Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection

Joshua Duke, Steven Dundas, Robert Johnston and Kent Messer ()

Ecological Economics, 2014, vol. 105, issue C, 319-329

Abstract: This article provides a practical, applied analysis of optimal targeting in agricultural land preservation, comparing the performance of four alternative targeting strategies. Nonmarket benefit data and hedonic cost estimates are used for parcels in Sussex County, Delaware. The results show that branch-and-bound optimization (OPT) does not significantly outperform the much simpler benefit–cost ratio targeting (BCRT). However, significant losses of potential net benefits occur when applied methods overlook either benefits or costs. In this application, benefit targeting (BT) and cost targeting (CT) significantly underperform both OPT and BCRT, with BT underperforming all other methods.

Keywords: Conservation easement; Prioritization; Benefit targeting; Cost targeting; Benefit–cost ratio targeting (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (22)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914001943
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:105:y:2014:i:c:p:319-329

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.014

Access Statistics for this article

Ecological Economics is currently edited by C. J. Cleveland

More articles in Ecological Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().