Incorporating distributional considerations in the safe minimum standard approach: Endangered species and local impacts

Ecological Economics

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 461-474

  Berrens, Robert P ^a   McKee, Michael ^a   Farmer, Michael C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Distributional consequences; Endangered species; Safe minimum standard

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC IMPACT; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; NATURE CONSERVATION;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0032700340     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00034-8     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ando A. Ecosystems, interest groups, and the endangered species act. Resources. 130:1998;7-9.
2. Berrens R., Brookshire D, McKee M., Schmidt C. Implementing the safe minimum standard approach: two case studies from the US endangered species act. Land Econ. 74:1998;147-161.
3. Berrens R., Polasky S. The paretian liberal paradox and ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 14:1995;45-56.
4. Bishop R. Endangered species and uncertainty: the economics of a safe minimum standard. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 57:1978;10-18.
5. Bishop R. Endangered species: an economic perspective. Transactions of the 45th North American Wildlife Conference. 45:1980;208-218.
6. Bishop R. Economic efficiency, sustainability, and biodiversity. Ambio. 22:1993;69-73.
7. Booth D. Valuing Nature: The Decline and Preservation of Old-Growth Forests. 1994;Rowan and Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
8. Bromley D. Constitutional political economy: property claims in a dynamic world. Contemp. Econ. Policy. 15:1997;43-54.
9. Brookshire, D., McKee, M., Stewart, S., 1997. A Four Corners Regional Focus on the Economic Impact of Critical Habitat Designation for the Razorback Sucker, Humpback Chub, Colorado Squawfish, and Bonytail. Prepared for US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, UT.
10. Brookshire, D., McKee, M., Watts, G., 1993. Draft Economic Analysis of Proposed Critical Habitat Designation in the Colorado River Basin for the Razorback Sucker, Humpback Chub, Colorado Squawfish, and Bonytail, Volume II. Prepared for US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, UT.
11. Brown G., Shogren J. Economics of the endangered species act. J. Econ. Perspectives. 12:1998;3-20.
12. Castle E. Pluralism and pragmatism in the pursuit of sustainable development. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Luckert M., Phillips W., White W. Forestry, Economics and the Environment. 1996;CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
13. Castle E., Berrens R. Endangered species, economic analysis, and the safe minimum standard. Northwest Environ. J. 9:1993;108-130.
14. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V., 1952. Resource Conservation: Economics and Policy. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA (3rd ed. 1968).
15. Crowards T. Safe minimum standards: costs and opportunities. Ecol. Econ. 25:1998;291-302.
16. Diamond P., Hausman J. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J. Econ. Perspectives. 8:1994;45-64.
17. Dobson A., Rodriguez J., Roberts W., Wilcove D. Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science. 275:1997;550-553.
18. Ecological Society of America, 1995. Strengthening the Use of Science in Achieving the Goals of the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Society of America, Ad Hoc Committee on Endangered Species, Washington, DC.
19. Farmer M., Randall A. The rationality of a safe minimum standard. Land Econ. 74:1998;287-302.
20. Folke C., Hammer M., Costanza R., Jansson A. Investing in natural capital - why, what and how? Jansson A., Hammer M., Folke C., Costanza R. Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. 1994;Island Press, Washington, DC.
21. Glick D. Having owls and jobs too. Nat. Wildlife. 33:1995;8-13.
22. Gowdy J. The value of biodiversity: markets, society and ecosystems. Land Econ. 73:1997;25-41.
23. Hanemann W.M. Contingent valuation and economics. J. Econ. Perspect. 8:1994;19-44.
24. Hohl A., Tisdell C. How useful are environmental safety standards in economics? - The example of safe minimum standards for protection of species. Biodiversity Conservation. 2:1993;168-181.
25. Innes R., Polasky S., Tschirhart J. Takings, compensation, and endangered species protection on private lands. J. Econ. Perspect. 12:1998;35-52.
26. Jones C., Pease K. Restoration-based compensation measures in natural resource liability statutes. Contemp. Econ. Policy. 15:1997;111-122.
27. Loomis J., White D. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: summary and meta analysis. Ecol. Econ. 18:1996;195-204.
28. Maddux, H., Noonan, W., Fitzpatrick, L., Brookshire, D., McKee, M, Watts, G., 1993. Overview of the Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for the Four Colorado River Endangered Species. Prepared for US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, UT.
29. Marcot, B, Thomas, J. W., 1997. Of Spotted Owl, Old Growth and New Policies: A History Since the Interagency Scientific Report. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-408, Portland, OR.
30. Metrick A., Weitzman M. Conflicts and choices in biodiversity preservation. J. Econ. Perspect. 12:1998;21-34.
31. Norton B. Why Preserve Natural Variety? 1987;Princeton University Press, Princetion, NJ.
32. Norton B. Resilience and options. Ecological Economics. 15:1995;133-136.
33. Palmini, D., 1999. Uncertainty, risk aversion and the game theoretic foundations of the safe minimum standard: a reassessment. Ecological Economics (Forthcoming).
34. Polasky S., Doremus H., Rettig B. Endangered species conservation on private land. Contemp. Econ. Policy. 15:1997;66-76.
35. Randall A. The value of biodiversity. Ambio. 21:1991;63-68.
36. Randall A., Farmer M. Benefits, costs, and the safe minimum standard of conservation. Bromley D. The Handbook of Environmental Economics. 1995;Basil Blackwell, New York.
37. Rohlf, D., 1989. The Endangered Species Act: A Guide to Its Protections and Implementation. Stanford Environmental Law Society, Stanford, CA.
38. Rolfe J. Ulysses revisited - a closer look at the safe minimum standard rule. Aust. J. Agric. Econ. 39:1995;55-70.
39. Schamberger, M., Charbonneau, J., Hay, M., Johnson, R., 1992. Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation Effects for the Northern Spotted Owl. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
40. Stroup R. The economics of compensating property owners. Contemp. Econ. Policy. 15:1997;55-65.
41. Thomas, J.W. (Team Leader), 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic and Social Assessment. US Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC.
42. Thomas, J.W., Forsman, E., Lint, J., Meslow, E., Noon, B., Verner, J., 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl, Portland OR.
43. Thomas J.W., Verner J. Accommodation with socio-economic factors under the endangered species act-more than meets the eye. Transactions of the 57th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 57:1992;627-641.
44. Turner K., Doktor P., Adger N. Sea-level rise and coastal wetlands in the UK: mitigation strategies for sustainable management. Jansson A., Hammer M., Folke C., Costanza R. Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. 1994;Island Press, Washington, DC.
45. US Department of Agriculture, 1993. IMPLAN. IMPLAN Development and Applications Group. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
46. US Department of Interior (USDI), 1991. Exclusion Process: Critical Habitat and the Northern Spotted Owl, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
47. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994. Endangered and Threathened wildlife and plants: determination of critical habitat for four Colorado river endangered fished; Final rule. Federal Register 59: 13374-13400.
48. Vatn A., Bromley D. Choices without prices without apology. Bromley D. Handbook of Environmental Economics. 1995;Basil Blackwell, New York.
49. Water E., Holland D., Weber B. Interregional effects of reduced timber harvests: the impacts of spotted owl listing in rural and urban Oregon. J. Agric. Res. Econ. 19:1994;141-160.
50. Woodward R., Bishop R. How to decide when experts disagree: uncertainty-based choice rules in environmental policy. Land Econ. 73:1997;492-507.