Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T23:51:14.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conservation Contracting in Heterogeneous Landscapes: An Application to Watershed Protection with Threshold Constraints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Paul J. Ferraro
Paul J. Ferraro*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University
Get access

Abstract

A key issue in the design of land use policy is how to integrate information about spatially variable biophysical and economic conditions into a cost-effective conservation plan. Using common biophysical scoring methods, in combination with economic data and simple optimization methods, an illustration is provided for how to identify a set of priority land parcels for conservation investment. This study also demonstrates a way in which conservation agencies can incorporate concerns about biophysical thresholds in the identification of their priority land parcels. These methods are applied using Geographic Information System data from a New York conservation easement acquisition initiative for water quality protection.

Keywords

conservationspatialthresholdwater quality
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , April 2003 , pp. 53 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 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

Allen, A. W. (1983). “Habitat Suitability Index Models: Beaver.” Pub. No. FWS/OBS-82/10.30 (revised), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Allen, A. W., and Hoffman, R. D. (1984). “Habitat Suitability Index Models: Muskrat.” Pub. No. FWS/OBS-82/10.46, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S., and Solow, A. (1998). “Species Distributions, Land Values, and Efficient Conservation.” Science 279, 2126–2128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azzaino, Z., Conrad, J. M., and Ferraro, P. J. (2002). “Optimizing the Riparian Buffer: Harold Brook in the Skaneateles Lake Watershed, New York.” Land Economics 78(4), 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babcock, B. A., Lakshminarayan, P. G., Wu, J., and Zilberman, D. (1996). “The Economics of a Public Fund for Environmental Amenities: A Study of CRP Contracts.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78, 961–971.Google Scholar
Babcock, B. A., Lakshminarayan, P. G., Wu, J., and Zilberman, D. (1997). “Targeting Tools for the Purchase of Environmental Amenities.” Land Economics 73(3), 325–339.Google Scholar
Balmford, A., Gaston, K. J., and Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2000). “Integrating Costs of Conservation into International Priority Setting.” Conservation Biology 14(3), 597–604.Google Scholar
Borcherding, K., Schmeer, S., and Weber, M. (1993). “Biases in Multiattribute Weight Elicitation.” In Caverni, J. P., Bar-Hillel, M., Barron, F. N., and Jungerman, H. (eds.), Contributions to Decision Research (pp. 3–28). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Boston Metropolitan District Commission, Division of Watershed Management. (1999, July). Land Acquisition Fact Sheet No. FS98.01. BMDC, Boston, MA. Online. Available at http://www.state.ma.us/mdc/landacq.pdf.Google Scholar
Bulte, E. H., and van Kooten, G. C. (2001). “Harvesting and Conserving a Species when Numbers Are Low: Population Viability and Gambler's Ruin in Bioeconomic Models.” Ecological Economics 37(1), 87–100.Google Scholar
Carter, M. F., Hunter, W. C., Pashley, D. N., and Rosenberg, K. V. (1999). “Setting Priorities for Landbirds in the United States: The Partners in Flight Approach.” Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Google Scholar
DeZyane, J. (1990). Handbook of Drinking Water Quality. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Dobson, A. P., Rodriguez, J. P., Roberts, W. M., and Wilcove, D. S. (1997). “Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United States.” Science 275(5299), 550–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farzin, Y. H. (1996). “Optimal Pricing of Environmental and Natural Resource Use with Stock Externalities.” Journal of Public Economics 62(1-2), 31–57.Google Scholar
Feather, P., Hellerstein, D., and Hansen, L. (1998, September). “Exploring Methods of Selecting Cropland for Conservation.” Agricultural Outlook, pp. 21–24.Google Scholar
Ferraro, P. J. (2002a). “Conservation Contracting in Heterogeneous Landscapes: An Application to Watershed Protection with Threshold Constraints.” Water Policy Working Paper Series 2002-010, Georgia State University, Atlanta. Online. Available at http://epp.gsu.edu/pferraro/research/workingpaper/workingpapers.htm.Google Scholar
Ferraro, P. J. (2002b). “Assigning Priority to Environmental Policy Interventions in a Heterogeneous World.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22(1), 27–43.Google Scholar
Ferraro, P. J., and Kiss, A. (2002, November 29). “Direct Payments for Biodiversity Conservation” Science 298, 1718–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Surface Water Monitoring Section. (2000). “Current Biological Health and Water Quality of the Econlockhatchee River and Selected Tributaries, January and July 1999.” FDEP, Orlando, FL. Google Scholar
Gardner, K. V. (2000). “Skaneateles Lake Watershed Land Protection Program: Methodology and Market Analysis for Conservation Easement Valuation.” North East Appraisals and Management Co., Inc., Ithaca, NY. Google Scholar
Hermans, L. M. (1999). “Design of Phosphorus Management Strategies for the Cannonsville Basin.” New York State Water Resources Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Google Scholar
Hruby, T., Stanley, S., Granger, T., Duebendorfer, T., Friesz, R., Lang, B., Leonard, B., March, K., and Wald, A. (2000). Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions. Volume II: Depressional Wetlands in the Columbia Basin of Eastern Washington. Pub. No. 00-06-47, Department of Ecology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.Google Scholar
