Policy mechanism choice for environmental management by non-commercial “lifestyle” rural landholders

Pannell, David J.; Wilkinson, Roger

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.003

Cited by 37 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Native vegetation is a type of land use that competes with other land uses valued by owners, and 40 percent of the median lifestyle property area may be the point at which the marginal benefit of native vegetation equates with the marginal benefit of pasture or other land uses. This conclusion is consistent with Pannell and Wilkinson (2009), which found that most lifestyle landholders positively view revegetating part of their properties but "have a strong reluctance to make environmentally beneficial changes that occupy the majority of their land." Potential reasons include limits on owners' ability to allocate resources to beneficial environmental changes, diminishing returns on environmental benefits from additional allocations, and owners' preferences for semi-open landscapes (Williams and Cary 2002).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Location attributes (L) relate to accessibility of offsite employment, services, entertainment, and recreation. Furthermore, many lifestyle landholders have an interest in small-scale agricultural production on their properties (Pannell and Wilkinson 2009) so environmental assets related to agricultural production (A) can also be important features of such properties.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Little attention has been paid to engaging lifestyle landowners in such practices (Pannell and Wilkinson 2009). Research has provided a good understanding of the spatial extent and trajectory of demographic changes in rural landscapes (Barr, Karunaratne, andWilkinson 2005, Luck, Black, andRace 2011) and the diversity of motivations and preferences of lifestyle landowners (Sorice et al 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Valuing Environmental Assets on Rural Lifestyle Properties

Polyakov

Pannell

Pandit

et al. 2013

Agric. resour. econ. rev.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lifestyle landowners value land for its amenities and ecological characteristics and could play an important role in managing and conserving native vegetation in multifunctional rural landscapes. We quantify values of ecosystem services captured by owners of rural lifestyle properties in Victoria, Australia, using a spatial hedonic property price model. The value of ecosystem services provided by native vegetation is maximized when that vegetation occupies about 40 percent of the area of a lifestyle property. Since the current median proportion of native vegetation is 15 percent, most lifestyle landowners could benefit from increasing the area of native vegetation on their properties.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Valuing Environmental Assets on Rural Lifestyle Properties

Polyakov

Pannell

Pandit

et al. 2013

Agric. resour. econ. rev.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Financial incentives compensate landholders for the costs associated with land management or opportunity costs, reducing impediments to program uptake (Pannell and Wilkinson 2009). In a variety of economic contexts, the use of financial incentives operates under the assumption that people will shift more readily and effectively toward proenvironmental behavior when a fiscal inducement is offered (Farrier 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Locating financial incentives among diverse motivations for long-term private land conservation

Selinske¹,

Cooke²,

Torabi³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. A variety of policy instruments are used to promote the conservation of biodiversity on private land. These instruments are often employed in unison to encourage land stewardship beneficial for biodiversity across a broad range of program types, but questions remain about which instruments are the appropriate tools when seeking long-term change to land-management practice. Drawing on three case studies, two in Australia and one in South Africa, spanning various program types-a biodiverse carbon planting scheme, a covenanting program, and a voluntary stewardship program-we investigate the importance of financial incentives and other mechanisms from the landholder's perspective. From participant interviews we find that landholders have preconceived notions of stewardship ethics. Motivations to enroll into a private land conservation program are not necessarily what drives ongoing participation, and continued delivery of multiple mechanisms will likely ensure long-term landholder engagement. Financial incentives are beneficial in lowering uptake costs to landholders but building landholder capacity, management assistance, linking participants to a network of conservation landholders, and recognition of conservation efforts may be more successful in fostering long-term biodiversity stewardship. Furthermore, we argue that diverse, multiple instrument approaches are needed to provide the flexibility required for dynamic, adaptive policy responses. We raise a number of key considerations for conservation organizations regarding the appropriate mix of financial and nonfinancial components of their programs to address long-term conservation objectives.

show abstract

“…The framework can be modified to suit particular contexts or target groups. For example, Pannell and Wilkinson (2009) adjusted it for lifestyle landholders (also known as hobby farmers). Their adjustments involved increasing the transaction costs per hectare (reflecting the small sizes of these properties) and increasing the private net benefits from environmental actions.…”

Section: Private Net Benefitmentioning

confidence: 99%