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

Authors

Joshua M. Duke, University of Delaware
Steven J. Dundas, University of Delaware
Robert J. Johnston, Clark UniversityFollow
Kent D. Messer, University of Delaware

Document Type

Article

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. © 2014 Elsevier B.V.

Publication Title

Ecological Economics

Publication Date

2014

Volume

105

First Page

319

Last Page

329

ISSN

0921-8009

DOI

10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.014

Keywords

benefit targeting, benefit-cost ratio targeting, conservation easement, cost targeting, prioritization

Repository Citation

Duke, Joshua M.; Dundas, Steven J.; Johnston, Robert J.; and Messer, Kent D., "Prioritizing payment for environmental services: Using nonmarket benefits and costs for optimal selection" (2014). Economics. 178.
https://commons.clarku.edu/faculty_economics/178