IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare04/58704.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Leveraging Landscape Change: Instrument design for supporting the evolution of new natural resource industry niches

Author

Listed:
  • Hatfield-Dodds, Steve
  • Binning, Carl
  • Dyack, Brenda

Abstract

This paper outlines how resource degradation in Australia could be reversed with innovative investment approaches that compensate for the main impediments to beneficial landscape change. We argue that the existing suite of policy responses is incomplete and there are benefits to be had by introducing some new approaches for encouraging innovative and creative, appropriate landscape change. We discuss two examples that address the need for instruments that encourage the evolution of new natural resource industry niches: 1. the proposal advanced by the Allen Consulting Group in its recommendations to the Business Leaders Roundtable in 2001 on options for leveraging private investment entitled Repairing the Country 2. a pilot project that is being undertaken by Greening Australia and the CSIRO with funding provided under the Market Based Instruments Program of the National Action Plan on Salinty and Water Quality. The paper concludes with a comparison of existing instruments and their usefulness.

Suggested Citation

  • Hatfield-Dodds, Steve & Binning, Carl & Dyack, Brenda, 2004. "Leveraging Landscape Change: Instrument design for supporting the evolution of new natural resource industry niches," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58704, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare04:58704
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.58704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/58704/files/2004_hatfielddodds.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.58704?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Bardsley & Vivek Chaudhri & Gary Stoneham & Loris Strappazzon, 2002. "New Directions in Environmental Policy," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 9(3), pages 211-221.
    2. Gary Stoneham & Vivek Chaudhri & Arthur Ha & Loris Strappazzon, 2003. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria's BushTender trial," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 477-500, December.
    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. Stoneham, Gary & O'Keefe, Andrew & Eigenraam, Mark & Bain, David, 2012. "Creating physical environmental asset accounts from markets for ecosystem conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 114-122.
    2. 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.
    3. Scott Duke Kominers & Alexander Teytelboym & Vincent P Crawford, 2017. "An invitation to market design," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(4), pages 541-571.
    4. Cooke, Benjamin & Corbo-Perkins, Gabriella, 2018. "Co-opting and resisting market based instruments for private land conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 172-181.
    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. Steven Schilizzi & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2012. "Evaluating Conservation Auctions with Unknown Bidder Costs: The Scottish Fishing Vessel Decommissioning Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 658-673.
    7. Comerford, Emma & Binney, Jim, 2006. "Lessons learned from the Queensland Vegetation Incentives Program - applying auction theory to vegetation protection," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 174101, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    9. Skidmore, Samuel & Santos, Paulo & Leimona, Beria, 2012. "Seeing REDD: A Microeconomic Analysis of Carbon Sequestration in Indonesia," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126688, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    11. Md Sayed Iftekhar & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2017. "How well do conservation auctions perform in achieving landscape-level outcomes? A comparison of auction formats and bid selection criteria," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(4), pages 557-575, October.
    12. Harry Clarke & Iain Fraser & Robert George Waschik, 2014. "How Much Abatement Will Australia's Emissions Reduction Fund Buy?," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 33(4), pages 315-326, December.
    13. Toho Hien & Raphaële Preget & Mabel Tidball, 2019. "Les enchères de contrats agroenvironnementaux : comparaison expérimentale entre contrainte d’objectif et contrainte de budget," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02378412, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    14. 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.
    15. World Bank, 2006. "Poverty, Growth, and Environment in Brazil : Spatial Insights for Policymaking," World Bank Publications - Reports 12852, The World Bank Group.
    16. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.
    17. M. S. Iftekhar & A. Hailu & R. K. Lindner, 2014. "Does It Pay to Increase Competition in Combinatorial Conservation Auctions?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 62(3), pages 411-433, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & McCosker, Kevin & Northey, Adam, 2018. "Assessing cost-effectiveness when environmental benefits are bundled: agricultural water management in Great Barrier Reef catchments," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(3), July.
    20. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.

    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:aare04:58704. 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/aaresea.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.