Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

A Targeting Bonus for More Effective Agri‐Environmental Policy

Zavalloni, Matteo, Simpson, Katherine, Hanley, Nick·2026·Agricultural Economics
DOI 10.1111/agec.70122
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite significant policy interventions and conservation initiatives, incentives for the conservation of biodiversity have been criticised for being ecologically ineffective and economically inefficient. This paper examines a novel approach to improve the ecological and economic performance of such incentives. Specifically, we analyse the ecological and economic effectiveness of a targeting bonus which establishes a two‐part subsidy for changes to land management when the ecological benefits of such changes vary spatially. Using a spatially explicit mathematical programming model applied to an empirical case study in the UK, we show that a targeting bonus has the potential to enhance efficiency, with the magnitude of gains depending on the strength of the spatial correlation between opportunity costs and ecological benefits, as well as the size of the budget and the definition of the targeting zone. We find that the targeting bonus offers major advantages when the most ecologically beneficial land parcels are positively correlated with highest opportunity costs for farmers; and that the additional benefits of the targeting bonus relative to a no‐bonus subsidy scheme eventually decline as the share of the bonus is increased.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/agec.70122

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 1

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. 10.1111/j.1461‐0248.2012.01747.x · DOI
  2. 10.2307/3147171 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Balmer D. E., 2013, Bird Atlas 2007–11: the Breeding and Wintering Birds of Britain and Ireland
  4. 10.1111/ajae.12305 · DOI
  5. Barker N. K. S. S. M.Slattery M.Darveau andS. G.Cumming.2014. “Modeling Distribution and Abundance of Multiple Species: Different Pooling Strategies Produce Similar Results.”Ecosphere. 5 art158.https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14‐00256.1. · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101790 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020 · DOI
  9. 10.1038/s41559‐025‐02688‐6 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/j.0906‐7590.2004.03764.x · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101679 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108612 · DOI
  13. De Petris C. M.Drechsler andF.Wätzold.2025. “Cost‐Effectiveness of Centralized versus Decentralized Decision‐Making in Agri‐Environment Schemes for Biodiversity Conservation: Insights From an Ecological‐Economic Model.”https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5087078. · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.11.001 · DOI
  15. 10.1093/erae/jbz019 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1007/s10980‐025‐02087‐z · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2009.11.015 · DOI
  18. 10.1002/pam.10094 · DOI
  19. 10.1093/ajae/aav061 · DOI
  20. 10.1080/00063657.2017.1359233 · DOI
  21. 10.1093/erae/jbae017 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108414 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.geosus.2020.04.001 · DOI
  24. Hanley N.2026. “Economic Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation.”Review of Environmental Economics and Policy forthcoming. · DOI
  25. Harris S. J., 2019, The Breeding Bird Survey, 2018: Incorporating the Waterways Breeding Bird Survey: Population Trends of the UK's Breeding Birds
  26. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108847 · DOI
  27. 10.1093/erae/jbv031 · DOI
  28. Limbach K. andA.Rozan.2023. “Coordinating Farms in Collective Agri‐Environmental Schemes: The Role of Conditional Incentives.”European Review of Agricultural Economics. jbad032.https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbad032. · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101424 · DOI
  30. 10.1007/s12061‐019‐09329‐z · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.015 · DOI
  32. 10.1111/1477‐9552.12576 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105936 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108265 · DOI
  35. 10.36253/bae‐13482 · DOI
  36. 10.1111/ajae.12530 · DOI
  37. 10.1111/conl.12901 · DOI
  38. 10.1126/science.aax3146 · DOI
  39. 10.1023/A:1016618206124 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.05.025 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.012 · DOI
  42. 10.1111/j.1472‐4642.2011.00827.x · DOI
  43. Risely K., 2010, Breeding Bird Survey 2009
  44. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107319 · DOI
  45. 10.1016/j.jeem.2025.103247 · DOI
  46. 10.1111/1477‐9552.12570 · DOI
  47. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106688 · DOI
  48. Simpson K. N.Hanley P.Armsworth F.deVries andM.Dallimer.2021a. “Incentivising Biodiversity Net Gain with an Offset Market.”Q Open. 1 qoab004.https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoab004. · DOI
  49. 10.3368/le.97.4.030420‐0032R · DOI
  50. 10.1111/cobi.13906 · DOI
  51. 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.03.020 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.034 · DOI
  53. 10.1007/s10640‐004‐6979‐6 · DOI
  54. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.014 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.001 · DOI
  56. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108901 · DOI
  57. 10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111069 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Zavalloni, M., Simpson, K., & Hanley, N.
Venue
Agricultural Economics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2026-05-28
Volume
57
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0169-5150
  • 1574-0862
DOI
10.1111/agec.70122
Cited by
1
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Targeting Bonus for More Effective Agri‐Environmental Policy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/agec.70122
The paper
Zavalloni, M., Simpson, K., & Hanley, N. (2026). A Targeting Bonus for More Effective Agri‐Environmental Policy. Agricultural Economics. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.70122

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.