Johnson, N., Revenga, C., and Echeverria, J. (2001). “Managing Water for People and Nature.” Science 292, 1071–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Lande, R. (1987). “Extinction Thresholds in Demographic Models of Territorial Populations.” The American Naturalist 13, 624–635.Google Scholar
Laury, S. K. (2002). “Designing an Auction Mechanism to Reduce Irrigation During Severe Drought.” Environmental Policy Working Paper No. 2002-005, Georgia State University, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Lemunyon, J. L., and Gilbert, R. G. (1993). “The Concept and Need for a Phosphorus Assessment Tool.” Journal of Production Agriculture 6, 483–486.Google Scholar
Master, L. (1991). “Assessing Threats and Setting Priorities for Conservation.” Conservation Biology 5, 559–563.Google Scholar
McMahon, T. E. (1983). “Habitat Suitability Index Models: Coho Salmon.” Pub. No. FWS/OBS-82/10.49. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Evaluation Procedure Group, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
Mittermeir, R. A., Myers, N., Thompsen, J. B., Fonseca, G. A. B., and Olivieri, S. (1998). “Global Biodiversity Hotspots and Major Tropical Wilderness Areas.” Conservation Biology 12, 516–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, S., MacBeth, L., and Nemecek, R. (1998). “Skaneateles Lake Watershed Management Plan.” Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. City of Syracuse, New York. Google Scholar
National Research Council, Committee to Review the New York City Watershed Management Strategy. (2000). Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply: Assessing New York City's Approach. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
New York State Department of Public Health. (1999). “New York State Source Water Assessment Program Plan.” New York State Department of Public Health, Bureau of Public Water Supply Protection, Troy, NY.Google Scholar
Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Abell, R., Allnutt, T., Carpenter, C., McClenachan, L., D’Amico, J., Hurley, P., Kassem, K., Strand, H., Taye, M., and Thieme, M. (2000). “The Global 200: A Representation Approach to Conserving the Earth's Distinctive Ecoregions.” Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Polasky, S., Camm, J. D., and Garber-Yonts, B. (2001). “Selecting Biological Reserves Cost-Effectively: An Application to Terrestrial Vertebrate Conservation in Oregon.” Land Economics 77(1), 68–78.Google Scholar
Prendergast, J. R., Quinn, R. M., and Lawton, J. H. (1999). “The Gaps Between Theory and Practice in Selecting Nature Reserves.” Conservation Biology 13(3), 484–492.Google Scholar
Rowles, J. L., and Sitlinger, D. L. (1999). “Assessment of Interstate Streams in the Susquehanna River Basin.” Monitoring Report No. 12, July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998. Pub. No. 205, Water Quality and Monitoring Program, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Harrisburg, PA.Google Scholar
Schueler, T. (1994, Fall). “The Importance of Imperviousness.” Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. l, p. 100. Technical brief, Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.Google Scholar
Schueler, T. (1995, Fall). “The Peculiarities of Perviousness.” Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. 2, p. 233. Technical brief, Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.Google Scholar
Shaffer, M. L. (1981). “Minimum Population Sizes for Species Conservation.” BioScience 31, 131–134.Google Scholar
Smith, R. D., Ammann, A., Bartoldus, C., and Brinson, M. M. (1995). “An Approach for Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices.” U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report No. WRP-DE-10, and Operational Draft, Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar
Terrell, J. W., McMahon, T. E., Inskip, P. D., Raleigh, R. F., and Williamson, K. L. (1982). “Appendix A: Guidelines for Riverine and Lacustrine Applications of Fish HSI Models with the Habitat Evaluation Procedures.” In Habitat Suitability Index Models. Pub. No. FWS/OBS-82/10.A, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D’Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, W., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W. H., Simberloff, D., and Swackhamer, S. (2001, April 13). “Forecasting Agriculturally Driven Global Environmental Change” Science 292, pp. 281–284.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. (1999). “Conservation Reserve Program Sign-up 20: Environmental Benefits Index.” Fact Sheet, USDA/Farm Service Agency, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Federal Activities. (1999, May). “Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA: Review of NEPA Documents.” USEPA, Washington, DC. Online. Available at http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ofa/cumula.html.Google Scholar
Fish, U.S. and Service, Wildlife. (1981). “Standards for the Development of Habitat Suitability Index Models. Pub. No. 103 ESM, USFWS, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Voogd, H. (1983). Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning. London, UK: Pion, Ltd.Google Scholar
Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P., Banneman, R., and Emmons, E. (2000). “Watershed Urbanization and Changes in Fish Communities in Southeastern Wisconsin Streams.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(5), 1173–1190.Google Scholar
Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P., and Gatti, R. (1997). “Influences of Watershed Land Use on Habitat Quality and Biotic Integrity in Wisconsin Streams.” Fisheries 22(6), 6–12.Google Scholar
Wu, J., Adams, R M., and Boggess, W. G. (2000). “Cumulative Effects and Optimal Targeting of Conservation Efforts: Steelhead Trout Habitat Enhancement in Oregon.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(2), 400–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoner, D., and Limitz, N. M. (1994, Summer). “Should Numerical Imperviousness Be Used to Zone Watersheds?” Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. 1, p. 2. Technical brief, Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.Google Scholar