Analytical Solutions to Trade‐Offs between Size of Protected Areas and Land‐Use Intensity

Abstract: Land‐use change is affecting Earth's capacity to support both wild species and a growing human population. The question is how best to manage landscapes for both species conservation and economic output. If large areas are protected to conserve species richness, then the unprotected areas must be used more intensively. Likewise, low‐intensity use leaves less area protected but may allow wild species to persist in areas that are used for market purposes. This dilemma is present in policy debates on agriculture, housing, and forestry. Our goal was to develop a theoretical model to evaluate which land‐use strategy maximizes economic output while maintaining species richness. Our theoretical model extends previous analytical models by allowing land‐use intensity on unprotected land to influence species richness in protected areas. We devised general models in which species richness (with modified species‐area curves) and economic output (a Cobb–Douglas production function) are a function of land‐use intensity and the proportion of land protected. Economic output increased as land‐use intensity and extent increased, and species richness responded to increased intensity either negatively or following the intermediate disturbance hypothesis. We solved the model analytically to identify the combination of land‐use intensity and protected area that provided the maximum amount of economic output, given a target level of species richness. The land‐use strategy that maximized economic output while maintaining species richness depended jointly on the response of species richness to land‐use intensity and protection and the effect of land use outside protected areas on species richness within protected areas. Regardless of the land‐use strategy, species richness tended to respond to changing land‐use intensity and extent in a highly nonlinear fashion.     

Combining Auctions and Performance‐Based Payments in a Forest Enrichment Field Trial in Western Kenya

Cost‐effectiveness is an important aspect in the assessment of payments for environmental services (PES) initiatives. In participatory field trials with communities in Western Kenya, we combined procurement auctions for forest enrichment contracts with performance‐based payments and compared the outcomes with a baseline scenario currently used by the Kenyan Forest Service. Procurement auctions were the most cost‐effective. The competitive nature of the auction reduced contracting expenses (provision costs), and the result‐oriented payments provided additional incentives to care for the planted seedlings, resulting in their improved survival rates (service quantity). These gains clearly exceeded increases in transaction costs associated with conducting an auction. The number of income‐poor auction participants and winners was disproportionately high and local institutional buy‐in was remarkably strong. Our participatory approach may, however, require adaptations when conducted at a larger scale. Although the number of contracts we monitored was limited and prohibited the use of statistical tests, our study is one of the first to reveal the benefits of using auctions for PES in developing countries. Combinando Subastas y Pagos Basados en Desempeño en un Ensayo de Campo de Enriquecimiento de Bosques en el Oeste de Kenia