Abstract
There is little point in making comprehensive comparisons of ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) and SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) protection arrangements as Hodge et al contend, as the two approaches are not substitutable. In contrast, and despite Hodge et al's strictures, comparisons of payment rates may be instructive. Indeed the payment rate analysis in the author's previous work may provide support for Hodge et al's contention that a substantial number of ESA entrants have no intention of pursuing environmentally damaging practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
