Abstract
Cost-effective implementation of measures to conserve biodiversity is often a major target of conservation organisations, and choosing the correct mode of governance can be important in this context. Nature conservation organisations can, in principle, choose between two distinct modes of governance to implement conservation activities: they can (1) buy desired areas of interest and implement conservation measures themselves (buy option), or (2) offer payments to landowners to incentivize them to voluntarily preserve or create habitat on their land (compensation option). In this paper we analyse the cost-effectiveness of these two modes of governance in a case study on a conservation project in a Natura 2000 area in Schleswig–Holstein, Germany. The actual costs of the buy option are compared with the potential costs of implementing the compensation option. We developed a costing framework to compare the costs of both options over time, given they generate the same ecological results on an identical project area. We find that the cost-effective solution depends, among other things, on the conservation timeframe considered and on cost components such as transaction costs, leasehold rent and land prices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Federal and European law, however, regulate withdrawal of land from extensive land use and consequential re-intensification (e.g. DGLG of 2013 in Schleswig–Holstein). Additionally, SNSH does not plan to sell or re-intensify any of the area around Lake Bültsee. See “Summary and discussion” section for a discussion of the influence of greening regulations.
References
Aktiengesellschaft Ruhr-Stickstoff (1974) Faustzahlen für die Landwirtschaft, 7th edn. Landwirtschaftsverlag GmbH Hiltrup, Bochum
Aktiengesellschaft Ruhr-Stickstoff (1988) Faustzahlen für die Landwirtschaft und Gartenbau, 11th edn. Ruhr-Stickstoff Aktiengesellschaft, Bochum
Armsworth PR, Acs S, Dallimer M et al (2012) The cost of policy simplification in conservation incentive programs. Ecol Lett 15:406–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01747.x
Banerjee P, Wossink A, Pal R (2016) Going green to be seen: The case of biodiversity protection on farmland. The University of Manchester, Manchester. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34275.55843
Beer M (2016) Kompensation: Fluch oder Segen für Landwirte. L Forst 4:12
Birner R, Wittmer H (2004) On the “efficient boundaries of the state”: the contribution of transaction-costs economics to the analysis of decentralization and devolution in natural resource management. Environ Plan C 22:667–685. https://doi.org/10.1068/c03101s
Carwardine J, Wilson KA, Hajkowicz SA et al (2010) Conservation planning when costs are uncertain. Conserv Biol 24:1529–1537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01535.x
Ciaian P, Kancs D, Swinnen JFM (2010) EU Land Marets and the Common Agricultural Policy. CEPS Brussels
Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4:386–405
Curran M, Kiteme B, Wünscher T et al (2016) Pay the farmer, or buy the land? Cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services versus land purchases or easements in Central Kenya. Ecol Econ 127:59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.016
Dauber J, Miyake S, Tirado M et al (2016) To integrate or to segregate food crop and energy crop cultivation at the landscape scale? Perspectives on biodiversity conservation in agriculture in Europe. Energy Sustain Soc 6:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-016-0089-5
Defrancesco E, Gatto P, Runge F, Trestini S (2008) Factors affecting farmers? Participation in agri-environmental measures: a Northern Italian perspective. J Agric Econ 51:114–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00134.x
DGLG (2013) §§ 3 and 4 Dauergrünlanderhaltungsgesetz—DGLG
Drechsler M, Eppink FV, Wätzold F (2011) Does proactive biodiversity conservation save costs? Biodivers Conserv 20:1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0013-4
Duke JM, Dundas SJ, Messer KD (2013) Cost-effective conservation planning: lessons from economics. J Environ Manage 125:126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.048
Falconer K (2000) Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective. J Rural Stud 16:379–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00066-2
Ferraro PJ (2008) Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 65:810–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.029
Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol 4:482–488. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105
Franzén F, Dinnétz P, Hammer M (2016) Factors affecting farmers’ willingness to participate in eutrophication mitigation: a case study of preferences for wetland creation in Sweden. Ecol Econ 130:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.019
