IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v91y2009i4p1080-1096.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Targeting Incentives to Reduce Habitat Fragmentation

Author

Listed:
  • David J. Lewis
  • Andrew J. Plantinga
  • JunJie Wu

Abstract

This article develops a theoretical model to analyze the spatial targeting of incentives for the restoration of forested landscapes when wildlife habitat can be enhanced by reducing fragmentation. The key theoretical result is that the marginal net benefits of increasing forest can be convex, in which case corner solutions—converting either none or all of the agricultural land in a section to forest—may be optimal. Corner solutions are directly linked to the spatial process determining habitat benefits and the regulator’s incomplete information regarding landowner opportunity costs. We present findings from large-scale empirical landscape simulations that support our key theoretical results. Copyright 2009, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • David J. Lewis & Andrew J. Plantinga & JunJie Wu, 2009. "Targeting Incentives to Reduce Habitat Fragmentation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1080-1096.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:91:y:2009:i:4:p:1080-1096
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01310.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J. Lewis & Andrew J. Plantinga, 2007. "Policies for Habitat Fragmentation: Combining Econometrics with GIS-Based Landscape Simulations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(2), pages 109-127.
    2. Wu, JunJie & Skelton-Groth, Katharine, 2002. "Targeting conservation efforts in the presence of threshold effects and ecosystem linkages," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 313-331, August.
    3. Schatzki, Todd, 2003. "Options, uncertainty and sunk costs:: an empirical analysis of land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 86-105, July.
    4. Adina M. Merenlender, 2006. "Habitat and Open Space at Risk of Land-Use Conversion: Targeting Strategies for Land Conservation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(1), pages 28-42.
    5. Plantinga, Andrew J. & Ahn, Soeun, 2002. "Efficient Policies For Environmental Protection: An Econometric Analysis Of Incentives For Land Conversion And Retention," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Parkhurst, Gregory M. & Shogren, Jason F. & Bastian, Chris & Kivi, Paul & Donner, Jennifer & Smith, Rodney B. W., 2002. "Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 305-328, May.
    7. Warziniack, Travis & Shogren, Jason F. & Parkhurst, Gregory, 2007. "Creating contiguous forest habitat: An experimental examination on incentives and communication," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 191-207, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Shimada, Hideki, 2020. "Do monetary rewards for spatial coordination enhance participation in a forest incentive program?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    3. Gregory M. Parkhurst & Jason F. Shogren & Thomas Crocker, 2016. "Tradable Set-Aside Requirements (TSARs): Conserving Spatially Dependent Environmental Amenities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 719-744, April.
    4. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias, 2011. "Estimation of cost functions for preserving biodiversity in Swedish forests," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114596, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E. & Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso & Guci, Ledia, 2018. "An estimator for discrete-choice models with spatial lag dependence using large samples, with an application to land-use conversions," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 77-93.
    6. Barraquand, F. & Martinet, V., 2011. "Biological conservation in dynamic agricultural landscapes: Effectiveness of public policies and trade-offs with agricultural production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 910-920, March.
    7. Marie Ferré & Stefanie Engel & Elisabeth Gsottbauer, 2023. "External validity of economic experiments on Agri‐environmental scheme design," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 661-685, September.
    8. Wätzold, Frank & Drechsler, Martin, 2014. "Agglomeration payment, agglomeration bonus or homogeneous payment?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 85-101.
    9. Lawley, Chad & Yang, Wanhong, 2015. "Spatial interactions in habitat conservation: Evidence from prairie pothole easements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-89.
    10. Nick Hanley & Simanti Banerjee & Gareth D. Lennox & Paul R. Armsworth, 2012. "How should we incentivize private landowners to ‘produce’ more biodiversity?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 93-113, Spring.
    11. Elena G. Irwin, 2010. "New Directions For Urban Economic Models Of Land Use Change: Incorporating Spatial Dynamics And Heterogeneity," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 65-91, February.
    12. Banerjee, Simanti & Cason, Timothy N. & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2017. "Transaction costs, communication and spatial coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 68-89.
    13. Guy Meunier, 2020. "Land-sparing vs land-sharing with incomplete policies [Rethinking the causes of deforestation: lessons from economic models]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(2), pages 438-466.
    14. David McEvoy & Michael Jones & Michael McKee & John Talberth, 2013. "Incentivizing Cooperative Agreements for Sustainable Forest Management: Experimental Tests of Alternative Structures and Institutional Rules," Working Papers 13-23, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    15. Harpankar, Kshama, 2006. "Reserve Selection in the presence of Economic Feedback Effects," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21177, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Simanti Banerjee & Frans P. de Vries & Nick Hanley & Daan P. van Soest, 2014. "The Impact of Information Provision on Agglomeration Bonus Performance: An Experimental Study on Local Networks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1009-1029.
    17. Lewis, David J., 2010. "An economic framework for forecasting land-use and ecosystem change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 98-116, April.
    18. Elizabeth A. Wilman, 2013. "Instruments for Forest Habitat Connectivity," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 6(1), January.
    19. Jiang, Yong & Swallow, Stephen K., 2017. "Impact Fees Coupled With Conservation Payments to Sustain Ecosystem Structure: A Conceptual and Numerical Application at the Urban-Rural Fringe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 136-147.
    20. Susan Stratton Sayre, 2019. "Pay for the Option to Pay? The Impact of Improved Scientific Information on Payments for Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 591-625, June.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:91:y:2009:i:4:p:1080-1096. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.