IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/arerjl/31373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Sciences to Improve the Economic Efficiency of Conservation Policies

Author

Listed:
  • Wu, JunJie

Abstract

In the last 20 years, both public and private expenditures on resource conservation and environmental protection have increased dramatically. However, there are numerous technical and political barriers to the efficient use of conservation funds. This paper discusses some of these barriers and approaches to overcoming them. It argues that ecosystem complexities such as threshold effects, ecosystem linkages, and spatial connections often mitigate against politically palatable criteria for resource allocation. Ignoring these complexities is likely to result in substantial efficiency losses. While challenges are daunting for the efficient management of conservation investments, payoff is potentially high for the use of sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • Wu, JunJie, 2004. "Using Sciences to Improve the Economic Efficiency of Conservation Policies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-6, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:arerjl:31373
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.31373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/31373/files/33010018.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.31373?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. Katherine Reichelderfer & William G. Boggess, 1988. "Government Decision Making and Program Performance: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 1-11.
    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. Pierre Dupraz & Karine Latouche & Nadine Turpin, 2007. "Programmes agri-environnementaux en présence d’effets de seuil," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 82, pages 5-32.
    3. Strauss, Peter & Leone, Antonio & Ripa, Maria & Turpin, Nadine & Lescot, Jean-Marie & Laplana, Ramon, 2006. "Using critical source areas for targeting cost-effective best management practices to mitigate phosphorus and sediment transfer at the watershed scale," MPRA Paper 66256, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.
    5. Messer, Kent D. & Borchers, Allison M., 2015. "Choice for goods under threat of destruction," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 137-140.
    6. Pierre Dupraz & Karine Latouche & Francois Bonnieux, 2004. "Economic implications of scale and threshold effects in agri-environmental processes," Post-Print hal-01931556, HAL.
    7. Stone, Edward A. & Wu, JunJie, 2008. "Optimal Design of Government Hierarchy for Ecosystem Service Provision," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6253, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. N. Turpin & P. Bordenave & F. Oehler & T. Bioteau, 2007. "Coût-efficacité de pratiques respectueuses de l'environnement : une modélisation couplée pour représenter les conséquences, sur un territoire, de l'adoption de pratiques visant à limiter les pollution," Post-Print hal-00601925, HAL.

    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. Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Schilizzi, S., 2008. "Quantifying the Benefits of Conservation Auctions: Evidence from an Economic Experiment," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43, March.
    2. Hongli Feng & Catherine L. Kling & Lyubov A. Kurkalova & Silvia Secchi & Philip W. Gassman, 2005. "The Conservation Reserve Program in the Presence of a Working Land Alternative: Implications for Environmental Quality, Program Participation, and Income Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1231-1238.
    3. Wu, JunJie & Zilberman, David & Babcock, Bruce A., 2001. "Environmental and Distributional Impacts of Conservation Targeting Strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 333-350, May.
    4. B Kelsey Jack, 2009. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts in Indonesia - Participant Learning in Multiple Trial Rounds," CID Working Papers 35, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    5. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    6. John K. Horowitz & Lori Lynch & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Competition-Based Environmental Policy: An Analysis of Farmland Preservation in Maryland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(4), pages 555-575.
    7. Thomas, Alban & Chakir, Raja, 2020. "Unintended consequences of environmental policies: the case of set-aside and agricultural intensification," TSE Working Papers 20-1066, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    8. Wanhong Yang & Madhu Khanna & Richard Farnsworth & Hayri Önal, 2005. "Is Geographical Targeting Cost-Effective? The Case of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in Illinois," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 70-88.
    9. Schilizzi, Steven & Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2011. "Does tendering conservation contracts with performance payments generate additional benefits?," Working Papers 100883, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    10. Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Schilizzi, S. & Breustedt, G., 2012. "Auctioning outcome-based conservation contracts," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 47, March.
    11. Markus Groth, 2009. "The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 119, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    12. Schilizzi, Steven & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2009. "Predicting the performance of conservation tenders when information on bidders's costs is limited," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48171, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Hellerstein, Daniel & Higgins, Nathaniel, 2010. "The Effective Use of Limited Information: Do Bid Maximums Reduce Procurement Cost in Asymmetric Auctions?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 288-304, April.
    14. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2006. "Using Field Experiments to Explore the Use of Multiple Bidding Rounds in Conservation Auctions," Discussion Papers 25801, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Jacobs, Keri L. & Thurman, Walter N. & Marra, Michele C., 2011. "How Farmers Bid Into the Conservation Reserve Program: An Empirical Analysis of CRP Offers Data," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103675, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Cattaneo, Andrea & Bucholtz, Shawn & Dewbre, Joe & Nickerson, Cynthia J., 2002. "The Crp Balancing Act: Trading Off Costs And Multiple Environmental Benefits," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19810, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Balmford, Ben & Collins, Joseph & Day, Brett & Lindsay, Luke & Peacock, James, 2023. "Pricing rules for PES auctions: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    18. Onianwa, Odili & Wheelock, Gerald & Gyawali, Buddhi Raj, 2003. "Factors Affecting Participation Behavior Of Limited Resource Farmers In Cost-Share Programs In Alabama," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22244, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Feng, Hongli & Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Gassman, Philip W., 2006. "Environmental conservation in agriculture: Land retirement vs. changing practices on working land," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 600-614, September.
    20. Laura Brown & Elizabeth Troutt & Cynthia Edwards & Brian Gray & Wanjing Hu, 2011. "A Uniform Price Auction for Conservation Easements in the Canadian Prairies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 49-60, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:arerjl:31373. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nareaea.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.