WWW.DISSERTATION.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 7 | 8 || 10 | 11 |   ...   | 14 |

«Toward More Effective Endangered Species Regulation By Jacob P. Byl Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt ...»

-- [ Page 9 ] --

Wilkinsen-Ryan, Tess. 2010 “Do Liquidated Damages Encourage Breach? A Psychological Experiment.” Michigan Law Review. 65: 633.

Zhang, Daowei. 2004. “Endangered Species and Timber Harvesting: The Case of RedCockaded Woodpeckers.” Economic Inquiry. 42 (1): 150-65.

FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1—Landowner Decision Tree from Conceptual Model

–  –  –

Notes: Average harvest per year for all active landowners, excluding landowners after they were sent to the end of the game if woodpeckers moved onto properties not covered by agreements.

Chart 2—Landowner Profit Over 20 Years By Group Chart 3—Average Woodpeckers on Property Over 20 Years By Group Table 1—Timber Value and Woodpecker Probabilities by Tree Age

–  –  –

Notes: N=139; Standard deviations in parentheses; All variables except age are indicator variables; Risk averse is based on a participant’s response to a question about how to handle a windfall of money.

–  –  –

12.994 5.762 (30.546) (18.392) Notes: Standard deviations in parentheses. Each observation is one landowner-year. Includes all active landowners, excluding landowners after they were sent to the end of the game because woodpeckers moved onto properties when they were not in agreements.

–  –  –

20.33 22.00 (3.04) (4.76) Notes: Standard deviations in parentheses. Each observation is a landowner at the end of the simulation (after year 20).

–  –  –

1.79 2.07 (1.43) (2.05) Notes: Standard deviations in parentheses. Each observation is a landowner at the end of the simulation (after year 20).

–  –  –

I. Introduction A question on the General Social Survey asks respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: "Natural environments that support scarce or endangered species should be left alone, no matter how great the economic benefits to your community through developing them commercially might be." As depicted in Chart 1, approximately 60% of respondents agree with the statement, 34% disagree, and 6% are unsure. As reported in the first two lines of Table 1, suburban and rural residents are more likely to agree with the statement than are people who live in urban areas. However, when the respondents live in regions with lots of endangered species (the interaction terms in the next two lines of Table 1), those preferences flip and rural and suburban people tend to view the tradeoff between conservation and economic development differently. People who live close to the land and are surrounded by nature seem to put higher value on protecting natural environments, except when protecting natural environments threatens inherited livelihoods like agriculture, forestry, and fishing.

Unsurprisingly, those who are most likely to bear the burdens from conservation efforts are unwilling to give up their ways of life to protect imperiled species.

These results suggest a few things: first, people care about endangered species and the natural environments that support them. People enjoy interacting with wildlife, and even care that wildlife exists, even if they never plan to witness it or derive any material benefit from it. Second, people also care about the tradeoffs between protecting endangered species and engaging in other economic activities, especially in rural and suburban areas that may experience regulatory restrictions. In summary, data suggest that people care about both the benefits and costs of endangered species regulations.

–  –  –

regulations, the agencies almost always estimate zero benefits and nominal costs. The low estimates of both benefits and costs of endangered species regulations do not reflect the ways in which people care about the conservation of wildlife. This article describes how economic tools can help protect critical habitat for endangered species while lowering burdens on regulated parties. Economics can help achieve this win-win move by providing tools that help understand how one particular species—humans—interacts with natural resources. The use of economic tools is called for in the current language of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), so agencies can embrace the move toward more effective regulations without waiting for Congress to pass amendments to the ESA.

–  –  –

purpose of protecting “the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend” (16 U.S.C. § 1531(b)). To achieve this purpose, Congress delegated authority to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to regulate public and private parties that engage in activities that may affect endangered and threatened species.13 The FWS and NMFS work to protect imperiled species by going through regulatory steps to determine whether the species warrant protection by being listed as endangered or threatened. For species that are listed, The FWS has authority over species on land and in freshwater. The NMFS has authority over marine species. The two agencies have joint authority over species that spend part of their time in marine environments and part of their time on land or in freshwater.





the agencies implement the statutory provisions that provide legal protections to threatened and endangered species. One of the major regulatory steps that the FWS and NMFS take to protect listed species is to designate critical habitat for those species.

