Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:57:22.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Sciences to Improve the Economic Efficiency of Conservation Policies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

JunJie Wu
JunJie Wu*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the last 20 years, both public and private expenditures on resource conservation and environmental protection have increased dramatically. However, there are numerous technical and political barriers to the efficient use of conservation funds. This paper discusses some of these barriers and approaches to overcoming them. It argues that ecosystem complexities such as threshold effects, ecosystem linkages, and spatial connections often mitigate against politically palatable criteria for resource allocation. Ignoring these complexities is likely to result in substantial efficiency losses. While challenges are daunting for the efficient management of conservation investments, payoff is potentially high for the use of sciences.

Keywords

conservation policiesdistributional effectsecosystem linkagesspatial connectionstargeted policiesthreshold effects
Type
Invited Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , April 2004 , pp. 18 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Claassen, R., Hansen, L., Peters, M., Breneman, V., Weinberg, M., Cattaneo, A., Feather, P., Gadsby, D., Hellerstein, D., Hopkins, J., Johnston, P., Morehart, M., and Smith, M. (2001). “Agri-Environmental Policy at the Crossroads: Guideposts on a Changing Landscape.” Agricultural Economics Report No. 794, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Lamberson, R. H., McKelvey, R., Noon, B. R., and Voss, C. (1992). “A Dynamic Analysis of Northern Spotted Owl Viability in a Fragmented Forested Landscape.” Conservation Biology 6, 505–512.Google Scholar
Reicheldefer, K., and Boggess, W. G. (1988). “Government Decision Making and Program Performance: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, 1–11.Google Scholar
Ribaudo, M. O. (1986). “Consideration of Offsite Impacts in Targeting Soil Conservation Programs.” Land Economics 62, 402–411.Google Scholar
Watanabe, M., Adams, R. M., and Wu, J. (2003). “A Spatially Explicit Model for Allocating Conservation Efforts: The Grande Ronde River Basin, Oregon.” Paper presented at the 2003 Workshop of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Madison, WI, June 15-17.Google Scholar
Wu, J., Adams, R. M., and Boggess, W. G. (2000). “Cumulative Effects and Optimal Targeting of Conservation Efforts: Steel-head Trout Habitat Enhancement in Oregon.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82, 400–413.Google Scholar
Wu, J., and Boggess, W. G. (1999, November). “The Optimal Allocation of Conservation Funds.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 37, 302–321.Google Scholar
Wu, J., and Skelton-Groth, K. (2002). “Targeting Conservation Efforts in the Presence of Threshold Effects and Ecosystem Linkages.” Ecological Economics 42, 313–331.Google Scholar
Wu, J., Zilberman, D., and Babcock, B. A. (2001). “Environmental and Distributional Effects of Conservation Targeting Strategies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41, 333–350.Google Scholar