Gordon A, Langford WT, White MD et al (2011) Modelling trade offs between public and private conservation policies. Biol Conserv 144:558–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.10.011
Greiner R (2016) Factors influencing farmers’ participation in contractual biodiversity conservation: a choice experiment with northern Australian pastoralists. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 60:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12098
Groves CR, Jensen DB, Valutis LL et al (2002) Planning for biodiversity conservation: putting conservation science into practice. Bioscience 52:499. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0499:PFBCPC]2.0.CO;2
Hily E, Garcia S, Stenger A, Tu G (2015) Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a biodiversity conservation policy: a bio-econometric analysis of Natura 2000 contracts in forest. Ecol Econ 119:197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.08.008
Hydro Agri Dülmen GmbH (1993) Faustzahlen für die Landwirtschaft und Gartenbau, 12th edn. Landwirtschaftsverlag GmbH, Münster-Hiltrup
Johst K, Drechsler M, van Teeffelen AJA et al (2011) Biodiversity conservation in dynamic landscapes: trade-offs between number, connectivity and turnover of habitat patches. J Appl Ecol 48:1227–1235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02015.x
Juutinen A, Mäntymaa E, Mönkkönen M, Svento R (2008) Voluntary agreements in protecting privately owned forests in Finland: to buy or to lease? For Policy Econ 10:230–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2007.10.005
Kämmer G (2002) Galloway-based grazing systems in Schleswig–Holstein (Germany): projects run by the BUNDE WISCHEN e.V. association. In: Redecker B, Finck P, Härdtle W, et al. (eds) Pasture landscapes and nature conservation. Springer, Berlin, pp 209–218
Kersten M (2008) Transaktionskosten im Naturschutzmanagement. In: Wätzold F, Hampicke U (eds) Ökonomische Effizienz im Naturschutz: Work. “Naturschutz und Ökonomie” Tl. II, BfN-Skript 219. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), Bonn-Bad Godesberg, pp 115–130
Klein PG (2008) The make-or-buy decisions: lessons from empirical studies. In: Ménard C, Shirley MM (eds) Handbook of new institutional economics. Springer, Berlin, pp 435–464
Knight AT, Grantham HS, Smith RJ et al (2011) Land managers’ willingness-to-sell defines conservation opportunity for protected area expansion. Biol Conserv 144:2623–2630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.013
KTBL (2005) Faustzahlen für die Landwirtschaft, 13th edn. Landwirtschaftsverlag GmbH, Münster-Hiltrup
KTBL (2009) Faustzahlen für die Landwirtschaft, 14th edn. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft, KTBL, Darmstadt
KTBL (2014) KTBL: Leistungs-Kostenrechnung Pflanzenbau. https://www.ktbl.de/
Kuhfuss L, Preget R, Thoyer S et al (2016) Nudges, social norms, and permanence in agri-environmental schemes. Land Econ 92:641–655. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.92.4.641
Lennox GD, Fargione J, Spector S et al (2017) The value of flexibility in conservation financing. Conserv Biol 31:666–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12771
Lupp G, Steinhäußer R, Starick A et al (2014) Forcing Germany’s renewable energy targets by increased energy crop production: a challenge for regulation to secure sustainable land use practices. Land Use Policy 36:296–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.012
McCann L (2013) Transaction costs and environmental policy design. Ecol Econ 88:253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.012
McCann L, Easter KW (2000) Estimates of public sector transaction costs in NRCS programs. J Agric Appl Econ 32:555–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800020642
Mewes M, Drechsler M, Johst K et al (2015) A systematic approach for assessing spatially and temporally differentiated opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation measures in grasslands. Agric Syst 137:76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.03.010
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC
Moon K, Cocklin C (2011) Participation in biodiversity conservation: motivations and barriers of Australian landholders. J Rural Stud 27:331–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.04.001
Muradian R, Rival L (2012) Between markets and hierarchies: the challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 1:93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.009
Naidoo R, Ricketts TH (2006) Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biol 4:e360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040360