Critical habitat designation is done by the FWS and NMFS “on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat” (16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(2)).

The requirement to take “into consideration the economic impact” of critical habitat designation differs from the section of the ESA that calls for the FWS and NMFS to list species as endangered or threatened based “solely on the best scientific data available” (16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A)). So the FWS and NMFS are charged with listing species as endangered or threatened without engaging in economic analysis, but are supposed to consider economic factors when designating critical habitat. Thus far, the FWS and NMFS have performed economic analysis of critical habitat designation by looking at the “incremental” change of protections for listed species (50 C.F.R. § 424.19).

In practice, this has led to economic analysis that weighs low benefits against low costs because the protections afforded by critical habitat largely overlap with the protections for listed species. In most cases, the FWS and NMFS estimate benefits of proposed critical habitat as zero and costs as limited to some thousands of dollars per year for administrative costs. Commentators, such as Sinden (2004), have argued that a lack of extensive economic analysis is a good thing because more elaborate weighing of costs and benefits of critical habitat would use agency resources and may result in regulatory paralysis.

I argue in this article that more accurate economic analysis of critical habitat designation should instead weigh the broad benefits against the real costs of critical habitat. There are two main reasons why economic analysis should play more of a role in critical habitat decisions. First, statutory interpretation of the ESA points to a Congressional intent that would be best fulfilled with more accurate economic analysis. I define accurate economic analysis as the weighing of costs against benefits of proposed regulations, with measurements of costs and benefits that reflect social values of the expected changes due to the proposed policies. In Part II, I discuss statutory interpretation of the ESA to attempt to discern the intent of Congress when it comes to the role of economic analysis in critical habitat designation.

The second reason why economic analysis should play a more active role in the process of designating critical habitat is that accurate economic analysis can enable ESA regulations to be more efficient, allowing for more conservation with lower burdens on regulated parties. In Part III, I describe how cost-benefit analysis can help lead to winwin results by encouraging more effective ESA regulations. The expertise of economists can contribute to the protection of endangered species by focusing agency resources on the most promising actions that have the highest net benefits to society.

In Part IV, I turn to how to accurately measure costs and benefits of critical habitat under the ESA. I pay particular attention to measuring benefits, which tend to be more nebulous and difficult to measure than costs. The current agency estimates of zero benefits do not accurately reflect social preferences. Society values preserving imperiled species, and also values the benefits that flow from the areas protected as critical habitat.

The most promising way to measure these benefits is by quantifying the values of ecosystem services like water filtration, carbon sequestration, and recreational opportunities. I argue that the best methodology for measuring benefits of critical habitat is to add together the values people place on: 1) the expected improvements to listed species due to the critical habitat designation, and 2) the value of the ecosystem services that are also protected due to the critical habitat designation.

In Part V, I provide an example of how to implement my proposed economic analysis using the recent economic analysis for critical habitat designation of the Northwest Atlantic population segment of the loggerhead turtle. As in most recent agency analyses, the estimates provided by the FWS in this analysis are of zero benefits and low costs. By using published estimates of the values of loggerhead turtles and ecosystem services that are likely protected by the proposed critical habitat, I arrive at an estimate of benefits that more accurately reflects the values society places on the proposed action of designating critical habitat along a major portion of the East Coast of the United States.

In Part VI, I conclude by discussing how more accurate economic analysis of critical habitat designation has the potential to change the dynamics of the often-lively debate that goes on between supporters and opponents of the ESA. With things like timber harvests and construction development at play, there are billions of dollars of economic activity at stake (Shogren 1998). Industries that face regulation under the ESA are quick to discuss how much economic value is lost from restrictions on timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest, solar power in the Mojave dessert, or water distribution in California. These quantified estimates lead to press coverage and statistics quoted on Capital Hill. On the other side of the conservation debate, proponents of more stringent endangered species protections talk mostly in moral terms about the importance of protecting species like spotted owls, desert tortoises, and delta smelt. Although these arguments may draw visceral responses in some audiences, they tend to provide few quotable statistics and get less press coverage. By engaging in more accurate economic analysis, the FWS and NMFS can help reframe the debate by providing credible statistics for both sides.

