1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Resource Economics
  4. Volume 15, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Resource Economics

Volume 15, 2023

Economics of Ecosystem Restoration

Abstract

Restoration of degraded ecosystems is essential for having a stable climate, reducing weather extremes and disease burden, producing enough food to feed growing populations, and generally keeping the world livable. However, we are currently rapidly degrading ecosystems worldwide, thus destroying the very basis of life. There is a major gap between what investments are needed to restore degraded ecosystems and prevent further degradation and what is actually being invested. In addition, most governments are still learning how to design and implement ecosystem restoration policies that are effective and efficient. Ecosystem restoration should be among our main scientific endeavors. This review fills a critical gap in the existing literature by providing a theory-informed understanding of the findings emerging from this highly policy-relevant strand of resource economics. The article also suggests key areas for future research.

Keyword(s): biodiversity, ecosystems, environmental policies, JEL Q51, JEL Q56, JEL Q57, JEL Q58, socioeconomic impacts
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101422-085414
2023-10-05
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/15/1/annurev-resource-101422-085414.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101422-085414&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ali DA, Deininger K, Goldstein M. 2014. Environmental and gender impacts of land tenure regularization in Africa: pilot evidence from Rwanda. J. Dev. Econ. 110:262–75
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Pfaff A, Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Robalino JA. 2008. Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. PNAS 105:4216089–94
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Arneth A, Olsson L, Cowie A, Erb KH, Hurlbert M et al. 2021. Restoring degraded lands. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46:569–99
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Balboni C, Berman A, Burgess R, Olken BA 2022. The economics of tropical deforestation Work. Pap. Dep. Econ., MIT Cambridge, MA: https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2022-09/ARE_Tropical_Deforestation-3.pdf
  5. Barbier EB. 1997. Introduction to the environmental Kuznets curve special issue. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2:4369–81
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Barbier EB. 2013. Wealth accounting, ecological capital and ecosystem services. Environ. Dev. Econ. 18:2133–61
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Barbier EB. 2022. The policy implications of the Dasgupta Review: land use change and biodiversity. Environ. Resour. Econ. 83:911–35
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81:2169–93
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Benayas JMR, Newton AC, Diaz A, Bullock JM. 2009. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science 325:59441121–24
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Blignaut J. 2019. Making investments in natural capital count. Ecosyst. Serv. 37:100927
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Blignaut J, Aronson J, de Wit M. 2014. The economics of restoration: looking back and leaping forward. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1322:135–47
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Boerema A, Van Passel S, Meire P. 2018. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ecosystem management with ecosystem services: from theory to practice. Ecol. Econ. 152::207–18
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Börner J, Schulz D, Wunder S, Pfaff A. 2020. The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12:45–64
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bragança A, Newton P, Cohn A, Assunção J, Camboim C et al. 2022. Extension services can promote pasture restoration: evidence from Brazil's low carbon agriculture plan. PNAS 119:12e2114913119
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Brancalion PH, Meli P, Tymus JR, Lenti FE, Benini RM et al. 2019. What makes ecosystem restoration expensive? A systematic cost assessment of projects in Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 240:108274
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Buchner BK, Trabacchi C, Mazza F, Abramskiehn D, Wang D. 2015. Global landscape of climate finance 2015. CPI Rep. Clim. Policy Init. San Francisco, CA: https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Global-Landscape-of-Climate-Finance-2015.pdf
  17. Burgess R, Costa F, Olken BA. 2019. The Brazilian Amazon's double reversal of fortune Work. Pap. London Sch. Econ. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/67xg5/
  18. Byg A, Novo P, Dinato M, Moges A, Tefera T et al. 2017. Trees, soils, and warthogs—distribution of services and disservices from reforestation areas in southern Ethiopia. Forest Policy Econ. 84:112–19
