiency of voluntary incentive policies for preventing biodiversity loss," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 192-211, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    biodiversity conservation; incentive payments; cost-effectiveness; opportunity cost; biological benefits; non-industrial private forests;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C42 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Survey Methods
    • C46 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Specific Distributions
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q21 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Demand and Supply; Prices
    • 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

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-06-27. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.