Cost-effectiveness analysis of woodland ecosystem restoration

被引:83
作者
Macmillan, DC
Harley, D
Morrison, R
机构
[1] Univ Aberdeen, Dept Agr, Aberdeen AB24 5UA, Scotland
[2] Royal Soc Protect Birds, Sandy SG19 2DL, Beds, England
[3] Macaulay Land Use Res Inst, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland
关键词
cost-effectiveness analysis; ecosystem restoration; biodiversity; GIS;
D O I
10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00023-8
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Ecosystem restoration has emerged as an important approach to safe-guarding biodiversity. In Scotland, the government is committed to restoring the natural woodland ecosystem of mountain areas and gives payments to landowners for establishing new woodlands. Although the aim of the policy is to restore a natural woodland ecosystem, the rate of payment available is correlated with the costs of establishment rather than the contribution new woodlands make to restoring the natural ecosystem. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of government expenditure is investigated by comparing the cost of grant aid with the ecosystem restoration potential of new woodlands. An expert-based system for scoring ecosystem restoration potential is described and applied to over 200 new woodlands in a Geographic Information System. New woodlands varied considerably with respect to both cost and ecosystem restoration score, with the most cost-effective woodlands established close to existing woodlands using natural colonisation techniques. Overall ecosystem score was negatively correlated with government expenditure. Alternative approaches to improving the cost-effectiveness of grant aid are discussed. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:313 / 324
页数:12
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], POL APPR ENV
[2]  
Biodiversity Steering Group, 1995, BIOD UK STEER GROUP, V2
[3]  
BOWERS J, 1992, EC ENV CONSERVATIONI
[4]   CONTINGENT VALUATION - IS SOME NUMBER BETTER THAN NO NUMBER [J].
DIAMOND, PA ;
HAUSMAN, JA .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 1994, 8 (04) :45-64
[5]  
*FOR COMM, 1994, NAT WOODL FOR PRACT
[6]  
Forestry Commission, 1994, WOODL GRANT SCHEM AP
[7]  
Fuller R.J., 1995, P163
[8]  
Gill R.M.A., 1995, P201
[9]  
GITTINGER P, 1982, EC APPRAISAL AGR PRO
[10]  
Hanley N., 1993, VALUE BIODIVERSITY B