Abstract
AbstractBiodiversity conservation requires space where conservation measures are implemented for a desired purpose. Setting land aside for conservation has been widely applied, while novel conservation modes (private–public partnerships, private multipurpose land management) may be fundamental to achieve conservation goals. We perform an economic analysis of the cost development for two conservation options in California, in‐fee and easements, from 1970 to today. We find that in‐fee options have lower costs than easements in the long run. While there are high costs of purchase for in‐fee, ultimately they even‐out or generate profits. Costs of easements continue growing exponentially overtaking costs of purchase. Sensitivity analysis shows increases in purchasing prices and opportunity costs positively influencing conservation costs, while increasing interest rates negatively influence them. The results suggest that easements are not yet an economically viable alternative for in‐fee conservation purchases. Our analysis is a first step to assess economic viability of choosing easements.
Highlights
Conservation of biodiversity as a basic need requires space, on which conservation measures are implemented
While setting goals is relatively straightforward, implementing them can be challenging, and among other things, determines land governance, i.e., ownership. Ownership of this space is an important factor influencing the costs of implementation (Adams, Pressey, & Naidoo, 2010; Naidoo et al, 2006), the duration of conservation measures, and the ecological and economic success of conservation projects (Balmford, Gaston, Blyth, James, & Kapos, 2003)
We provide an overview of different modes of governance for conservation relevant in the state of California, and discuss the costs and costs-structure of a selection of conservation areas
Summary
Conservation of biodiversity as a basic need requires space, on which conservation measures are implemented. Goals include representation of biodiversity and its processes and functions; solutions involve identifying an optimal set of lands that best meets the defined conservation goals, strategizing when and how to add them to a conservation network, and acquiring and managing land (Lovejoy, 2006; Pressey et al, 2007). While setting goals is relatively straightforward, implementing them can be challenging, and among other things, determines land governance, i.e., ownership Ownership of this space is an important factor influencing the costs of implementation (Adams, Pressey, & Naidoo, 2010; Naidoo et al, 2006), the duration of conservation measures, and the ecological and economic success of conservation projects (Balmford, Gaston, Blyth, James, & Kapos, 2003). We assess which is the best option from an economic perspective: to purchase as public land or to lease as easements?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