At the heart of the endangered species controversies are difficult tradeoffs between conserving imperiled ecosystems and developing resources in ways that affect quality of life for millions of people. By sidestepping these tradeoffs in economic analysis, the agencies implementing the ESA have missed out on an opportunity to target conservation efforts more effectively. Economic analysis can help the agencies improve the effectiveness of conservation efforts in ways that can lead to win-win situations compared with the current regime. These more accurate economic analyses can foster more balanced discussions of conservation controversies in ways that allow for better public involvement and, ultimately, more effective endangered species protections.

II. Interpreting the ESA’s Call for Economic Analysis The ESA requires economic analysis for critical habitat designation and the current practices of the agencies that implement the ESA follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it. This section considers different interpretations of the ESA and finds that the interpretation that best fits the intent of Congress is to have the FWS and NMFS engage in cost-benefit analysis that considers the broad benefits and real costs of critical habitat designations.

A. The Statute and Context The ESA was passed in 1973 to provide “a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved” and to “provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species” (16 U.S.C. § 1531(b)). The ESA requires agencies to use the “best scientific and commercial data available” when determining whether to list species as threatened or endangered. In Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), the U.S.

Supreme Court explored Congressional intent behind the ESA and held that listing endangered species must be done based on the scientific data available and not subject to lots of exceptions. Congress endorsed this interpretation of the ESA by adding “solely” in front of “scientific and commercial data” to make it clear that the listing decision for species should not include economic factors.

At the same time, Congress was sensitive to the backlash against the decision in Tennessee Valley Authority because many people saw it as wasteful to prevent use of the nearly completed $100 million Tellico dam for the sake of a commercially worthless fish.



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 7 | 8 || 10 | 11 |   ...   | 14 |


Similar works:

«Series Paper I Why Not Selling Your Best Southern Pine Trees in a First Thinning Can Make Sound Economic Sense using Three Wood Product Classes by: David Dickens – Forest Productivity Associate Professor Coleman Dangerfield – Forest Economics Professor David Moorhead – Silviculture Professor The University of Georgia Warnell School of Forest Resources Introduction Many private non-industrial forest landowners (NIPFLs) that own pine plantations have to make thinning decision at some point....»

«Catalogue no. 11F0027M — No. 99 ISSN 1703-0404 ISBN 978-0-660-02527-8 Economic Analysis (EA) Research Paper Series How Much Thicker Is the Canada–U.S. Border? The Cost of Crossing the Border by Truck in the Preand Post 9/11 Eras by W. Mark Brown Economic Analysis Division Release date: July 24, 2015 How to obtain more information For information about this product or the wide range of services and data available from Statistics Canada, visit our website, www.statcan.gc.ca. You can also...»

«Feminist Myths and Magic Medicine The flawed thinking behind calls for further equality legislation CATHERINE HAKIM Centre for Policy Studies THE AUTHOR Catherine Hakim is a Senior Research Fellow in the London School of Economics. She has written extensively on women’s employment issues, including Key Issues in Women’s Work. Her new book, Erotic Capital: a new theory of social interaction in everyday life, will be published by Penguin in 2011. Acknowledgements Support towards the...»

«This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Applied Economics, Vol. 43, Issue 26, October 2011, pp.3775-3788, [copyright Taylor & Francis], available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036841003724411. Determinants of ICT adoption: Evidence from firm-level data Stefanie A. Haller and Iulia Siedschlag † Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin Abstract We analyse factors driving interand intra-firm diffusion of ICT using data from Irish...»

