Budgeting for government-financed PES: Does ecosystem service demand equal ecosystem service supply?

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 17, Issue , 2016, Pages 255-264

  Uthes, Sandra ^a   Matzdorf, Bettina ^a  

^a LEIBNIZ CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESEARCH ZALF   (Germany)

Author keywords

Budget optimization; Decision support; Governance; Land use conflicts; Participatory budgeting

Indexed keywords

EID: 84956613665     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.01.001     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Burkhard B., Kroll F., Nedkov S., Müller F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21:17-29.
2. Downs, A., 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy.
3. Häder, M., Häder, S., 1995. Delphi und kognitionspsychologie. Ein Zugang Zur Theoretischen Fundierung der Delphi-Methode.
4. Hübner, C. , 2010. Beitrag von Stated Choice Experiments (SCEs) zur polit-ökonomischen Erklärung der gesellschaftlichen Nachfrage nach multiattributiven Umweltgütern. Technical University Berlin, p. 203.
5. Im T., Lee H., Cho W., Campbell J.W. Citizen preference and resource allocation: the case for participatory budgeting in seoul. Local Gov. Stud. 2013, 40:102-120.
6. Kerr G.N., Cullen R. Public preferences and efficient allocation of a possum-control budget. J. Environ. Manag. 1995, 43:1-15.
7. Kirschke D., Hager A., Jechlitschka K., Wegener S. Distortions in a multi-level co-financing system: the case of the agri-environmental programme of Saxony-Anhalt. Agrarwirtschaft 2007, 56:297-304.
8. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
9. Madureira L., Rambonilaza T., Karpinski I. Review of methods and evidence for economic valuation of agricultural non-commodity outputs and suggestions to facilitate its application to broader decisional contexts. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 120:5-20.
10. Marggraf R. Comparative assessment of agri-environment programmes in federal states of Germany. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 98:507-516.
11. Matzdorf, B., Becker, N., Reutter, M., Sattler, C., Lorenz, J., Uthes, S., Kiesel, J., 2008. Ex post-Bewertung des Plans zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums gemäß VO (EG) Nr. 1257/1999 des Landes Brandenburg, Endbericht 07/08, Müncheberg (Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung).
12. Meyerhoff J., Liebe U., Hartje V. Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: Evidence from two choice experiments in Germany. J. Forest Econ. 2009, 15:37-58.
13. MIL, 2015. Entwurf Programmplanung EPLR Brandenburg und Berlin 2007-2013. Ministerium für Infrastruktur und Landwirtschaft des Landes Brandenburg. 〈〉. November. http://www.eler.brandenburg.de/media_fast/4055/8_Aend_EPLR_16_03_2015_rein.pdf.
14. MLUL, 2015. Der Programmplanungsprozess für Brandenburg und Berlin. Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft (MLUL). 〈〉. http://www.eler.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.210977.de.
15. Schmid, J., Häger, A., Jechlitschka, K., Kirschke, D., 2010. Programming rural development funds - an interactive linear programming approach applied to the EAFRD program in Saxony-Anhalt. SiAg-Working Paper.
16. Schmitz K., Schmitz P.M., Wronka T.C. Bewertung von landschaftsfunktionen mit choice experiments valuation of landscape functions using choice experiments. Agrarwirtschaft 2003, 52:379-389.
17. Schomers S., Matzdorf B. Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 6:16-30.
18. Stegmann, S., Welz, D., Horlitz, T., Jungmann, S., Rudow, K., Bathke, M., Kliebisch, C., Oerkermann, G., 2010. Halbzeitbewertung des Entwicklungsplans für denländlichen Raum Brandenburgs und Berlins (EPLR) 2007 bis 2013. URL: 〈. http://www.eler.brandenburg.de/media_fast/4055/hzb%20des%20eplr%20brandenburg-berlin%20endfassung%2016-12-2010.pdf.
19. Tinch D., Colombo S., Hanley N. The impacts of elicitation context on stated preferences for agricultural landscapes. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 66:87-107.
20. Uthes S., Matzdorf B., Müller K., Kaechele H. Spatial targeting of agri-environmental measures: cost-effectiveness and distributional consequences. Environ. Manag. 2010, 46:494-509.
21. Ziolkowska J. Impact of environmental objectives on optimal budget allocations for agro-environmental measures-a case study for Poland. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 2010, 23:233-244.