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," Discussion Papers 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 & 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.
    3. JunJie Wu & Bruce A. Babcock & P. G. Lakshminarayan, 1996. "Choice of Tillage, Rotation, and Soil Testing Practices: Economic and Environmental Implications, The," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 96-wp161, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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.
    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. repec:eee:jeeman:v:83:y:2017:i:c:p:217-230 is not listed on IDEAS
    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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    biodiversity conservation; incentive payments; cost-effectiveness; opportunity cost; biological benefits; non-industrial private forests;

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Webmaster). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/degraus.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.