Smart spatial incentives for market-based conservation

By Florian Hartig, Martin Drechsler. 2008

96 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract Market-based instruments such as payments, auctions or tradable permits have been proposed as flexible and cost-effective instruments for biodiversity conservation on private lands. Trading the service of conservation requires one to define a metric that determines the extent to which a conserved site adds to the regional conservation objective. Yet, while markets for conservation are widely discussed and increasingly applied, little research has been conducted on explicitly accounting for spatial ecological processes in the trading. In this paper, we use a coupled ecological–economic simulation model to examine how spatial connectivity may be considered in the financial incentives created by a market-based conservation scheme. Land use decisions, driven by changing conservation costs and the conservation market, are simulated by an agent-based model of land users. On top of that, a metapopulation model evaluates the conservational success of the market. We find that optimal spatial incentives for agents correlate with species characteristics such as the dispersal distance, but they also depend on the spatio-temporal distribution of conservation costs. We conclude that a combined analysis of ecological and socio-economic conditions should be applied when designing market instruments to protect biodiversity.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/348aa7bb3b931e337b5fcac9916cb5018b9a44d4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives for Multifunctional Landscapes (2012, background): “Crowding out social motivation where εbFin,priv − εcFin,priv (expected financial benefits minus costs at private scale), interact with εbSoc,priv − εcSoc,priv , the expected social benefits minus costs at private scale; preferences expressed in a social (group) context may differ from those expresse”
Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: Assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits (2013, background): “…to provide agreed management actions – or who drop out of PES schemes over time – must not undermine the scaling up of actions undertaken by those who maintain agreed actions (e.g. by disrupting spatial continuity or by increasing emissions) (Hartig and Drechsler, 2009; Wunder et al., 2008).”
Mechanistic simulation models in macroecology and biogeography: state‐of‐art and prospects (2017, background): “In metapopulation and metacommunity models, for example, the process of patch colonization aggregates reproduction, dispersal, and establishment (Hartig and Drechsler 2009).”
Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: Key issues and solutions (2011, background): “002 in relation to fragmentation and connectivity issues, or in order to take into account the effects of the surrounding ecological landscape on the target components of biodiversity, such as predation pressure, seasonal migrations or meta-population dynamics (e.g. Frank, 2004; Wätzold and Drechsle”