The economics of peatland restoration

References

• Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams, and J. Louviere. 1998. “Stated Preference Approaches to Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments Versus Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (1): 64–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bain, C.G., A. Bonn, R. Stoneman, S. Chapman, A. Coupar, M. Evans, B. Gearey, et al. 2011. IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands. Project Report. IUCN UK Peatland Programme, Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Bateman, I.J., B.H. Day, S. Georgiou, and I. Lake. 2006. “The Aggregation of Environmental Benefit Values: Welfare Measures, Distance Decay and Total WTP.” Ecological Economics 60 (2): 450–460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer, R., J. Martin-Ortega, and J. Berbel. 2010. “Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment.” Land Economics 86: 552–568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullock, C.H., and M. Collier. 2011. “When the Public Good Conflicts with an Apparent Preference for Unsustainable Behaviour.” Ecological Economics 70 (5): 971–977.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullock, J.M., J. Aronson, A.C. Newton, R.F. Pywell, and J.M. Rey-Benayas. 2011. “Restoration of ES and Biodiversity: Conflicts and Opportunities.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26 (10): 541–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullock, C.H., M.J. Collier, and F. Convery. 2012. “Peatlands, Their Economic Value and Priorities for Their Future Management—The Example of Ireland.” Land Use Policy 29: 921–928.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byg, A., J. Martin-Ortega, K. Glenk, and P. Novo. 2017. “Conservation in the Face of Ambivalent Public Perceptions – The Case of Peatlands as ‘The Good, The Bad and The Ugly’.” Biological Conservation 206: 181–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CBD Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2014. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4, 155. Montréal. https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo4/publication/gbo4-en-hr.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cris R., and M. Reed, ed. 2014. Global Peatland Restoration Demonstrating Success. IUCN UK National Committee Peatland Programme, Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• D'Astous, A., M. Poulin, I. Aubin, and L. Rochefort. 2013. “Using Functional Diversity as an Indicator of Restoration Success of a Cut-over Bog.” Ecological Engineering 61: 519–526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dise, N.B. 2009. “Peatland Response to Global Change.” Science 326: 810–811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, C.D., Aletta Bonn, Joseph Holden, Mark S. Reed, Martin G. Evans, Fred Worrall, John Couwenberg, and Mark Parnell. 2014. “Relationships Between Anthropogenic Pressures and Ecosystem Functions in UK Blanket Bogs: Linking Process Understanding to Ecosystem Service Valuation.” Ecosystem Services 9: 5–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frolking, S., Julie Talbot, Miriam C. Jones, Claire C. Treat, J. Boone Kauffman, Eeva-Stiina Tuittila, and Nigel Roulete. 2011. “Peatlands in the Earth's 21st Century Climate System.” Environmental Reviews 19: 371–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glenk, K., M. Schaafsma, A. Moxey, J. Martin-Ortega, and N. Hanley. 2014. “A Framework for Valuing Spatially Targeted Peatland Restoration.” Ecosystem Services 9: 20–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, S., and K.E. Train. 2017. “Correlation and Scale in Mixed Logit Models.” Journal of Choice Modelling 23: 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoehn, J.P., and J.B. Loomis. 1993. “Substitution Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental-Programs.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25 (1): 56–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsen, J.B., and B.J. Thorsen. 2010. “Preferences for Site and Environmental Functions When Selecting Forthcoming National Parks.” Ecological Economics 69 (7): 1532–1544.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, R.J., and J.M. Duke. 2009. “Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation Across States and Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer.” Land Economics 85 (2): 217–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, R.J., E.T. Schultz, K. Segerson, E.Y. Besedin, and M. Ramachandran. 2017. “Biophysical Causality and Environmental Preference Elicitation: Evaluating the Validity of Welfare Analysis over Intermediate Outcomes.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 99 (1): 163–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joosten, H. 2009. The Global Peatland CO₂ Picture. Peatland Status and Drainage Related Emissions in All Countries of the World. Wetlands International. https://www.wetlands.org/publications/the-global-peatland-co2-picture/
   Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, S.L., S.B. Olsen, J. Ladenburg, L. Martinsen, S.R. Svenningsen, and B. Hasler. 2013. “Spatially Induced Disparities in Users’ and Non-Users’ WTP for Water Quality Improvements—Testing the Effect of Multiple Substitutes and Distance Decay.” Ecological Economics 92: 58–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin-Ortega, J., K. Glenk, and A. Byg. 2017. “How to Make Complexity Look Simple? Conveying Ecosystems Restoration Complexity for Socio-Economic Research and Public Engagement.” PLoS One 12 (7): e0181686.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin-Ortega, J., T.E. Allott, K. Glenk, and M. Schaafsma. 2014. “Valuing Water Quality Improvements from Peatland Restoration: Evidence and Challenges.” Ecosystem Services 9: 34–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moxey, A., and D. Moran. 2014. “UK Peatland Restoration: Some Economic Arithmetic.” Science of the Total Environment 484: 114–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moxey, A. 2016. Assessing the Opportunity Costs Associated with Peatland Restoration. IUCN UK peatland programme. http://www.iucn-ukpeatlandprogramme.org/resources/assessing-opportunity-costs-associated-peatland-restoration
   Google Scholar
• Reed, M.S., K. Allen, A. Attlee, A.J. Dougill, K.L. Evans, J.O. Kenter, J. Hoy, et al. 2017. “A Place-Based Approach to Payments for Ecosystem Services.” Global Environmental Change 43: 92–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rotherham, I.D. 2011. Peat and Peat Cutting. Oxford: Shire Library.
   Google Scholar
• Schaafsma, M., R. Brouwer, and J. Rose. 2012. “Directional Heterogeneity in WTP Models for Environmental Valuation.” Ecological Economics 79: 21–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scottish Government. 2017. “DRAFT CLIMATE CHANGE PLAN: The Draft Third Report on Policies and Proposals 2017–2032.” A ccessed 13 December 2017. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00513102.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Smyth, M.-A., E. Taylor, R. Artz, R. Birnie, C. Evans, A. Gray, A. Moxey, et al. 2015. Developing Peatland Carbon Metrics and Financial Modelling to Inform the Pilot Phase UK Peatland Code. Project NR0165, 1-23. Dumfries: Crichton Carbon Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, N.H. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tolvanen, A., A. Juutinen, and R. Svento. 2013. “Preferences of Local People for the Use of Peatlands: The Case of Peatland-Richest Region in Finland.” Ecology and Society 18 (2): 19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Train, K.E. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Train, K.E., and M. Weeks. 2005. “Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-To-Pay Space.” In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, edited by R. Scarpa and A. Alberini. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Whitehead, J.C., and G.C. Blomquist. 1995. “Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates? Comment.” Land Economics 71: 541–543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, Z., J. Loisel, D.P. Brosseau, D.W. Beilman, and S.J. Hunt. 2010. “Global Peatland Dynamics Since the Last Glacial Maximum.” Geophysical Research Letters 37 (13): 1–5.
   Google Scholar