The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Targeting Tools for the Purchase of Environmental Amenities
Abstract
Use of suboptimal targeting tools to acquire environmental benefits is more the norm than the exception. We analyze how the joint spatial distribution of costs and environmental benefits affect efficiency losses from following targeting rules based on cost or benefits, rather than based on the benefit to cost ratio. Using analytical and numerical models, we demonstrate that the relative variability of costs and benefits and the correlation between the two are primary determinants of efficiency losses. We apply our framework to renewal of Conservation Reserve Program contracts and estimate how well alternative targeting tools obtain environmental benefits under reduced budgets. (JEL Q21)
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cited by
Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011 · Cited by 2,466
Metadata
- Authors
- Babcock, B. A., Lakshminarayan, P. G., Wu, J., & Zilberman, D.
- Venue
- Land Economics
- Publisher
- University of Wisconsin Press
- Published
- 1997-08
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 325
- ISSN
- 0023-7639 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1595995070
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.