IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v42y2013i01p225-250_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prioritizing Ecosystem Service Protection and Conservation Efforts in the Forest Plantations of the Red Hills

Author

Listed:
  • Moore, Rebecca

Abstract

We use a stated choice experiment to estimate household willingness-to-pay for a program providing incentives to private forest land owners in the Red Hills region of southwest Georgia and northwest Florida. The estimated values of various program attributes inform a landscape analysis that identifies high-priority private forest land that could be targeted for conservation incentives. Households report an increase in utility from the program when it explicitly identifies a target ecosystem-service priority. Also, inclusion of stated preference values in the prioritization plan highlights a potential scarcity effect that has important implications for conservation targeting.

Suggested Citation

  • Moore, Rebecca, 2013. "Prioritizing Ecosystem Service Protection and Conservation Efforts in the Forest Plantations of the Red Hills," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 225-250, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:42:y:2013:i:01:p:225-250_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S106828050000770X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Baral, Himlal & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2016. "A proposed framework for assessing ecosystem goods and services from planted forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 260-268.
    2. Bauer, Dana Marie & Johnston, Robert J., 2013. "Foreword: The Economics of Rural and Agricultural Ecosystem Services: Purism versus Practicality," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-13, April.

    More about this item

    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:cup:agrerw:v:42:y:2013:i:01:p:225-250_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    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.