IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ufzdps/52006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating optimal conservation in agricultural landscapes when costs and benefits of conservation measures are heterogeneous in space and over time

Author

Listed:
  • Wätzold, Frank
  • Lienhoop, Nele
  • Drechsler, Martin
  • Settele, Josef

Abstract

Designing agri-environmental schemes targeted at conservation poses the key question of how many financial resources should be allocated to address a particular aim such as the conservation of an endangered species. Economists can contribute to an answer by estimating the 'optimal level of species conservation'. This requires an assessment of the supply and the demand curve for conservation and a comparison of the two curves to identify the optimal conservation level. In a case study we estimate the optimal conservation level of Large Blue butterflies (protected by the EU Habitats Directive) in the region of Landau, Germany. The difference to other studies estimating optimal conservation is that a problem is addressed where costs and benefits of conservation measures are heterogeneous in space and over time. In our case study we find a corner solution where the highest proposed level of butterfly conservation is optimal. Although our results are specific to the area and species studied, the methodology is generally applicable to estimate how many financial resources should be allocated to conserve an endangered species in the context of agri-environmental schemes.

Suggested Citation

  • Wätzold, Frank & Lienhoop, Nele & Drechsler, Martin & Settele, Josef, 2006. "Estimating optimal conservation in agricultural landscapes when costs and benefits of conservation measures are heterogeneous in space and over time," UFZ Discussion Papers 5/2006, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ufzdps:52006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/45187/1/519175654.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank Wätzold & Martin Drechsler, 2005. "Spatially Uniform versus Spatially Heterogeneous Compensation Payments for Biodiversity-Enhancing Land-Use Measures," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(1), pages 73-93, May.
    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. Sommerville, Matthew & Jones, Julia P.G. & Rahajaharison, Michael & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1262-1271, April.
    2. Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2010. "Performance payments: A new strategy to conserve large carnivores in the tropics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 405-412, December.
    3. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Engler, Jan O. & Cord, Anna F. & Wätzold, Frank, 2023. "A Cost Comparison Analysis of Bird-Monitoring Techniques for Result-Based Payments in Agriculture," MPRA Paper 116311, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. 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.
    5. Dörschner, T. & Musshoff, O., 2015. "How do incentive-based environmental policies affect environment protection initiatives of farmers? An experimental economic analysis using the example of species richness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 90-103.
    6. Wätzold, Frank & Drechsler, Martin, 2014. "Agglomeration payment, agglomeration bonus or homogeneous payment?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 85-101.
    7. Iftekhar, M.S. & Tisdell, J.G., 2014. "Wildlife corridor market design: An experimental analysis of the impact of project selection criteria and bidding flexibility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 50-60.
    8. Astrid Zabel & Göran Bostedt & Stefanie Engel, 2014. "Performance Payments for Groups: The Case of Carnivore Conservation in Northern Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(4), pages 613-631, December.
    9. Simpson, Katherine & Armsworth, Paul R. & Dallimer, Martin & Nthambi, Mary & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2023. "Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    10. AJ A. Bostian & Moriah B. Bostian & Marita Laukkanen & Antti Simola, 2020. "Assessing the productivity consequences of agri-environmental practices when adoption is endogenous," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 141-162, April.
    11. Uthes, Sandra & Sattler, Claudia & Zander, Peter & Piorr, Annette & Matzdorf, Bettina & Damgaard, Martin & Sahrbacher, Amanda & Schuler, Johannes & Kjeldsen, Chris & Heinrich, Uwe & Fischer, Holger, 2010. "Modeling a farm population to estimate on-farm compliance costs and environmental effects of a grassland extensification scheme at the regional scale," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(5), pages 282-293, June.
    12. Lehmann, Paul & Schleyer, Christian & Wüstemann, Henry & Drechsler, Martin & Hagedorn, Konrad & Wätzold, Frank, 2005. "Promoting the multifunctionality of agriculture, forestry, and rural areas - design and implementation of public policies in Germany," UFZ Discussion Papers 12/2005, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    13. Astrid Zabel & Karen Pittel & Göran Bostedt & Stefanie Engel, 2011. "Comparing Conventional and New Policy Approaches for Carnivore Conservation: Theoretical Results and Application to Tiger Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 287-301, February.
    14. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Gamboa, Gonzalo & Adamowski, Jan & Kosoy, Nicolás, 2015. "Capabilities as justice: Analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services (PES) through ‘social multi-criteria evaluation’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 99-113.
    15. Ohl, C. & Drechsler, M. & Johst, K. & Wätzold, F., 2008. "Compensation payments for habitat heterogeneity: Existence, efficiency, and fairness considerations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 162-174, September.
    16. Chaplin, S.P. & Mills, J. & Chiswell, H., 2021. "Developing payment-by-results approaches for agri-environment schemes: Experience from an arable trial in England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    17. Zabel, Astrid & Bostedt, Göran & Engel, Stefanie, 2010. "Outcomes and Determinants of Success of a Performance Payment Scheme for Carnivore Conservation," CERE Working Papers 2010:7, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
    18. Drechsler, Martin & Johst, Karin & Wätzold, Frank & Westphal, Michael, 2005. "Integrating economic costs into the analysis of flexible conservation management strategies," UFZ Discussion Papers 20/2005, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    19. Drechsler, Martin & Wätzold, Frank & Johst, Karin & Bergmann, Holger & Settele, Josef, 2005. "A model-based approach for designing cost-effective compensation payments for conservation of endangered species in real landscapes," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2005, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    20. 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.

    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:52006. 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.