«Working Recent Developments in the Papers in Credit Union Movement Responsible By Donal McKillop and John Banking & O.S. Wilson Finance Abstract: In 2012 there were 55,952 credit unions across 101 countries with more than 200.2 million members and approximately $1693 billion in assets. There is a great WP Nº 14-002 diversity within the credit union movement across these countries. This reflects the various economic, historic and cultural contexts within which credit unions operate. 1st Quarter...»

«THE STOCK MARKET CRASH OF 1929 ∗ by Stephen G. Cecchetti January 1992 (forthcoming in the New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance From the open on Wednesday October 23, 1929 to the close on Tuesday October 29, 1929 the New York Stock Exchange lost over twenty-five percent of its value. In that single week, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (see Pierce [1982]) fell from 326.51 to 230.07, a drop of 29.5%, while the Standard and Poor’s composite portfolio of ninety stocks (see Schwert...»

«ANTIT TRUST FOR HIGH-T H TECH A LOW: AND REGUULATIO INN AND R RISK ON, NOVAT TION, A Foorthcoming, Journal of Law, Econom & Polic vol. 9, iss no. 2, Sp L mics cy, sue pring 2013 In nternational Centre for Economic Research (ICE Workin Paper No 12/2012 l E ER), ng o. Boston Univ versity Schoo of Law La & Econo mics Resear Paper No 12-50 ol aw rch No. (Octo ober 22, 2012 2) Ronald A. Ca ass Cent for the Rule of Law; Cass & Assoc ter L s ciates, P.C C.; Bosston Univeersity Scho of Law ool w This...»

«414 Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 42, No. 4, 2008 Networks of innovation and modularity: a dynamic perspective Henry Chesbrough* Center for Open Innovation Institute of Management, Innovation & Organization Haas School of Business University of California Berkeley, USA E-mail: chesbrou@haas.berkeley.edu *Corresponding author Andrea Prencipe DASTA University G. d’Annunzio (I) and Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU) University of Sussex, UK Pescara, Italy E-mail:...»

«Low income housing options in Lilongwe in the context of urban migration and traditions Antje Ilberg Currently working for German Development Cooperation in Malawi Keywords: Lilongwe, housing, sites and services, THA, migration, matrilineal system Abstract Traditional Housing Areas (THA’s) are officially designated neighbourhoods in Malawi which provide serviced plots and also allow traditional construction techniques in the city. This has the potential to alleviate some detrimental effects...»

«LUCA BENZONI Economic Research Department Phone: 312-322-8499 Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Fax: 312-322-2357 230 S. LaSalle Street lbenzoni @ frbchi.org Chicago, IL 60604 http://ssrn.com/author=285641 EDUCATION Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University: Finance Ph.D., Dec 2001 Bocconi University: Economics BS, Graduate Summa cum Laude, Jul 1993 WORK EXPERIENCE Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago: • Research Advisor, Feb 2014-present • Senior Financial Economist, Sep 2006-present...»

«URBAN DESIGN PANEL MINUTES DATE: May 20, 2015 TIME: 4.00 pm PLACE: Town Hall Meeting Room, City Hall PRESENT: MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DESIGN PANEL: Russell Acton Meghan Cree-Smith Stuart Hood Ken Larsson (Excused Item #1) Jennifer Marshall (Chair) Arno Matis Chris Mramor (Excused Item #3) REGRETS: Stefan Aepli Roger Hughes Matthew Soules RECORDING SECRETARY: Lorna Harvey ITEMS REVIEWED AT THIS MEETING 1. 3063-3091 West Broadway 2. 4162-4188 Cambie Street 3. 401 SW Marine Drive (Marine Gardens)...»

«BASE PROSPECTUS Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (Incorporated as a public limited liability company (naamloze vennootschap) under the laws of the Netherlands No. 60372958) as Issuer and as Guarantor, in respect of Notes issued by Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe société anonyme, Fiat Chrysler Finance Canada Ltd. and Fiat Chrysler Finance North America, Inc. and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe société anonyme (Incorporated with limited liability under the laws of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg;...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.