Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Landowners’ ability to leverage in negotiations over habitat conservation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Theoretical Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 27:550–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S, Solow A (1998) Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 278:2126–2128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ando AW, Shah P (2010) Demand-side factors in optimal land conservation choice. Resour Energy Econ 32:203–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armsworth PR, Sanchirico JN (2008) The effectiveness of buying easements as a conservation strategy. Conservation Letters 1:182–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold B, Balakrishnan N, Nagaraja H (2007) A first course in order statistics. SIAM, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 105:6498–6501

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Church RL, ReVelle CS (1974) The maximal covering location problem. Pap Reg Sci Assoc 32:101–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello C, Polasky S (2004) Dynamic reserve site selection. Resource Energy Economics 26:157–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 46:647–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies ZG, Kareiva P, Armsworth PR (2010) Temporal patterns in the size of conservation land transactions. Conservation Letters 3:765–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbs TL, Pretty J (2008) Case study of agri-environmental payments: the United Kingdom. Ecol Econ 65:765–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 38:205–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 93:303–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fieller EC (1932) The distribution of the index in a normal bivariate population. Biometrika 24:428–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn I, Kareiva P, Gaston KJ, Armsworth PR (2009a) The growth of easements as a conservation tool. PLoS ONE 4:e4996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn IS, Kareiva P, Gaston KJ, Armsworth PR (2009b) State level variation in conservation investment by a major non-governmental organisation. Conservation Letters 2:74–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hanley N, Whitby M, Simpson I (1990) Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 162:267–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkley DV (1969) On the ratio of two correlated random variables. Biometrika 56:635–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 41:551–565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:359–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn D, Sutherland W (2003) How effective are european agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 60:947–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Latacz-Lohmann U, Van der Hamsvoort C (1997) Conservation contracts: a theoretical analysis and an application. Am J Agric Econ 79:407–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:1169–1177

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meir E, Andelman S, Possingham HP (2004) Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecol Lett 7:615–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Biodiversity and human well being. Ecological Management and Restoration 9:226–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch W, Polasky S, Wilson K, Possingham HP, Kareiva P et al. (2007) Maximizing return on investment in conservation. Biol Conserv 39:375–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo R, Iwamura T (2007) Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: implications for conservation priorities. Biol Conserv 40:40–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo R, Balmford A, Ferraro PJ, Polasky S, Ricketts TH, Rouget M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol Evol 21:681–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Polasky S, Camm JD, Garber-Yonts B (2001) Selecting biological reserves cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrate conservation in oregon. Land Econ 77:68–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 536–545

  • Pressey RL, Johnson IR, Wilson PD (1994) Shades of irreplaceability—towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodivers Conserv 3:242–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues AS, Cerdeira JO, Gaston KJ (2000) Flexibility, efficiency, and accountability: adapting reserve selection algorithms to more complex conservation problems. Ecography 23:565–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salzman J, Ruhl JB (2000) Currencies and the commodification of environmental law. Stanford Law Rev 53:607–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilizzi S, Latacz-Lohmann U (2007) Assessing the performance of conservation auctions: an experimental study. Land Econ 83:497–515

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 47:477–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood EC, Shaw MR, Wilson KA, Kareiva P, Klausmeyer KR (2008) Protecting biodiversity when money matters: maximizing return on investment. PloS ONE 3:e1515

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gareth D. Lennox.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PDF 52.3 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lennox, G.D., Dallimer, M. & Armsworth, P.R. Landowners’ ability to leverage in negotiations over habitat conservation. Theor Ecol 5, 115–128 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-010-0103-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-010-0103-z

Keywords

Navigation