Abstract
The importance of compensation payments for biodiversity-enhancing land-use measures has grown over the past decade, particularly in connection with agri-environmental policy. Given that both the costs and the benefits of biodiversity-enhancing land-use measures are subject to spatial variation, the criterion of cost-effectiveness calls for spatially heterogeneous compensation payments. However, when deciding whether to implement uniform or heterogeneous compensation payments, the regulator has to compare the disadvantage of uniform payments in terms of cost-effectiveness with the disadvantages of spatially heterogeneous payments. To help resolve this issue, this paper provides a simple ecological-economic model that allows the reduced cost-effectiveness associated with uniform payments for biodiversity-enhancing land-use measures to be assessed for different types of benefit and cost functions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. Ando J. Camm S. Polasky A. Solow (1998) ArticleTitle‘Species Distributions, Land Values, and Efficient Conservation’ Science 279 2126–2128
B. A. Babcock P. G. Lakshminarayan J. Wu D. Zilberman (1997) ArticleTitle‘Targeting Tools for the Purchase of Environmental Amenities’ Land Economics 73/3 325–339
M. Begon J. L. Harper C. R. Townsend (1990) Ecology: Individuals, Populations and Communities EditionNumber2 Blackwell Science Oxford
D. W. Bromley I. Hodge (1990) ArticleTitle‘Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural Policy’ European Review of Agricultural Economics 17 IssueID3 197–214
G. M. Brown ParticleJr. J. F. Shogren (1998) ArticleTitle‘Economics of the Endangered Species Act’ The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 IssueID3 3–20
M. A. Burgman S. Ferson H. R. Akçakaya (1993) Risk Assessment in Conservation Biology Chapman & Hall London
C. L. Carpentier D. J. Bosch S. S. Batie (1998) ArticleTitle‘Using Spatial Information to Reduce Costs of Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution’ Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27 72–84
R. Claasen R. D. Horan (2001) ArticleTitle‘Uniform and Non-Uniform Second-Best Input Taxes: The Significance of Market Price Effects on Efficiency and Equity’ Environmental and Resource Economics 19 1–22
M. Drechsler F. Wätzold (2001) ArticleTitle‘The Importance of Economic Costs in the Development of Guidelines for Spatial Conservation Management’ Biological Conservation 97 51–59
V. Grimm I. Storch (2000) ArticleTitle‘Minimum Viable Population Size of Capercaillie Tetrao Urogallus: Results from a Stochastic Model’ Wildlife Biology 6 IssueID4 219–225
V. Grimm N. Dorndorf F. Frey-Roos C. Wissel T. Wyszomirski W. Arnold (2003) ArticleTitle‘Modelling the Role of Social Behaviour in the Persistence of the Alpine Marmot Marmota marmota’ Oikos 102 124–136
P. J. Ferraro (2003) ArticleTitle‘Assigning Priority to Environmental Policy Interventions in an Heterogeneous World’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22 IssueID1 27–43
R. A. Flemming R. M. Adams (1997) ArticleTitle‘The Importance of Site-Specific Information in the Design of Policies to Control Pollution’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33 347–358
K. Frank C. Wissel (2002) ArticleTitle‘A formula for the Mean Lifetime of Metapopulations in Heterogeneous Landscapes’ American Naturalist 159 530–552
U. Hampicke D. Roth (2000) ArticleTitle‘Costs of land use for conservation in Central Europe and Future Agricultural Policy’, International Journal of Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology 1 IssueID1 95–108
I. Hanski (1999) Metapopulation Ecology Oxford University Press Oxford
N. Hanley H. Kirkpatrick I. Simpson D. Oglethorpe (1998) ArticleTitle‘Principles for the Provision of Public Goods from Agriculture: Modeling Moorland Conservation in Scotland’ Land Economics 74 IssueID1 102–113
N. Hanley D. Oglethorpe (1999) ArticleTitle‘Emerging Policies on Externalities from Agriculture: An Analysis for the European Union’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81 IssueID5 1222–1227
R. Innes S. Polasky J. Tschirhart (1998) ArticleTitle‘Takings, Compensation and Endangered Species Protection on Private Lands’ The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 IssueID3 35–52
R. Innes (2000) ArticleTitle‘The Economics of Takings and Compensation When Land and Its Public Use Values are in Private Hands’ Land Economics 76 IssueID2 195–212
K. Johst M. Drechsler F. Wätzold (2002) ArticleTitle‘An Ecological-Economic Modelling Procedure to Design Effective and Efficient Compensation Payments for the Protection of Species’ Ecological Economics 41 37–49
C. D. Kolstad (1987) ArticleTitle‘Uniformity versus Differentiation in Regulating Externalities’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14 386–399
A. Moxey B. White A. Ozanne (1999) ArticleTitle‘Efficient Contract Design for Agri-Environmental Policy’ Journal of Agricultural Economics 50 IssueID2 187–202
S. Polasky J. D. Camm B. Garber-Yonts (2001) ArticleTitle‘Selecting Biological Reserves Cost-Effectively: An Application to Terrestrial Vertebrate Conservation in Oregon’ Land Economics 77 IssueID1 68–78
R. Smith J. Shogren (2002) ArticleTitle‘Voluntary Incentive Design for Endangered Species Protection’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43 169–187
T. Stephan K. Ulbrich W.-R. Grosse F. Meyer (2000) ArticleTitle‘Modelling the Extinction Risk of Isolated Populations of Natterjack Toad Bufo calamita’ Web Ecology 2 47–56
D. Storch A. L. Šizilling K. J. Gaston (2003) ArticleTitle‘Geometry of the Species-Area Relationship in Central European Birds: Testing the Mechanism’ Journal of Applied Ecology 72 509–519
T. Tietenberg (1978) ArticleTitle‘Spatially Differentiated Air Pollutant Emission Charges: An Economic and Legal Analysis’ Land Economics 54 IssueID3 265–277
C. Wissel T. Stephan S.-H. Zaschke (1994) ‘Modelling Extinction and Survival of Small Populations’ H. Remmert (Eds) Berlin: Minimum Animal Populations. Ecological Studies. Springer Berlin 67–103
J. Wu W. G. Bogess (1999) ArticleTitle‘The Optimal Allocation of Conservation Funds’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38 302–321
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
JEL classification: Q20
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wätzold, F., Drechsler, M. Spatially Uniform versus Spatially Heterogeneous Compensation Payments for Biodiversity-Enhancing Land-Use Measures. Environ Resource Econ 31, 73–93 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-6979-6
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-6979-6