000			01847cab a2200289 4500
001			MEN4
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u15022
041			_aeng
100			_aBenson, J.F.
245			_aConservation costs, agricultural intensification and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: a case study and simulation on Skipwith Common, North Yorkshire, England
260			_c1988
350			_a0
490			_aBiological Conservation _v44(1988) 157-178(22)
520			_aThe Wildlife and Conservation Act 1981 established that SSSIs would be protected by management agreements between a landowner (or farmer) and the Nature Conservancy Council. The landowner receives a compensation payment to reflect the loss of profit foregone as a reult of voluntarily abandoning a proposal for agricultural intensification in the interests of wildlife conservation. Such compensation has proved controversial in principle and practice. A detailed case study of a theoretical but realistic proposal to reclaim and drain Skipwith Common shows that the financial guidelines can be manipulated to increase or decrease compensation by varying estimates of productivity, capital costs, interest rates and borrowing periods. If agricultural use of a site is abandoned as in this case study, management by a conservation body may be necessary which imposes further costs additional TO any compensation payable. (Journal abstract) (MENTIONED IN THE SSSI READING LIST FILED ON GALLERY IN MET
650			_aCOSTS
650			_aLAND MANAGEMENT
650			_aMANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
650			_aNATURE CONSERVATION
650			_aSKIPWITH COMMON
650			_aSITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
690			_aCONSERVATION
690			_aRURAL PRACTICE
700			_aWillis, K.G.
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c9808 _d9808