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Calle A. 2020. Can short-term payments for ecosystem services deliver long-term tree cover change?. Ecosyst. Serv. 42:101084
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Cao S, Chen L, Yu X. 2009. Impact of China's Grain for Green Project on the landscape of vulnerable arid and semi-arid agricultural regions: a case study in northern Shaanxi Province. J. Appl. Ecol. 46:3536–43
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Chabe-Ferret S, Voia A. 2022. Are grassland conservation programs a cost-effective way to fight climate change? Evidence from France Work. Pap. Toulouse Sch. Econ https://www.tse-fr.eu/publications/are-grassland-conservation-programs-cost-effective-way-fight-climate-change-evidence-0
  22. Coase RH. 1960. The problem of social cost. Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics C Gopalakrishnan 87–137. London: Palgrave Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Coggan A, Whitten S, Bennett J. 2010. Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 69:1777–84
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Coleman EA, Schultz B, Ramprasad V, Fischer H, Rana P et al. 2021. Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India. Nat. Sustain. 4:997–1004
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Credit Suisse 2014. Conservation finance: moving beyond donor funding toward an investor-driven approach Rep. WWF, Credit Suisse, McKinsey & Co https://www.cbd.int/financial/privatesector/g-private-wwf.pdf
  26. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA et al. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7:21–28
     [Google Scholar]
  27. D'Albertas F, González-Chaves A, Borges-Matos C, de Almeida Paciello VZ, Maron M et al. 2021. Private reserves suffer from the same location biases of public protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 261:109283
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Dasgupta P. 2021. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review London: HM Treas.
  29. de Bruyn SM, Heintz RJ. 1999. The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics J van den Bergh 77–98. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Derissen S, Quaas MF. 2013. Combining performance-based and action-based payments to provide environmental goods under uncertainty. Ecol. Econ. 85:77–84
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Deutz A, Heal GM, Niu R, Swanson E, Townshend T et al. 2020. Financing nature: closing the global biodiversity financing gap Rep. Paulson Inst., Nat. Conserv., Cornell Atkinson Cent. Sustain. Ithaca, NY:
  32. Ding H, Faruqi S, Wu A, Altamirano JC, Ortega A et al. 2017. Roots of Prosperity: the Economics and Finance of Restoring Land Washington, DC: World Resour. Inst.
  33. ECO Canada. 2014. Careers in site assessment and reclamation. Current job trends and future growth Lab. Mark. Res. Rep., ECO Canada Calgary: https://eco.ca/new-reports/careers-site-assessment-and-reclamation/
  34. Edrisi SA, Abhilash PC. 2021. Need of transdisciplinary research for accelerating land restoration during the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restor. Ecol. 29:8e13531
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Environ. Finance 2022. Sustainable Investment Awards 2022. Environ. Finance London. https://www.environmental-finance.com/content/awards/sustainable-investment-awards-2022/winners/
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Eur. Invest. Bank 2019. Investing in nature: financing conservation and nature-based solutions Rep. Eur. Invest. Bank Luxembourg:
  37. Falconer K, Saunders C. 2002. Transaction costs for SSSIs and policy design. Land Use Policy 19:157–66
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Farrell CA, Aronson J, Daily GC, Hein L, Obst C et al. 2022. Natural capital approaches: shifting the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration from aspiration to reality. Restor. Ecol. 30:e13613
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Finger R. 2016. Assessment of uncertain returns from investment in short rotation coppice using risk adjusted discount rates. Biomass Bioenergy 85:320–26
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Folke C, Österblom H, Jouffray JP, Lambin E, Adger WN et al. 2019. Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3:1396–1403
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Food Land Use Coalit 2019. Growing better: ten critical transitions to transform food and land use Rep. Food Land Use Coalit https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FOLU-GrowingBetter-GlobalReport.pdf
  42. Forzieri G, Dakos V, McDowell NG, Ramdane A, Cescatti A. 2022. Emerging signals of declining forest resilience under climate change. Nature 608:7923534–39
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Fu G, Uchida E, Shah M, Deng X. 2019. Impact of the Grain for Green program on forest cover in China. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 8:3231–49
