IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v69y2010i4p820-827.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stream ecosystem service markets under no-net-loss regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Doyle, Martin W.
  • Yates, Andrew J.

Abstract

We analyze interactions between economics and ecology for ecosystem service markets under no-net-loss regulation. Previous studies of no-net-loss regulation address the ecological efficacy and valuation of restoration but largely ignore the effects of market dynamics. We link an economic model of free-entry equilibria with an ecological model that includes returns to scale and inefficiency of restored ecosystems and apply the result to stream mitigation banking in North Carolina. Intuition from ecology alone must be modified to account for economic processes, and vice versa. To implement no-net-loss regulation, one must not only account for ecological differences between restored and natural ecosystems, but also consider the effect of market entry on the number and size of restoration projects. In a purely economic model, free-entry equilibria are characterized by excess entry: the equilibrium number of firms is greater than the welfare maximizing number. Ecological considerations may exacerbate or ameliorate this, so that either excess entry or insufficient entry may occur, depending on the specific ecosystem services sought.

Suggested Citation

  • Doyle, Martin W. & Yates, Andrew J., 2010. "Stream ecosystem service markets under no-net-loss regulation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 820-827, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:4:p:820-827
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(09)00415-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Richard D. Horan & James S. Shortle, 2005. "When Two Wrongs Make a Right: Second-Best Point-Nonpoint Trading Ratios," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 340-352.
    2. Holmes, Thomas P. & Bergstrom, John C. & Huszar, Eric & Kask, Susan B. & Orr, Fritz III, 2004. "Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 19-30, May.
    3. Kumar, Manasi & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 808-819, February.
    4. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen & Krupnick, Alan & Evans, David & Toth, Russell, 2005. "Economics of Pollution Trading for SO2 and NOx," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-05, Resources for the Future.
    5. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2006. "What Are Ecosystem Services?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-02, Resources for the Future.
    6. Karan Capoor & Philippe Ambrosi, "undated". "State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2007," World Bank Publications - Reports 13407, The World Bank Group.
    7. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    8. Xavier Vives, 2002. "Private Information, Strategic Behavior, and Efficiency in Cournot Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(3), pages 361-376, Autumn.
    9. Yang, Wu & Chang, Jie & Xu, Bin & Peng, Changhui & Ge, Ying, 2008. "Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 116-125, December.
    10. Hallwood, Paul, 2007. "Contractual difficulties in environmental management: The case of wetland mitigation banking," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 446-451, August.
    11. N. Gregory Mankiw & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 48-58, Spring.
    12. Linda Fernandez & Larry Karp, 1998. "Restoring Wetlands Through Wetlands Mitigation Banks," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(3), pages 323-344, October.
    13. Karan Capoor & Philippe Ambrosi, "undated". "State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2007," World Bank Publications - Reports 13406, The World Bank Group.
    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. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    2. Higashida, Keisaku & Tanaka, Kenta & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "The efficiency of conservation banking schemes with inter-regionally tradable credits and the role of mediators," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 175-186.
    3. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2019. "Economic Insights in Ecological Compensations: Market Analysis With an Empirical Application to the Finnish Economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-67.
    4. Katherine Simpson & Frans P de Vries & Paul Armsworth & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Designing markets for biodiversity offsets: lessons from tradable pollution permits," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-04, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    5. Isla Globus‐Harris, 2020. "An Impossible Goal: When Trade Ratios Cannot Achieve No‐Net‐Loss," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(4), pages 1372-1392, April.

    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. Patrick POINT, 2012. "Valuation of wetland ecosystems services. Some methodological principles (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2012-19, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    2. Raitzer, David A., 2010. "Assessing the Impact of Policy-Oriented Research: The Case of CIFOR's Influence on the Indonesian Pulp and Paper Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1506-1518, October.
    3. Melisa Pollak & Elizabeth J. Wilson, 2009. "Risk governance for geological storage of CO 2 under the Clean Development Mechanism," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 71-87, January.
    4. Hayashi, Daisuke & Huenteler, Joern & Lewis, Joanna I., 2018. "Gone with the wind: A learning curve analysis of China's wind power industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 38-51.
    5. Gomes, Gabriel Lourenço & Szklo, Alexandre & Schaeffer, Roberto, 2009. "The impact of CO2 taxation on the configuration of new refineries: An application to Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5519-5529, December.
    6. Marshall, Liz, 2007. "Carving Out Policy Space for Sustainability in Biofuel Production," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 183-196, October.
    7. Chaurey, A. & Kandpal, T.C., 2009. "Carbon abatement potential of solar home systems in India and their cost reduction due to carbon finance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 115-125, January.
    8. Philipp Pattberg & Johannes Stripple, 2008. "Beyond the public and private divide: remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 367-388, December.
    9. Christoph Böhringer & Thomas Rutherford & Marco Springmann, 2015. "Clean-Development Investments: An Incentive-Compatible CGE Modelling Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(4), pages 633-651, April.
    10. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    11. Tanaka, K., 2018. "Do Bonus Payments Enhance Agri-environmental Payments? Empirical Findings from Rice Farming in Japan," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277343, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Jinshan Zhu & Hui Yao & Yingkai Tang & Liyong Wang, 2015. "An econometric analysis of sub-national Clean Development Mechanism performance in China," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(7), pages 1137-1153, October.
    13. Pablo Del R�O, 2008. "Will there be value for Kyoto units in a post-Kyoto regime?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 75-90, January.
    14. Johnston, Robert J. & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2013. "Stated Preferences for Intermediate versus Final Ecosystem Services: Disentangling Willingness to Pay for Omitted Outcomes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(01), pages 1-21, April.
    15. Egoh, Benis & Rouget, Mathieu & Reyers, Belinda & Knight, Andrew T. & Cowling, Richard M. & van Jaarsveld, Albert S. & Welz, Adam, 2007. "Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 714-721, September.
    16. Haojun Xiong & Haozhi Hu & Pingyang Han & Min Wang, 2023. "Integrating Landscape Ecological Risks and Ecosystem Service Values into the Ecological Security Pattern Identification of Wuhan Urban Agglomeration," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-21, February.
    17. Robert A. Ritz, 2018. "Oligopolistic competition and welfare," Chapters, in: Luis C. Corchón & Marco A. Marini (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory and Industrial Organization, Volume I, chapter 7, pages 181-200, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Rachid Boutti & El Amri Adil & Florence Rodhain, 2019. "Multivariate Analysis of a Time Series EU ETS: Methods and Applications in Carbon Finance," Post-Print hal-03676358, HAL.
    19. Moore, Rebecca & Williams, Tiffany & Rodriguez, Eduardo, 2011. "Valuing Ecosystem Services from Private Forests," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Corbera, Esteve & Soberanis, Carmen González & Brown, Katrina, 2009. "Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 743-761, January.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:4:p:820-827. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.