Search

Real-estate prices have soared since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic amid historically low mortgage rates and limited supply. The external shock observed in the real-estate market through relief measures may trigger changes in optimal conservation portfolios. The objective of this research is to identify the impacts of the real-estate market shock triggered by the pandemic through low-interest rates and limited real-estate supply on risk-diversification strategies for land conservation investment and to understand the implications of these impacts. We use a case study involving biodiversity conservation in the central and southern Appalachian region of the US by comparing modern portfolio theory (MPT) outputs using future conservation cost predictions with and without the shock. We find that the financial burden to fund the same level of risk-diversifying conservation benefits increases due to the shock and increases at an increasing rate as the return on investment (ROI) objective rises. This finding is alarming since higher conservation costs triggered by the shock decrease the cost-effectiveness of risk diversification, and this effect exacerbates with the goal of achieving higher ROI. Spatial diversification strategies with and without the shock offer risk-diversification information to help conservation organizations determine effective investment strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Applications for risk diversification strategies in addressing conservation problems commonly ignore upper limits in returns, which may not reflect the fact that these economic returns are often beyond the scope of what conservation assets can produce given constraints on species, sites, or activities. This research identifies the consequences of failing to account for upper limits on returns from conservation in a modern portfolio theory (MPT) framework. We find that the amount of risk reduction conservation organizations can achieve with the same level of compromise in the expected return on investment is higher when returns are constrained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study is to understand how solutions from single‐ and multiobjective optimization for the conservation of multiple species are different and what impacts these differences. We identify optimal conservation investment allocations maximizing expected species' habitat ranges for multiple pairs of species using two approaches in the central and southern Appalachian region. We find that disparities between the two approaches are affected by differences in the involved species' expected habitat ranges (i.e., contrasting and similar) and their correlation pattern (i.e., positive, negative, and insignificant). Using a single metric by aggregating species' habitats for multiple species to carry out single‐objective optimization is shown to favor the species with a larger habitat distribution more if the involved species' expected habitat distributions are negatively correlated and their distribution difference is larger. Framing multiple metrics of species' habitats separately using multiobjective optimization for the same set of multiple species, in contrast, does not show such a drastic disparity. Recommendations for resource managers: Our findings help conservation organizations choose an optimization approach that fits a specific purpose related to the conservation of multiple species. Using a single metric by aggregating multiple species' habitats to carry out single‐objective optimization is shown to favor the species with a larger habitat distribution clearly if the involved species' expected habitat distributions are negatively correlated and their distribution difference is substantial. Selecting an appropriate optimization mechanism for multiple species with similar and positively correlated habitat distributions is not critical since both methods produce similar results. If solutions based on single‐objective optimization are chosen, a conservation organization's goals may not align well with equity concerns regarding ecological protection and restoration. As climate change progresses, conservation organizations may need to be extra cautious about relying on patterns of historical species occurrence when applying an appropriate optimization approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Big-game hunting is a popular recreation activity on public and private land. No study in the forest economics literature has examined hunting demand by comparing price response and value across different land-ownership classes. By combining travel cost modeling with data collected from a mail survey of licensed big-game hunters, this study estimated and compared the economic value of hunting trips across land ownership types in Georgia, USA. Results indicated that hunting-trip demand was influenced by age, income, retirement status, experience, and the presence of food plots with price response differences across land access types. Hunters on public and nonleased private lands appeared more sensitive to price changes than hunters on leased and personally owned land. The net economic benefit of hunting access varied across access types, with hunting trips to leased and personally owned land yielding more than twice the benefit per trip as nonleased private land or public land. This difference generally increased as travel time costs were factored into the models. Findings will be useful in understanding the net economic benefit of big-game hunting, as well as preferences for and price response to access on hunting lands under different ownership regimes in the Southeast. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wildlife watching has become more popular in recent years. By use of data from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, the demand for nonresidential wildlife watching and associated consumer surplus in the United States were assessed at the national scale. Participation and trip frequency were jointly examined through a sample selection model. The binary probit and negative binomial models identified several significant factors, including demographic characteristics, resource availability, and costs of relevant activities. Furthermore, wildlife watching was found to have a varying relation with hunting and fishing, depending on the type of decision being made. When an individual made a decision whether to participate in wildlife watching, hunting and fishing were a substitute for wildlife watching. Once the participation choice was made, however, the relation became complementary. Total consumer surplus of nonresidential wildlife watching in the United States was up to $217 billion in 2006. These findings can help policymakers design better programs to promote wildlife watching and assist land managers to improve resource management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]