Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 115–128 | Cite as

Landowners’ ability to leverage in negotiations over habitat conservation

  • Gareth D. LennoxEmail author
  • Martin Dallimer
  • Paul R. Armsworth
Original Paper


Voluntary conservation agreements are commonly used to stem the impact of habitat destruction and degradation on terrestrial biodiversity. Past studies that aim to inform how resources for conservation should be allocated across land parcels have assumed the costs of securing conservation on sites can be estimated solely on the basis of the value of alternative land uses. However, in a voluntary negotiation, a landowner could hold-out for a higher payment based on a conservation group or agency’s willingness-to-pay by leveraging the value of biodiversity on the property. We examine landowners’ ability to leverage and the consequences for conservation planning. To explore this, we first use an analytical approximation that simplifies the situation to one where a conservation group prioritizes one site for acquisition. Landowners’ ability to hold-out for higher payments in this situation ranges from approximately 17% to 55% of the value of alternative land uses on the site. We show that landowners’ ability to hold-out for higher payments is more sensitive to variance in the value of alternative land uses than variance in the biodiversity value across properties and is highest when the two factors negatively covary. Next, we consider multi-site selection decisions accounting for community complementarity across parcels. We find that leverage potential can be significantly higher in this context, with a maximum increase of 237% of the value of alternative land uses, and that community irreplaceability is correlated with landowners’ ability to leverage. If one landowner holds out for a higher payment, it has implications for what other parcels should be priorities for protection.


Conservation planning Habitat conservation Conservation costs Irreplaceability Hold-outs 



G.D.L. was funded by a Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Studentship. M.D. was funded as part of the UK Research Councils’ Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (RELU). RELU is a collaboration between the Economic and Social Research Council, NERC and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, with additional funding from Defra and the Scottish Government. Thanks also go to the authors of several studies whose data was used in the sections “Estimate of leverage potential for single site problem from empirical data” and “Multi-site selections” as well as to the two anonymous reviewers who provided valuable insights and suggestions. Finally, G.D.L would like to thank Ana Aguilar Ojeda for her helpful discussions and support throughout.

Supplementary material

12080_2010_103_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (52 kb)
(PDF 52.3 KB)


