IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v64y2016i1p21-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Analysis and Species at Risk: Lessons Learned and Future Challenges

Author

Listed:
  • Wiktor L. (Vic) Adamowicz

Abstract

type="main"> The Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) has been in existence for 13 years. It was, and in many ways continues to be, controversial. The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) originated in 1973 and has also been controversial. In the 1990s, concerns were raised by economists in Canada and the United States on the design of endangered species (ES) policy. Their concerns surrounded the reconsideration of the ESA and the establishment of SARA. What have we learned since the implementation of SARA over this time? How has the U.S. experience with the ESA informed SARA and its approach? How has the role of economic analysis in ES policy evolved? What continue to be the challenges and what are the opportunities? This paper reviews the concerns raised in the past, and evaluates the lessons learned regarding economics and ES. The unique aspects of the economic analysis of ES problems relative to other environmental concerns are outlined. The paper concludes with a discussion of ways to lessen the tension in debate about the role of economics in ES policy, and embrace the potential for more effective policy analysis and design through integration of economic analysis into conservation policy. Au Canada, la Loi sur les espèces en péril (LEP) est entrée en vigueur il y a 13 ans. Elle avait soulevé la controverse et, à certains égards, c'est encore le cas. Aux États-Unis, l'Endangered Species Act (ESA – loi sur les espèces en voie de disparition) a vu le jour en 1973 et a aussi fait l'objet de controverse. Au cours des années 1990, des économistes canadiens et américains ont exprimé des préoccupations au sujet de la conception des politiques visant à protéger les espèces en voie de disparition. Leurs préoccupations ont mené à un réexamen de l'ESA et à la mise en œuvre de la LEP. Quelles leçons avons-nous apprises depuis la mise en œuvre de la LEP? De quelle façon l'expérience des États-Unis avec l'ESA a-t-elle influencé l’élaboration de la LEP et sa stratégie? De quelle façon le rôle de l'analyse économique des politiques visant à protéger les espèces en voie de disparition a-t-il évolué? Quels sont, encore aujourd'hui, les défis à relever et les occasions à saisir? Le présent article passe en revue les préoccupations passées et examine les leçons apprises concernant l’économie et les espèces en voie de disparition. Il met en lumière les caractéristiques uniques de l'analyse économique des problèmes liés aux espèces en voie de disparition comparativement à d'autres préoccupations environnementales. Il inclut une discussion sur les façons d'atténuer les tensions dans le débat sur le rôle de l’économie dans l’élaboration des politiques visant à protéger les espèces en voie de disparition et accueille la possibilité de procéder à l'analyse et à la conception efficaces de politiques grâce à l'intégration de l'analyse économique dans l’élaboration des politiques de la conservation.—

Suggested Citation

  • Wiktor L. (Vic) Adamowicz, 2016. "Economic Analysis and Species at Risk: Lessons Learned and Future Challenges," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(1), pages 21-32, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:64:y:2016:i:1:p:21-32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/cjag.12098
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    2. Gardner M. Brown & Jason F. Shogren, 1998. "Economics of the Endangered Species Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 3-20, Summer.
    3. Lucija Muehlenbachs, 2015. "A Dynamic Model Of Cleanup: Estimating Sunk Costs In Oil And Gas Production," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56, pages 155-185, February.
    4. Boxall, P.C. & Adamowicz, W.L. & Olar, M. & West, G.E. & Cantin, G., 2012. "Analysis of the economic benefits associated with the recovery of threatened marine mammal species in the Canadian St. Lawrence Estuary," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 189-197, January.
    5. H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2014. "Retrospectives: The Cold-War Origins of the Value of Statistical Life," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 213-226, Fall.
    6. Mark Morrison, 2000. "Aggregation Biases in Stated Preference Studies," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 215-230, June.
    7. repec:bla:ausecp:v:39:y:2000:i:2:p:215-30 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Trudy Ann Cameron, 2010. "Euthanizing the Value of a Statistical Life," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(2), pages 161-178, Summer.
    9. Sanchirico, James N. & Lew, Daniel K. & Haynie, Alan C. & Kling, David M. & Layton, David F., 2013. "Conservation values in marine ecosystem-based management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 523-530.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alicia Entem & Patrick Lloyd‐Smith & Wiktor ( Vic) L. Adamowicz & Peter C. Boxall, 2022. "Using inferred valuation to quantify survey and social desirability bias in stated preference research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1224-1242, August.
    2. Daniel Fortin & Philip D McLoughlin & Mark Hebblewhite, 2020. "When the protection of a threatened species depends on the economy of a foreign nation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, March.
    3. Christian Langpap & Joe Kerkvliet & Jason F Shogren, 2018. "The Economics of the U.S. Endangered Species Act: A Review of Recent Developments," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 69-91.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    3. Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth & Eric Edlund & Avanti Mukherjee, 2023. "Analysis of Hybrid Epidemiological-Economic Models of COVID-19 Mitigation Policies," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 49(4), pages 585-612, October.
    4. Nathalie B Simon & Chris Dockins & Kelly B Maguire & Stephen C Newbold & Alan J Krupnick & Laura O Taylor, 2019. "Policy Brief—What’s in a Name? A Search for Alternatives to “VSL”," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(1), pages 155-161.
    5. Jin, Yana & Andersson, Henrik & Zhang, Shiqiu, 2020. "Do preferences to reduce health risks related to air pollution depend on illness type? Evidence from a choice experiment in Beijing, China," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    6. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2017. "The Presence of Hypothetical Bias within Spatial Decay and Charismatic Species: An Application of Monarch and Viceroy Butterflies," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258204, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    8. Gerking, Shelby & Dickie, Mark & Veronesi, Marcella, 2014. "Valuation of human health: An integrated model of willingness to pay for mortality and morbidity risk reductions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 20-45.
    9. James Macaskill & Patrick Lloyd‐Smith, 2022. "Six decades of environmental resource valuation in Canada: A synthesis of the literature," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(1), pages 73-89, March.
    10. Dockins, Chris & Maguire, Kelly & Newbold, Steve & Simon, Nathalie & Krupnick, Alan & Taylor, Laura, 2018. "What’s in a Name? A Systematic Search for Alternatives to “Value of Statistical Life”," RFF Working Paper Series 18-14, Resources for the Future.
    11. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    12. Schläpfer, Felix & Getzner, Michael, 2020. "Beyond Current Guidelines: A Proposal for Bringing Behavioral Economics to the Design and Analysis of Stated Preference Surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    14. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2019. "Using referenda to improve targeting and decrease costs of conditional cash transfers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 179-194.
    15. Therese Grijalva & Jayson Lusk & W. Shaw, 2014. "Discounting the Distant Future: An Experimental Investigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(1), pages 39-63, September.
    16. Thang Nam Do & Jeff Bennett, 2010. "Using Choice Experiments to Estimate Wetland Values in Viet Nam: Implementation and Practical Issues," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Wiktor Adamowicz & Mark Dickie & Shelby Gerking & Marcella Veronesi & David Zinner, 2014. "Household Decision Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and Their Children," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 481-519.
    18. Haoying Wang & Guohui Wu, 2022. "Modeling discrete choices with large fine-scale spatial data: opportunities and challenges," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 325-351, July.
    19. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    20. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:64:y:2016:i:1:p:21-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.