When should households be compensated for land-use restrictions? A decision-making framework for Chinese forest policy

Mullan, Katrina; Kontoleon, Andreas; Swanson, Timothy; Zhang, Shiqiu

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.08.003

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results suggest that it may be worth further exploring options for tourists to make payments for ecosystem services (PES) 4 or make similar voluntary contributions to protect the GBRWHA. Voluntary payments have been used elsewhere (Scherr et al, 2005;To et al, 2012) and PES programmes have been implemented successfully in many countries (Pagiola et al, 2008;Alix-Garcia et al, 2009;Clements et al, 2010;Mullan et al, 2011) -although more research is needed to test if such voluntary payments would be effective in this part of the world. 5 Endnotes 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Importance of Water Clarity to Great Barrier Reef Tourists and Their Willingness to Pay to Improve it

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the Great Barrier Reef as a case study area, the authors investigate visitors' willingness to pay (WTP) to improve water clarity (WC). They also explore the extent to which people's objective and subjective measures of WC influence WTP. The results suggest that people's stated perceptions (importance and satisfaction) and the interaction between them have a significant influence on WTP. Those for whom WC was very important and who were very satisfied with WC were willing to pay more to preserve it. The importance variable interacts with subjective perceptions that drive behaviour. Thus one needs to consider not only satisfaction, but also the importance of the environment rather than using only subjective (or objective) measures when trying to explain behaviour. Further deterioration in WC could adversely affect the tourism industry and the average visitor would be willing to pay up to A$14.5 per visit to help improve it (although this amount varies for different visitors).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Importance of Water Clarity to Great Barrier Reef Tourists and Their Willingness to Pay to Improve it

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Economic literature has mostly dealt with the debate of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency and effectiveness of such regulation. Nevertheless, Mullan et al (2011) argue that if the new regulation is based on society's beliefs about what constitutes a public good, such as agricultural land, side payments may be a practical way to lower the transactions costs of implementing a change by overcoming resistance from those who stand to lose. Originally the European Council (1992) proposed measures to 'compensate farmers for any income losses caused by reductions in output and increases in costs and for the part they play in improving the environment'.…”

Section: The Reallocation Of Property Rights In the Public's Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farmers’ perceived cost of land use restrictions: A simulated purchasing decision using discrete choice experiments

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on the findings from discrete choice experiments designed to estimate farmers' perceived costs of land use restrictions, i.e. crop restrictions, additional fertilizing restrictions, and usage restrictions, as opposed to having no such restrictions. To this end, hypothetical land purchasing decisions were simulated based on the information about productivity, lot size, distance to other land, driving time to home, land use restrictions, and price. Farmers from the Campine area (Belgium) were invited to participate in the survey as the agricultural land in this region still faces the effects of historical heavy metal contamination resulting in crop restrictions. For identical pieces of land, we estimate the perceived cost, calculated as a change in the consumer surplus due to having a land use restriction, to be about 46,000 €/ha for the crop restriction, 50,000 €/ha for the usage restriction, and 70,000 €/ha for the fertilizing restrictions. Assuming this cost to represent a perpetuity, then with a discount rate of 5% the yearly fixed costs respectively equal about 2,300 €/ha, 2,500 €/ha, and 3,500 €/ha.

show abstract

Sustainable Development of Mankind Through Ecological Services: A Literature Review

Ndou

Aigbavboa

2020

Sustainable Ecological Engineering Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When should households be compensated for land-use restrictions? A decision-making framework for Chinese forest policy

Cited by 6 publications

References 56 publications

The Importance of Water Clarity to Great Barrier Reef Tourists and Their Willingness to Pay to Improve it

The Importance of Water Clarity to Great Barrier Reef Tourists and Their Willingness to Pay to Improve it

Farmers’ perceived cost of land use restrictions: A simulated purchasing decision using discrete choice experiments

Sustainable Development of Mankind Through Ecological Services: A Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About