Wildlife and landscape services production in Dutch dairy farming; jointness and transaction costs

Peerlings, J.H.M.

doi:10.1093/erae/31.4.427

Cited by 49 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers must thus learn what they can with data that are less than ideal, and indirect proxies of biodiversity outcomes have been used previously. Peerlings and Polman (2004) used good data on financial information, but ecological data were lacking so the variable they used as a proxy for biodiversity outcomes was the revenue farmers obtained from providing wildlife and landscape services. used the proportion of rough grassland on farms (hereafter "properties") as a proxy variable for biodiversity outcomes, whilst Sauer and Wossink (2012) used the revenues obtained from providing environmental services such as buffer strips and hedgerows.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-benefits and trade-offs between agriculture and conservation: A case study in Northern Australia

Stoeckl

Chaiechi

Farr

et al. 2015

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-benefits and trade-offs between agriculture and conservation: A case study in Northern Australia

Stoeckl

Chaiechi

Farr

et al. 2015

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…European Commission 2005: 22, and Naidoo et al 2006). Examples of such fixed conservation costs are the expenses incurred when setting up management plans, but also the costs associated with up-front investments without which conservation is not feasible (see for example Peerlings and Polman 2004;and ?). Using the example of biodiversity conservation, necessary up-front investments may include planting trees or hedgerows, and digging ponds or watering holes, to create a minimum amount of habitat for species to survive or to establish themselves in.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal Conservation Programs, Asymmetric Information and the Role of Fixed Costs

Arguedas

Soest

2011

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing number of environmental protection programs offers financial compensation to farmers in exchange for conservation services. Incentive-compatible contracts can be designed to mitigate excess compensation, but the extant literature suggests that outcomes are always second-best so that other instruments (such as conservation auctions) may be preferred. We argue that the claim regarding the first-best solution never being incentive-compatible is correct if all conservation costs are variable in nature; if there are fixed costs too, the first-best compensation scheme may be incentive-compatible after all. Given the relevance of fixed costs in conservation issues, we conclude that incentive-compatible contracts should be given a second chance as a policy measure to induce conservation. Keywords Asymmetric information · Payments for ecosystem services · Mechanism design JEL ClassificationD82 · H23 · Q57We wish to thank two anonymous referees for their excellent comments, which helped us to substantially improve the paper's exposition and to sharpen the paper's policy implications. We would also like to thank Justin Dijk as well as participants at the 9th annual Bioecon conference for their comments and suggestions. Carmen Arguedas is grateful to the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation for their financial support (ECO2008-00510), and Daan van Soest wishes to acknowledge the financial support by "Knowledge for Climate" Program.

show abstract

“…Regardless of the framework, the joint production of FES makes the study of these goods and services complex due to their high non-linear relationships (Peerlings and Polman 2004;Wossink and Swinton 2007;Hodge 2008;OECD 2001;Boscolo and Vincent 2003). For this reason, the classical and simple analysis of the problem as a profit maximisation can be a useful and tractable framework for studying FES provision and interactions:…”

Section: Forest Production Possibilitiesmentioning

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

Wildlife and landscape services production in Dutch dairy farming; jointness and transaction costs

Cited by 49 publications

References 0 publications

Co-benefits and trade-offs between agriculture and conservation: A case study in Northern Australia

Co-benefits and trade-offs between agriculture and conservation: A case study in Northern Australia

Optimal Conservation Programs, Asymmetric Information and the Role of Fixed Costs

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About