Polasky S, Nelson E, Camm J et al (2008) Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biol Conserv 141:1505–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.022
Prazan J, Theesfeld I (2014) The role of agri-environmental contracts in saving biodiversity in the post-socialist Czech Republic. Int J Commons 8:1. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.400
Robinson BE, Masuda YJ, Kelly A et al (2017) Incorporating land tenure security into conservation. Conserv Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12383
Santos MJ, Thorne JH, Christensen J, Frank Z (2014) An historical land conservation analysis in the San Francisco Bay Area, USA: 1850-2010. Landsc Urban Plan 127:114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.011
Schöttker O, Johst K, Drechsler M, Wätzold F (2016) Land for biodiversity conservation: to buy or borrow? Ecol Econ 129:94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.011
Statistikamt Nord (2015) Agrar- und Umweltportal. http://www.umweltdaten.landsh.de/agrar/bericht/ar_tab_anz.php?ar_tab_zr_laender.php?nseite=34&ntabnr=2%7C%7Car_tm_tabelle.php?ntabid=1162&Ref=GSB. Accessed 10 May 2016
Stiftung Naturschutz Schleswig Holstein (2015) Geschäftsbericht 2012/2013
Theobald DM, Hobbs NT, Bearly T et al (2000) Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing a system for conservation planning. Landsc Ecol 15:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008165311026
Thomas F, Denzel K, Hartmann E (2009) Kurzfassungen der Agrarumwelt- und Naturschutzprogramme—Darstellung und Analyse der Entwicklung von Maßnahmen der Agrarumwelt- und Naturschutzprogramme in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn-Bad Godesberg
Unay Gailhard İ, Bojnec Š (2015) Sustainable participation behaviour in agri-environmental measures. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.003
USDA (2015) Land Values 2015 Summary
Van Teeffelen AJA, Vos CC, Opdam P (2012) Species in a dynamic world: consequences of habitat network dynamics on conservation planning. Biol Conserv 153:239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.05.001
Van Teeffelen AJA, Opdam P, Wätzold F et al (2014) Ecological and economic conditions and associated institutional challenges for conservation banking in dynamic landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 130:64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.06.004
Vanslembrouck I, Van Huylenbroeck G, Verbeke W (2002) Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. J Agric Econ 53:489–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2002.tb00034.x
Vergamini D, White B, Viaggi D (2015) Agri-environmental payments design in Europe, USA and Australia: the potential of auctions and self-selecting contracts for designing better agri-environmental payments
Wätzold F, Drechsler M (2014) Agglomeration payment, agglomeration bonus or homogeneous payment? Resour Energy Econ 37:85–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2013.11.011
Wätzold F, Schwerdtner K (2005) Why be wasteful when preserving a valuable resource? A review article on the cost-effectiveness of European biodiversity conservation policy. Biol Conserv 123:327–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.12.001
Wätzold F, Drechsler M, Johst K et al (2016) A novel, spatiotemporally explicit ecological-economic modeling procedure for the design of cost-effective agri-environment schemes to conserve biodiversity. Am J Agric Econ 98:489–512. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aav058
Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications, 1. paperba. Free Press, New York
Yeboah FK, Lupi F, Kaplowitz MD (2015) Agricultural landowners’ willingness to participate in a filter strip program for watershed protection. Land Use Policy 49:75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.016
Zabel A, Bostedt G, Ekvall H (2018) Policies for forest landscape management: a conceptual approach with an empirical application for Swedish conditions. For Policy Econ 86:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.008
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Christian Dolnik, Erich Ruser and Walter Hemmerling from the Stiftung Naturschutz Schleswig–Holstein for helping us to collect data and for discussing the conservation strategies with us. We also thank the Bunde Wischen e.V. and Gerd Kämmer for supporting our work with further insights and data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Angus Jackson.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schöttker, O., Wätzold, F. Buy or lease land? Cost-effective conservation of an oligotrophic lake in a Natura 2000 area. Biodivers Conserv 27, 1327–1345 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1496-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1496-4