Agricultural preservation professionals' perceptions and attitudes about cost-effective land selection methods

Abstract

A consensus exists among academics that cost-effective land preservation should involve both benefits and costs. In reality, the vast majority of programs do a poor job at being cost-effective. Few studies have examined why conservation professionals have failed to adopt cost-effective approaches. This study reports on a survey conducted with conservation professionals associated with the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation, a leading program in the United States where county program administrators have experience with both traditional benefit targeting approaches and optimization approaches. Results show that conservation professionals place lower importance on cost-effectiveness than transparency and fairness, which are the most critical elements. Administrators also report a lack of incentives as a major obstacle for them to adopt cost-effective selection processes, but are more likely to adopt cost-effective conservation techniques if training and software is provided. These findings provide economists with valuable insights when designing cost-effective mechanisms that could be adopted and used in the future.