Biological conservation in dynamic agricultural landscapes: Effectiveness of public policies and trade-offs with agricultural production

Barraquand, Frédéric; Martinet, Vincent

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.019

Cited by 77 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, a trade-off between agricultural production and public goods is not inevitable. This is in line with Barraquand and Martinet (2011) and Gullstrand et al (2014), who analysed the relationship between milk and the provision of biodiversity. Moreover, a 'win-win' scenario is also possible, as mentioned by Power (2010).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Profitability development of Czech dairy farms

Kroupová¹

2016

AGR ECON-CZECH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Th e paper deals with the development and main determinants of the profi tability of Czech dairy farms. Th e aim of the paper is to evaluate the diff erences in the dynamics of profi tability for two types of milk producers -specialized dairy farms and mixed farms -within the context of the agricultural policy changes. Th is aim is achieved by decomposing profi tability into output growth, output and input price changes, changes in decoupled subsidies, technical change, scale, mark-up, and technical effi ciency change components based on input distance function estimation. Based on the panel data obtained from the FADN database in the time period 2004-2011, it was found that the change in profi tability was positive in the analysed time period, and slightly higher for the specialized dairy farms than for the mixed ones. Th e changes in output price, mark-up component and technical change are the main determinants of the development of profi tability. Agricultural policy measures had diff erent eff ects on these components. Th e strongest correlation was between the operational subsidies and the technical change and technical effi ciency change, and this correlation was negative.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Profitability development of Czech dairy farms

Kroupová¹

2016

AGR ECON-CZECH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pending the availability of data, future analyses for the study region could account for these additional legislative land‐use constraints, or other complexities that act as caveats to the current analysis. These may include further spatial and temporal dynamics of species and ecosystem services, particularly hydrology (Barraquand & Martinet ; Hooijer et al . ; Bagstad et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed policies give more options in multifunctional tropical forest landscapes

Law

Bryan

Meijaard

et al. 2016

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Tropical forest landscapes face competing demands for conserving biodiversity, sustaining ecosystem services and accommodating production systems such as forestry and agriculture. Land‐sparing and land‐sharing have emerged as contrasting strategies to manage trade‐offs between production and biodiversity conservation. Both strategies are evident in land‐management policies at local‐to‐international scales. However, studies rarely report the impacts of these strategies, assessed for multiple stakeholders and multiple ecosystem services, particularly in real landscapes. Using a case study from a high‐priority region for forest protection, restoration and rural development in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, we analysed the potential outcomes under 10 alternative policy scenarios, including land‐sharing, land‐sparing and mixed strategies. We used a novel optimization process integrating integer programming with conservation‐planning software (Marxan with Zones) to identify production possibility frontiers (PPFs), highlighting the trade‐off between smallholder agriculture and oil palm, subject to achievement of a set of carbon, timber and biodiversity conservation targets. All policy scenarios modelled proved to be capable of achieving all targets simultaneously. Most strategies resulted in an expansion of the PPF from the baseline, increasing the flexibility of land allocation to achieve all targets. Mixed strategies gave the greatest flexibility to achieve targets, followed closely by land‐sparing. Land‐sharing only performed better than the baseline when no yield penalties were incurred, and resulted in PPF contraction otherwise. Strategies assessed required a minimum of 29–37% to be placed in conservation zones, notably protecting the majority of remaining forest, but requiring little reforestation. Policy implications. Production possibility frontiers (PPFs) can evaluate a broad spectrum of land‐use policy options. When using targets sought by multiple stakeholders within an ecosystem services framework, PPFs can characterize biophysical, socio‐economic and institutional dimensions of policy trade‐offs in heterogeneous landscapes. All 10 policy strategies assessed in our case study are biophysically capable of achieving all stakeholder objectives, provided at least 29–37% of the landscape is conserved for biodiversity. This novel methodological approach provides practical options for systematic analysis in complex, multifunctional landscapes, and could, when integrated within a larger planning and implementation process, inform the design of land‐use policies that maximize stakeholder satisfaction and minimize conflict.

show abstract

“…While some studies support this concept by demonstrating higher levels of conservation benefit with increasing expenditure (Barraquand and Martinet 2011;Wilson et al 2007), others reveal more complex relationships. For example, in an ex post evaluation of the Scottish Woodland Grants Scheme, which aimed to improve priority habitats in farmland, Wynn (2002) found wide variation in cost, biodiversity benefit, and cost-effectiveness across different farm types.…”

Section: Lessons Learntmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Agricultural ventures are rarely static in time and space, with farming practices, production intensity, and commodity choice varying according to various external market factors (Barraquand and Martinet 2011). This gives rise to significant variation in the opportunity costs of conservation on farmland at multiple spatial and temporal scales.…”

Section: What Is Cost-effectiveness?mentioning

confidence: 99%