†Present address: Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
LETTER
The cost of policy simplification in conservation incentive programs
Article first published online: 4 MAR 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01747.x
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS
Additional Information
How to Cite
Armsworth, P. R., Acs, S., Dallimer, M., Gaston, K. J., Hanley, N. and Wilson, P. (2012), The cost of policy simplification in conservation incentive programs. Ecology Letters, 15: 406–414. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01747.x
- †
†Present address: Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
- ‡
‡Present address: Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9EZ, UK
Publication History
- Issue published online: 3 APR 2012
- Article first published online: 4 MAR 2012
- Editor, Stephen Polasky >Manuscript received 12 August 2011 First decision made 14 September 2011 Second decision made 8 January 2012 Manuscript accepted 22 January 2012
Keywords:
- Agriculture;
- agri-environment scheme;
- biodiversity;
- cost-effectiveness;
- ecological economics;
- grazing;
- incentive payment;
- Payments for Environmental Services;
- trade-off curve
Ecology Letters (2012) 15: 406–414
Abstract
Incentive payments to private landowners provide a common strategy to conserve biodiversity and enhance the supply of goods and services from ecosystems. To deliver cost-effective improvements in biodiversity, payment schemes must trade-off inefficiencies that result from over-simplified policies with the administrative burden of implementing more complex incentive designs. We examine the effectiveness of different payment schemes using field parameterized, ecological economic models of extensive grazing farms. We focus on profit maximising farm management plans and use bird species as a policy-relevant indicator of biodiversity. Common policy simplifications result in a 49–100% loss in biodiversity benefits depending on the conservation target chosen. Failure to differentiate prices for conservation improvements in space is particularly problematic. Additional implementation costs that accompany more complicated policies are worth bearing even when these constitute a substantial proportion (70% or more) of the payments that would otherwise have been given to farmers.

1461-0248/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=3cdd97f41173d141f3f51773629729a6ad3be0ef)
1461-0248/asset/ele_centre.gif?v=1&s=8f1a28c45a6b32f9407a8bd9efb9c5b2aaffe521)