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR et al. 2019. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition. Restor. Ecol. 27:S1–46
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Garrett RD, Levy SA, Gollnow F, Hodel L, Rueda X. 2021. Have food supply chain policies improved forest conservation and rural livelihoods? A systematic review. Env. Res. Lett. 16:3033002
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Geldmann J, Coad L, Barnes MD, Craigie ID, Woodley S et al. 2018. A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 11:3e12434
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Geldmann J, Manica A, Burgess ND, Coad L, Balmford A. 2019. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. PNAS 116:4623209–15
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Goud EM, Touchette S, Strachan IB, Strack M. 2022. Graminoids vary in functional traits, carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in a restored peatland: implications for modeling carbon storage. J. Ecol. 110:9):2105–17
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Groom B, Drupp MA, Freeman MC, Nesje F. 2022. The future, now: a review of social discounting. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 14:467–91
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Hanley N, Barbier EB. 2009. Pricing Nature: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
  51. Hasler B, Termansen M, Nielsen HØ, Daugbjerg C, Wunder S et al. 2022. European agri-environmental policy: evolution, effectiveness, and challenges. Rev. Env. Econ. Policy 16:1105–25
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Hayes T, Murtinho F, Wolff H, Lopez-Sandoval MF, Salazar J. 2022. Effectiveness of payment for ecosystem services after loss and uncertainty of compensation. Nat. Sustain. 5:81–88
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Henry RC, Arneth A, Jung M, Rabin S, Rounsevell MD et al. 2022. Global and regional health and food security under strict conservation scenarios. Nat. Sustain. 5:303–10
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Hua F, Wang L, Fisher B, Zheng X, Wang X et al. 2018. Tree plantations displacing native forests: the nature and drivers of apparent forest recovery on former croplands in Southwestern China from 2000 to 2015. Biol. Conserv. 222:113–24
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Huntington H, Shenoy A. 2021. Does insecure land tenure deter investment? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial. J. Dev. Econ. 150:102632
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Iftekhar MS, Polyakov M, Ansell D, Gibson F, Kay GM 2017. How economics can further the success of ecological restoration. Conserv. Biol. 31:2261–68
     [Google Scholar]
  57. IPBES (Intergov. Sci.-Policy Platform Biodiv. Ecosyst. Serv.) 2019. Summary for Policymakers of the IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Bonn, Ger.: IPBES
  58. IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change) 2019. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems Geneva: IPCC
  59. Jayachandran S, De Laat J, Audy R, Pagiola SP, Sedano Santamaria F. 2018. Evaluating the permanence of forest conservation following the end of payments for environmental services in Uganda Work. Pap. AUS0000379 World Bank New York:
  60. Jayachandran S, De Laat J, Lambin EF, Stanton CY, Audy R, Thomas NE 2017. Cash for carbon: a randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 357:6348267–73
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Jones HP, Schmitz OJ. 2009. Rapid recovery of damaged ecosystems. PLOS ONE 4:5e5653
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Kandel P, Pandit R, White B, Polyakov M. 2022. Do protected areas increase household income? Evidence from a meta-analysis. World Dev. 159:106024
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Knutsson P, Mureithi S, Wredle E, Nyberg G. 2021. Perspectives on enclosures in pastoralist drylands: from contradictory evidence to the formulation of innovative land management strategies. World Dev. Persp. 23:100351
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Kreyling J, Tanneberger F, Jansen F, van der Linden S, Aggenbach C et al. 2021. Rewetting does not return drained fen peatlands to their old selves. Nat. Commun. 12:5693
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Lancaster KJ. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Political Econ. 74:2132–57
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Laurance W, Useche DC, Rendeiro J, Kalka M, Bradshaw C et al. 2012. Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489:7415290–94
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Le QB, Nkonya E, Mirzabaev A. 2016. Biomass productivity-based mapping of global land degradation hotspots. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development E Nkonya, A Mirzabaev, J von Braun 55–84. Cham, Switz: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Leclère D, Obersteiner M, Barrett M, Butchart SH, Chaudhary A et al. 2020. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585:7826551–56
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Löfqvist S, Garrett R, Ghazoul J. 2022. Unlocking the potential of private finance for forest and landscape restoration Work. Pap. ETH Zürich
  70. Löfqvist S, Ghazoul J. 2019. Private funding is essential to leverage forest and landscape restoration at global scales. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3:121612–15
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Lovelock CE, Brown BM. 2019. Land tenure considerations are key to successful mangrove restoration. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3:81135
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Luz MLA. 2021. Is economics of restoration helping with decision-making challenges? Insights guided by bibliometrics. Environ. Dev. 40:100674
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Mäler KG. 1974. Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
  74. Mansuy N. 2020. Stimulating post-COVID-19 green recovery by investing in ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 28:61343–47
     [Google Scholar]
  75. McCann L, Colby B, Easter KW, Kasterine A, Kuperan KV. 2005. Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies. Ecol. Econ. 52:4527–42
     [Google Scholar]
  76. McFadden D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics P Zarembka 105–42. New York: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  77. MEA (Millen. Ecosyst. Assess.) 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis Washington, DC: Island Press
  78. Meemken EM, Barrett CB, Michelson HC, Qaim M, Reardon T, Sellare J. 2021. Sustainability standards in global agrifood supply chains. Nat. Food 2:10758–65
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Mirzabaev A, Sacande M, Motlagh F, Shyrokaya A, Martucci A. 2022. Economic efficiency and targeting of the African Great Green Wall. Nat. Sustain. 5:117–25
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Neeson TM, Ferris MC, Diebel MW, Doran PJ, O'Hanley JR, McIntyre PB 2015. Enhancing ecosystem restoration efficiency through spatial and temporal coordination. PNAS 112:196236–41
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Nelson A, Chomitz KM. 2011. Effectiveness of strict versus multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLOS ONE 6:8e22722
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H et al. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7:14–11
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Newton P, Gomez AEA, Jung S, Kelly T, de Araújo Mendes T et al. 2016. Overcoming barriers to low carbon agriculture and forest restoration in Brazil: the rural Sustentável project. World Dev. Persp. 4:5–7
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Nkonya E, Mirzabaev A, von Braun J, eds. 2016. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development Cham, Switz: Springer
  85. Nolte C, Agrawal A, Silvius KM, Soares-Filho BS. 2013. Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. PNAS 110:134956–61
     [Google Scholar]
  86. O'Byrne D. 2022. Restoring human freedoms: from utilitarianism to a capability approach to wetland restoration in Louisiana's coastal master plan. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 12:298–310
     [Google Scholar]
  87. OECD (Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev.) 2020. A comprehensive overview of global biodiversity finance Final Rep. OECD Paris:
  88. Palfrey R, Oldekop JA, Holmes G. 2022. Privately protected areas increase global protected area coverage and connectivity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6:730–37
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Parlasca MC, Qaim M. 2022. Meat consumption and sustainability. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 14:17–41
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Pfaff A, Robalino J, Herrera D, Sandoval C. 2015. Protected areas’ impacts on Brazilian Amazon deforestation: examining conservation–development interactions to inform planning. PLOS ONE 10:7e0129460
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Rennert K, Errickson F, Prest BC, Rennels L, Newell RG et al. 2022. Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2. Nature 610:687–92
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Robbins AS, Daniels JM. 2012. Restoration and economics: A union waiting to happen?. Restor. Ecol. 20:110–17
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Rolfe J, Johnston RJ, Rosenberger RS, Brouwer R 2015. Introduction: benefit transfer of environmental and resource values. Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values J Rolfe, RJ Johnston, RS Rosenberger, R Brouwer 3–17. Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Sacande M, Martucci A, Vollrath A. 2021. Monitoring large-scale restoration interventions from land preparation to biomass growth in the Sahel. Remote Sensing 13:183767
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Sanchez-Azofeifa GA, Pfaff A, Robalino JA, Boomhower JP. 2007. Costa Rica's payment for environmental services program: intention, implementation, and impact. Conserv. Biol. 21:51165–73
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Sellare J, Börner J, Brugger F, Garrett R, Günther I et al. 2022. Six research priorities to support corporate due-diligence policies. Nature 606:861–63
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Shumba T, De Vos A, Biggs R, Esler KJ, Ament JM, Clements HS. 2020. Effectiveness of private land conservation areas in maintaining natural land cover and biodiversity intactness. Global Ecol. Conserv. 22:e00935
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Smith P, Adams J, Beerling DJ, Beringer T, Calvin K et al. 2019. Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal and their impacts on ecosystem services and the Sustainable Development Goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44:255–86
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Soc. Ecol. Restor. 2004. The SER International primer on ecological restoration Rep. Soc. Ecol. Restor. Tucson, AZ:
  100. Sutton PC, Anderson SJ, Costanza R, Kubiszewski I. 2016. The ecological economics of land degradation: impacts on ecosystem service values. Ecol. Econ. 129:182–92
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Tanneberger F, Appulo L, Ewert S, Lakner S, Brolcháin NÓ et al. 2021. The power of nature-based solutions: how peatlands can help us to achieve key EU sustainability objectives. Adv. Sustain. Syst. 5:12000146
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Thorlakson T, de Zegher JF, Lambin EF. 2018. Companies’ contribution to sustainability through global supply chains. PNAS 115:92072–77
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Tseng TWJ, Robinson BE, Bellemare MF, BenYishay A, Blackman A et al. 2021. Influence of land tenure interventions on human well-being and environmental outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 4:3242–51
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Turner MD, Carney T, Lawler L, Reynolds J, Kelly L et al. 2021. Environmental rehabilitation and the vulnerability of the poor: the case of the Great Green Wall. Land Use Policy 111:105750
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Verdone M, Seidl A. 2017. Time, space, place, and the Bonn Challenge global forest restoration target. Restor. Ecol. 25:6903–911
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Vincent JR, Curran SR, Ashton MS. 2021. Forest restoration in low-and middle-income countries. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46:289–317
     [Google Scholar]
  107. von Braun J, Gatzweiler FW. 2014. Marginality: Addressing the Nexus of Poverty, Exclusion and Ecology Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
  108. Waldron A, Adams V, Allan J, Arnell A, Asner G, Atkinson S et al. 2020. Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: costs, benefits and economic implications Work. Pap. Univ. Cambridge Cambridge, UK: https://www.conservation.cam.ac.uk/files/waldron_report_30_by_30_publish.pdf
  109. Wang Y, Schaub S, Wuepper D, Finger R. 2022. Culture and agricultural biodiversity conservation. SSRN Work Pap:4043727
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Whitehead JC, Pattanayak SK, Van Houtven GL, Gelso BR. 2008. Combining revealed and stated preference data to estimate the nonmarket value of ecological services: an assessment of the state of the science. J. Econ. Surv. 22:5872–908
     [Google Scholar]
  111. WOCAT (World Overview Conserv. Appr. Technol.) 2022. Costs and benefits of sustainable land management technologies Brief, WOCAT Bern, Switz:.
  112. Wuepper D. 2020. Does culture affect soil erosion? Empirical evidence from Europe. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 47:2619–53
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Wuepper D, Borrelli P, Panagos P, Lauber T, Crowther T et al. 2021. A ‘debt’ based approach to land degradation as an indicator of global change. Global Change Biol. 27:215407–10
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Wuepper D, Huber R. 2022. Comparing effectiveness and return on investment of action- and results-based agri-environmental payments in Switzerland. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 104:1585–1604
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Wuepper D, Sauer J, Kleemann L. 2018. Sustainable intensification amongst Ghana's pineapple farmers: the complexity of an innovation determines the effectiveness of its training. Environ. Dev. Econ. 23:198–119
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Wunder S, Börner J, Ezzine-de-Blas D, Feder S, Pagiola S. 2020. Payments for environmental services: past performance and pending potentials. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12:209–34
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101422-085414
Loading
Economics of Ecosystem Restoration
Annual Review of Resource Economics 15, 329 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-101422-085414
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101422-085414
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-101422-085414
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error