IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ufzdps/12004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why be wasteful when preserving a valuable resource? A review article on the cost-effectiveness of European biodiversity conservation policy

Author

Listed:
  • Wätzold, Frank
  • Schwerdtner, Kathleen

Abstract

Issues related to the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation policies have not yet been prominent in European conservation research and policy-making. Nevertheless, there is a small but growing literature which analyses such cost-effectiveness issues on both a conceptual and an applied level. The article reviews this literature, and focuses on reserves and compensation payments for conservation measures as the two most relevant conservation policy instruments in Europe. Progress has been achieved in understanding the cost-effective allocation of conservation measures and reserve sites, and further advances can be expected by integrating knowledge from ecology and the neoclassical analysis of policy instruments. Research on cost-effective monitoring, enforcement and decision-making has addressed selected issues such as designing incentives for farmers to reveal their conservation costs to the regulator. However, issues with high relevance for European conservation policy such as the cost-effectiveness of compensation payments for results and implementation problems related to the network NATURA 2000 have been neglected.

Suggested Citation

  • Wätzold, Frank & Schwerdtner, Kathleen, 2004. "Why be wasteful when preserving a valuable resource? A review article on the cost-effectiveness of European biodiversity conservation policy," UFZ Discussion Papers 1/2004, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ufzdps:12004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/45218/1/388493321.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Carel Van der Hamsvoort, 1997. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 407-418.
    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. Lehmann, Paul, 2005. "An economic evaluation of the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program," UFZ Discussion Papers 1/2005, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).

    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. Lowell, Kim & Drohan, Jon & Hajek, Charles & Beverly, Craig & Lee, Mark, 2007. "A science-driven market-based instrument for determining the cost of environmental services: A comparison of two catchments in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 61-69, October.
    2. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Pouta, Eija & Myyra, Sami & Hanninen, Harri, 2009. "Heterogeneous farmland owners: two approaches for objective based classification," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50787, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Samuel D. Bell & Nadia A. Streletskaya, 2019. "The Random Quantity Mechanism: Laboratory and Field Tests of a Novel Cost-Revealing Procurement Mechanism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 899-921, July.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Yano, Yuki & Blandford, David, 2008. "Use of Penalties and Rewards in Agri-Environmental Policy," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36873, Agricultural Economics Society.
    9. Feinerman, Eli & Gardebroek, Cornelis, 2005. "Stimulating Organic Farming Via Public Services and an Auction-Based Subsidy," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24723, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. 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.
    11. William W. Wilson & Bruce L. Dahl, 2004. "Transparency and Bidding Competition in International Wheat Trade," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 52(1), pages 89-105, March.
    12. David Colman, 2004. "Compte rendu d'ouvrage - Exploring the frontiers of agricultural economics : a review of volumes 2A and 2B of the Handbook of Agricultural Economics," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 73, pages 126-141.
    13. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Timo Sipiläinen & Anni Huhtala, 2013. "Opportunity costs of providing crop diversity in organic and conventional farming: would targeted environmental policies make economic sense?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(3), pages 441-462, July.
    16. 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.
    17. Lennox, Gareth D. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2011. "Suitability of short or long conservation contracts under ecological and socio-economic uncertainty," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(15), pages 2856-2866.
    18. Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Dupraz, Pierre & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesùs, 2009. "Fixed costs involved in crop pattern changes and agri-environmental schemes," Working Papers 211000, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    19. Gordon, Simon, 2003. "Economic Instruments For Nonpoint Source Water Pollution: Options For The Swan-Canning River System," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57873, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Whitten, Stuart M., 2017. "Designing and implementing conservation tender metrics: Twelve core considerations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 561-571.

    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:zbw:ufzdps:12004. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/doufzde.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.