  1. Acs S, Hanley N, Dallimer M, Robertson P, Wilson P, Gaston KJ, Armsworth PR (2010) The effect of decoupling on marginal agricultural systems. Land Use Policy 27:550–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S, Solow A (1998) Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 278:2126–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ando AW, Shah P (2010) Demand-side factors in optimal land conservation choice. Resour Energy Econ 32:203–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armsworth PR, Sanchirico JN (2008) The effectiveness of buying easements as a conservation strategy. Conservation Letters 1:182–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold B, Balakrishnan N, Nagaraja H (2007) A first course in order statistics. SIAM, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  6. Bode M, Wilson KA, Brooks T, Turner W, Mittermeier R et al (2008) Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:6498–6501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carwardine J, Wilson KA, Hajkowicz SA, Smith RJ, Klein CJ, Watts M, Possingham HP (2010) Conservation planning when costs are uncertain. Conserv Biol. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01535.x Google Scholar
  8. Church RL, ReVelle CS (1974) The maximal covering location problem. Pap Reg Sci Assoc 32:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costello C, Polasky S (2004) Dynamic reserve site selection. Resource Energy Economics 26:157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dallimer M, Acs S, Hanley N, Wilson P, Gaston KJ, Armsworth PR (2009) What explains property-level variation in avian diversity? an inter-disciplinary approach. J Appl Ecol 46:647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies ZG, Kareiva P, Armsworth PR (2010) Temporal patterns in the size of conservation land transactions. Conservation Letters 3:765–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dobbs TL, Pretty J (2008) Case study of agri-environmental payments: the United Kingdom. Ecol Econ 65:765–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dutton A, Edwards-Jones G, Strachan R, Macdonald DW (2008) Ecological and social challenges to biodiversity conservation on farmland: reconnecting habitats on a landscape scale. Mamm Rev 38:205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrier S, Pressey R, Barrett T (2000) A new predictor of the irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further refinement. Biol Conserv 93:303–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fieller EC (1932) The distribution of the index in a normal bivariate population. Biometrika 24:428–440Google Scholar
  16. Fishburn I, Kareiva P, Gaston KJ, Armsworth PR (2009a) The growth of easements as a conservation tool. PLoS ONE 4:e4996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fishburn IS, Kareiva P, Gaston KJ, Armsworth PR (2009b) State level variation in conservation investment by a major non-governmental organisation. Conservation Letters 2:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guerrero AM, Knight AT, Grantham HS, Cowling RM, Wilson KA (2010) Predicting willingness-to-sell and its utility for assessing conservation opportunity for expanding protected area networks. Conservation Letters. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00116.x Google Scholar
  19. Hanley N, Whitby M, Simpson I (1990) Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 162:267–280Google Scholar
  20. Hinkley DV (1969) On the ratio of two correlated random variables. Biometrika 56:635–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huusom H, Strange N (2008) Transaction costs economics of irreplaceability: ex ante and ex post evaluation of conservation networks vulnerability to environmental shocks. Environ Manage 41:551–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jack BK, Leimona B, Ferraro PJ (2008) A revealed preference approach to estimating supply curves for ecosystem services: use of auctions to set payments for soil erosion control in indonesia. Conserv Biol 23:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kleijn D, Sutherland W (2003) How effective are european agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 60:947–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knight AT, Cowling RM, Difford M, Campbell BM (2010) Mapping human and social dimensions of conservation opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on private land. Conservation Letters. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01494.x Google Scholar
  25. Latacz-Lohmann U, Schilizzi S (2005) Auctions for conservation contracts: a review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  26. Latacz-Lohmann U, Van der Hamsvoort C (1997) Conservation contracts: a theoretical analysis and an application. Am J Agric Econ 79:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McDonald-Madden E, Bode M, Game ET, Grantham H, Possingham HP (2008) The need for speed: informed land acquisitions for conservation in a dynamic property market. Ecol Lett 11:1169–1177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Meir E, Andelman S, Possingham HP (2004) Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol Lett 7:615–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Biodiversity and human well being. Ecological Management and Restoration 9:226–227Google Scholar
  30. Murdoch W, Polasky S, Wilson K, Possingham HP, Kareiva P et al. (2007) Maximizing return on investment in conservation. Biol Conserv 39:375–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Naidoo R, Iwamura T (2007) Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: implications for conservation priorities. Biol Conserv 40:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21:681–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Polasky S, Camm JD, Garber-Yonts B (2001) Selecting biological reserves cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrate conservation in oregon. Land Econ 77:68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Possingham H, Day J, Goldfinch M, Salzborn F (1993) The mathematics of designing a network of protected areas for conservation. In: Decision sciences: tools for today. Proceedings of the 12th National Australian Society for Operations Research Conference, Australian Society for Operations Research, Canberra, pp 536–545Google Scholar
  35. Pressey RL, Johnson IR, Wilson PD (1994) Shades of irreplaceability—towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodivers Conserv 3:242–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodrigues AS, Cerdeira JO, Gaston KJ (2000) Flexibility, efficiency, and accountability: adapting reserve selection algorithms to more complex conservation problems. Ecography 23:565–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salzman J, Ruhl JB (2000) Currencies and the commodification of environmental law. Stanford Law Rev 53:607–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schilizzi S, Latacz-Lohmann U (2007) Assessing the performance of conservation auctions: an experimental study. Land Econ 83:497–515Google Scholar
  39. Stoneham G, Chaudhri V, Ha A, Strappazzon L (2003) Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s bushtender trial. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 47:477–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Underwood EC, Shaw MR, Wilson KA, Kareiva P, Klausmeyer KR (2008) Protecting biodiversity when money matters: maximizing return on investment. PloS ONE 3:e1515CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gareth D. Lennox
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Dallimer
    • 1
  • Paul R. Armsworth
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Animal & Plant SciencesThe University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations