@article{MarkovaNenovaEnglerCordetal.2023, author = {Markova-Nenova, Nonka and Engler, Jan O. and Cord, Anna F. and W{\"a}tzold, Frank}, title = {Will passive acoustic monitoring make result-based payments more attractive? A cost comparison with human observation for farmland bird monitoring}, doi = {10.1111/csp2.13003}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Result-based payments (RBPs) reward land users for conservation outcomes and are a promising alternative to standard payments, which are targeted at specific land use measures. A major barrier to the implementation of RBPs, particularly for the conservation of mobile species, is the substantial monitoring cost. Passive acoustic monitoring may offer promising opportunities for low-cost monitoring as an alternative to human observation. We develop a costing framework for comparing human observation and passive acoustic monitoring and apply it to a hypothetical RBP scheme for farmland bird conservation. We consider three different monitoring scenarios: daytime monitoring for the whinchat and the ortolan bunting, nighttime monitoring for the gray partridge and the common quail, and day-and-night monitoring for all four species. We also examine the effect of changes in relevant parameters (such as participating area, travel distance and required monitoring time) on the cost comparison. Our results show that passive acoustic monitoring is still more expensive than human observation for daytime monitoring. In contrast, passive acoustic monitoring has a cost advantage for nighttime as well as day-and-nighttime monitoring in all considered scenarios.}, subject = {Performance-based payments; Monitoring costs; PAM; ARU; AudioMoth; Monitoringkosten; Ergebnishonorierung; Naturschutz; Landwirtschaft; Monitoring; V{\"o}gel; Erfolgshonorar; Kostenvergleich}, language = {en} } @phdthesis{MarkovaNenova2021, author = {Markova-Nenova, Nonka}, title = {Distributive aspects in the design of payments for ecosystem services and agri-environmental schemes}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:co1-opus4-58185}, school = {BTU Cottbus - Senftenberg}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Payments for ecosystem services (PES) and agri-environmental schemes (AES) are often introduced with the goal to counteract overexploitation of natural habitats and biodiversity loss in forests and agricultural landscapes. Their ecological effectiveness and cost-effectiveness have been, however, repeatedly questioned in the literature. One way of increasing the cost-effectiveness of such schemes is spatial differentiation of payments, which reflects regional differences in conservation benefits and costs and thus maximizes the ecological effect achieved with available financial resources. Another major critique for PES and AES is that they often pursue poverty alleviation and rural development objectives, which can compromise their cost-effectiveness. As the Tinbergen rule in economic theory suggests, each policy goal requires a separate policy instrument. However, as other policy instruments, PES and AES have distributional effects. Especially in developing countries, where governments are often weak and less able to successfully implement multiple policies, the distributional effects might not be adequately addressed. The distributional implications of PES and AES could even have an adverse effect on the cost-effectiveness of the schemes, if due to low acceptance among the potential ecosystem service (ES) providers, participation rates in these voluntary schemes are lower than optimal or if transaction costs are affected. From an economic perspective, if distributional goals are important for the design of PES and AES, the fairness preferences of potential ES buyers should be considered. This thesis uses three case studies to address selected aspects of distribution and fairness in PES and AES from different perspectives. It provides insights into the preferences of potential ES buyers in Germany for distribution and other fairness aspects in PES and AES using two choice experiments and analyses possible distributional effects of cost-effective homogeneous and regionalized payments in AES. The surveys among potential ES buyers suggest preferences for maximin and equal distribution of payments, and preferences for animal welfare and biodiversity conservation (for local as well as for distant biodiversity), which could be directions for improvement of AES and PES. Regarding distributional impacts of AES, a trade-off between equality and cost-effectiveness is confirmed. Equity generally increases with improved cost-effectiveness of homogeneous payments. Spatially differentiated payments improve the cost-effectiveness substantially, by aligning the payments to the regional costs and the measures to the regional specifics and potential ecological benefits. However, they have substantial redistribution effects, poorer regions are adversely affected. This shows the importance of analyzing the distributional implications of cost-effective AES and PES on different spatial levels and calls for a holistic approach in policy evaluation and implementation.}, subject = {Agri-environmental schemes; Distribution; Fairness; Choice experiments; Regionalization; Agrarumweltprogramme; Verteilung; Gerechtigkeit; Choice Experimente; Regionalisierung; Ausgleichszahlung; {\"O}kosystemdienstleistung; Effektivit{\"a}t; Regionale Inzidenz}, language = {en} }