A Novel, Spatiotemporally Explicit Ecological‐economic Modeling Procedure for the Design of Cost‐effective Agri‐environment Schemes to Conserve Biodiversity

Wätzold, Frank; Drechsler, Martín; Johst, Karin; Mewes, Melanie; Sturm, Astrid

doi:10.1093/ajae/aav058

Cited by 81 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the EFA obligation applies at the farm level, farmers minimized the cost of additional ecological-focus area, by locating these on their least productive land-a behavior that is confirmed in a workshop with real farmers Sahrbacher, Hristov, and Brady (2017)-and hence not necessarily where it would generate the greatest environmental benefits. Normally, achieving environmental goals (cost-effectively) requires spatial targeting (Tscharntke et al 2005;Wätzold et al 2016), which we show even applies to "greening" measures. V. The ability for farms to adjust their land holdings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Impacts of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy “Greening” Reform on Agricultural Development, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services

Hristov¹,

Clough²,

Sahlin³

et al. 2020

Applied Eco Perspectives Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has had limited success in mitigating agriculture's environmental degradation. In this paper we simulate the impacts of the 2013 "greening" reform on biodiversity and ecosystem services in environmentally contrasting landscapes. We do this by integrating an agent-based model of structural change with spatial ecological production functions, and show that the reform will likely fail to deliver substantial environmental benefits. Our study implies that greening measures need to be tailored to local conditions and priorities, to generate environmental improvements. Such spatial targeting of measures is though incompatible with the design of a common direct payments scheme.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Impacts of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy “Greening” Reform on Agricultural Development, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services

Hristov¹,

Clough²,

Sahlin³

et al. 2020

Applied Eco Perspectives Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can be done, for example, by ranking sites by their benefit-cost ratio and including those with the highest ratio until the budget is depleted Wünscher and Engel (2012). 18 In addition, timing of conservation activities may also be considered in a spatio-temporal targeting approach where the benefits and costs of conservation measures are sensitive to timing (e.g., agri-environmental measures for biodiversity protection, such as mowing times) (Johst et al, 2002;Wätzold et al, 2015).…”

Section: Site Selection (Targeting)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services

Engel

2016

IRERE

188

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Payments for environmental services (PES) have become a popular approach to address environmental degradation. However, evidence on its effectiveness is scarce and rather mixed. PES is not a panacea, but there are many cases where PES can be a promising tool. Yet, poor PES design translates into poor performance of the instrument. PES design is a complex task; the devil is in the detail of a number of PES design features. The purpose of this paper is to provide guidance in dealing with this complexity through a comprehensive review of PES design that is accessible to both academics and practitioners. Practitioner guidelines on deciding whether PES is the best approach and for selecting among alternative design features are presented. PES design has to start from a careful understanding of the specific ecological and socioeconomic context. We now know a lot about which design features are best suited to which context. It is time to put these insights into practice. * This paper has emerged from preparing a series of keynote presentations on PES design over the past few years. I thank the participants of these presentations for their questions and feedback. Thanks also to Elisabeth Gsottbauer, Estelle Midler, Sven

show abstract

“…According to Wätzold et al (2016), the timing of land-use measures has received little attention. For instance, Drechsler et al, 2007aDrechsler et al, , 2007b account for the dates and the frequency of mowing, which should be different according to specific species, in agro-environmental schemes.…”

Section: Payments and Incentive Mechanisms For Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does economic research contribute to the management of forest ecosystem services?

Garcia

Abildtrup

Stenger

2018

Annals of Forest Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

& Key message More and more environmental and resource economists are taking a particular interest in research on forest ecosystem services (FES), especially in a context of climate change. Spatial and temporal issues are crucial to economic analyses and for the design of conservation policies. Interdisciplinary research involving ecological and economic disciplines is a prerequisite for the more effective management of forest ecosystems. & Context Economists define non-market ecosystem services (ES) as public or common goods due to their characteristics of non-rivalry in terms of consumption and/or non-excludability. Just because they do not have a price does not mean that ES have no economic value because their social benefits are undoubtedly considerable. These features, associated with the market demand for timber and a poor climate risk assessment, may lead to the under-provision of non-market forest ES and the over-harvesting of timber. & Aims In this article, we review research questions that are central to the enhancement of FES provision. Beyond the economic modelling of the joint provision of FES, we focus on issues related to the design of public policies to guide forest management. The objective is to provide crucial insights concerning the importance of a spatial and sustainable provision of FES. & Results First, we provide an economic interpretation of the FES concept and a review of economic models of forest management. Second, we explain how spatial and temporal dimensions of FES can have major implications on their supply and demand. Both dimensions explain why FESs have to be taken into account in production decisions and public policies (including the design of payment for environmental services (PESs)). & Conclusion A better understanding of FES provision and public policies to be enhanced is not possible without accounting for spatial and temporal dimensions. This helps to analyse the impact of intervention on FES and the cost-effectiveness of economic instruments, implying a coordinated effort to bring together ecological and economic data and models.

show abstract

A Novel, Spatiotemporally Explicit Ecological‐economic Modeling Procedure for the Design of Cost‐effective Agri‐environment Schemes to Conserve Biodiversity

Cited by 81 publications

References 41 publications

Impacts of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy “Greening” Reform on Agricultural Development, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services

Impacts of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy “Greening” Reform on Agricultural Development, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services

The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services

How does economic research contribute to the management of forest ecosystem services?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About