Search

Land managers' preferences towards practice- and outcome-based payments for environmental services are analysed using a labelled choice experiment applied to a Mediterranean oak savannah (dehesa or montado) as a case study. Results indicate that land managers prefer outcome- to practice-based payments, equivalent in terms of environmental targets, most probably because they are opposed to the restrictive practices included as requirements in the latter. This preference strongly depends on the environmental policy objective, with land managers being more willing to participate when the outcome-based payment targets carbon sequestration rather than biodiversity. Willingness to accept (WTA) significantly increases when the payment involves a remote-sensing monitoring system, but only for practice-based payments, hinting at differing views of the monitoring system depending on the scheme type. However, a complementary analysis focusing on acreage decision shows non-significant WTA values for the use of remote-sensing monitoring systems in practice-based payments when the requirement of the area enrolled is relaxed. This suggests that land managers may be trading off monitoring intensity against the probability of defaulting. Significant preference heterogeneity is observed, mostly explained by farms' structural and management characteristics. Results point to strong potential for the use of outcome-based payments with remote-sensing monitoring systems in oak savannahs. • Practice- & outcome-based environment-and-climate schemes (pECS & oECS) are studied. • Discrete and acreage decision is modelled based on labelled choice experiment data. • Land managers' WTA is generally higher for pECS than for oECS. • Much higher WTA for oECS targeting biodiversity, probably due to higher uncertainty. • WTA for using remote sensing monitoring differs for pECS and oECS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Our main objective is to set out and apply a SEEA-based methodology to reflect the true value of forest resources in India''s national and state accounts. We establish that a “top-down” approach using available national databases is both feasible and desirable from a policy perspective. In this paper, we address four components of value creation in forests: timber production, carbon storage, fuelwood usage, and the harvesting of non-timber forest products. The results of our analysis suggest that prevailing measures of national income in India underestimate the contribution of forests to income. The income accounts of the Northeastern states in particular are significantly understated by these traditional (GDP/GSDP) measures. We are also able to identify some states which performed poorly in the context of our sustainability framework, reflecting natural capital losses due to degradation and deforestation. Our results highlight the need to integrate natural resource accounting into the national accounting framework in order to generate appropriate signals for sustainable forest management and for the conservation of forest resources which are widely used by the poor in India, as well as being significant stores of national wealth. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]